Malignant Analogy

According to the latest edition of Consumer Reports, there are 8 cancer screenings which are useless, or worse, harmful, at least in asymptomatic patients.  I haven't read the article as yet, so perhaps I'm not qualified to judge, but my understanding is that early detection via cancer screening does not save lives in the cited 8 types of cancers.  The basis for that reasoning is that cancer takes time to grow, and finding it by screening tests will not prolong lives, as the cancer  will proceed at its own rate anyway;  screening for early detection just adds that much "cancer time" to the lives of the afflicted.  Think of it this way:   the cancer patient is tied to the railroad tracks, where a train is destined to bear down on her or him.  The cancer treatment available at the present time is akin to handing the bound-to-the-track patient a pair of binoculars. That allows the cancer patient to see further down the track, giving more time  to dread what's approaching.  For if cancer takes 10 years to develop enough to take your life, but is only apparent for the last 3 years, detection by modern screening may make a diagnosis possible  very early, and the person would have an additional 6 or 7 years to be a cancer patient.
       I would advise Consumer Reports that whatever funding went into reaching this depressing  conclusion might be better served if that money were directed toward researching a cure, or at least better treatment methods.  Open up that Silver Linings Playbook, so to speak.  Life is tough enough. Comparing refrigerators is not the same as determining life expectancy.