From what is posted on this board, one major fallacy seems to be that if there is a blood test for the early detection (for example, stage one) of cancer that doctors will immediately begin using it. Since RECAF, as a stand-alone test, does not indicate the location of the cancer, that may not be true. Doctors give medical tests to determine what specific treatment is appropriate. RECAF may indicate that cancer is in the body, but what is a doctor going to do if follow up x-rays, MRI scans, and PET scans do not indicate the location of the cancer? The doctor is powerless to do much of anything except keep giving repetitive standard tests (x-rays, MRI scans, and PET scans) at great expense to the patient or some insurance company to try to find the location. Meanwhile, if the standard tests continue to show nothing, the patient is upset because they are being given no treatment.
The bottom line could be this: “What is the cost-benefit of an early-detection cancer test that gives (1)no indication of the location of the cancerous cells for treatment and (2) possibly traumatizes the patient because they are being told they have cancer and nothing is being done about it simply because the cancerous cells cannot be located.”
It just makes common sense that a successful medical test must give accurate information as to what needs to be treated so that the correct therapy can be given. kag
AI
