I think the argument they're making is that detecting that a death is caused by cancer is probably not an advanced affair requiring new diagnostic technology.

Personally, I think it's an interesting question, given that it stands to reason that cancer, by the time it has caused death, should be pretty easily detectable in any sort of autopsy.

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A post-mortem is not what most people think of when talking about cancer diagnostics.

[–] lte678@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, the article refers to both :)

I think you'd be right about the "number of diagnoses" statement in the title, but I think the discussion is about the deaths due to cancer, which have also increased and would not have as strong of a correlation for the reasons others mentioned

[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 5 points 1 year ago

But that's directly related. People used to die when "catching a cold". We call that lung cancer nowadays. Same thing with many other branches of cancer.

load more comments (4 replies)