Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, so to properly isolate the effect of the colonoscopy on mortality, we need to do a randomized trial with just people like you -- people who would definitely get a colonoscopy if invited -- to see what the effect is. Because you're also more likely to act on early warning signs and get a cancer diagnosis in time to treat the cancer rather than die.
> Because you're also more likely to act on early warning signs and get a cancer diagnosis in time to treat the cancer rather than die. This seems to imply we should discount all treatments because people who choose to get treatment are more likely to get better, coincidentally by the same amount as the treatment's efficacy.
The question here is a question that the medical establishment is trying to answer: namely, "What can we, as the medical establishment do, to reduce deaths from colon cancer?" For a long time, the answer has been, "Invite people to take colonscopies". What the data here appears to show is that the action, "Invite people to take colonoscopies" doesn't actually reduce deaths from colon cancer. If the medical establishment wants to actually reduce deaths from colon cancer, they'll need to figure out something else.
I guess I do agree that the headline is likely to be counterproductive. What the data might show is that the most effective thing you as an individual can do is to be the kind of person who takes colonoscopies when invited. The unfortunate effect it might have is to make more people into the kind of people who don't take colonoscopies when invited.