Peter Attia· MD
So, why didn't they do any of these things? Well, I think one reason comes down to again the failure of medicine 2.0, which tends to rely on actuarial data of life expectancy. That's it. And it says, look, if you're 72y old man, which is apparently the age at which um President Biden was last tested, it says, look, your life expectancy is x number of years. It's less than 15 actuarially. Um and this is, you know, a relatively slowmoving cancer all things considered. So, we should do nothing about it. But yet here we are. It's 11 years later and he has a very aggressive form of prostate cancer. And so two things turned out to be incorrect. One, we didn't actually know what his life expectancy was. But more importantly, we placed an emphasis on lifespan over health span. And this is the part that really grinds my gears about medicine 2.0 is it says nothing about the quality of life. Now obviously I can't speak from personal experience but metastatic bone cancer having spoken to many patients who have had this and doctors who have treated this is debilitating. Men experience this with prostate cancer, women experience this with breast cancer. You know why would we say well you know this is an acceptable outcome when it could have been completely prevented. So again, I I want to point out that unfortunately we are in a in my mind a transition period between um a more rapid adoption of medicine 3.0 principles. And what that means is that each one of you has to be your own advocate here. Each one of you has to be the one to say, you know what, I understand that there are risks of screening. I understand that there are risks of false positives, but I am confident enough at least in the case of this particular test and the derivative tests that we can derive ancillary to it that I want