Can cancer be OK in moderation? It seems like the medical industry

if what you call a "mild" cancer were to metastasize you can die in literally a couple weeks. One day you have some tiny little cancer in your foot that doesn't bother you, and a month later it's gotten into your blood and you have growths on your brain-stem

>>8511629

It doesn't always do that though. What about all the times when a cancer that wouldn't have been detected a hundred years ago emerges but then gets wrecked by the person's immune system and they live on like it never even happened?

>>8511621
Cancer is bad. more than 10^9 cancer cells generally is incompatible with life.

However, sometimes new techniques are found to be overzealous, especially with slow growing cancers that don't usually metastasize.

Prostate cancer is a good example: the literature suggests that the outcomes are equivocal (when the PSA is low) between biopsy and not biopsying. The rate of complications, although low, is around the same rate of malignant cancers that would have otherwise been missed.
It is similar with treatments for prostate cancers as well: there was a trial where they were more or less using a particle accelerator to burn the prostate cancer out, but it had outcomes that were the same as conventional surgery.

google "benign tumor" you twit

>>8511621
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1480788474588.webm