Carl Heneghan

I know that my risk goes up with age.

And that's my most important risk factor.

So by the time I'm 60, it will be about 2.5% and rise to 3.5% by 65.

Therefore, the decision is not 2 to 3.

It's when should you actually, at what age should you decide to screen?

Yeah, but then it makes the screening impossible because how do you identify everybody at three and say you must come in?

The idea of screening is where you derive the benefits is you apply it to an asymptomatic population and screen the whole population.

If you start to only screen a few people, you don't derive the benefits, do you?

That's how I understand it.

So you need to make it really simple for people.

And it's not simple if you go.

Well, I think this is the issue about screening.

It's quite an interesting context is people believe we screen only benefit harm happens.

Whereas actually, we need more of the debate about what is the purpose and benefits of screening?

And are we actually realising them?

Particularly as treatments advance?

And is this where you want to put your resources?

Or should you put your resources into faster, earlier diagnosis for symptomatic patients, rapid access schemes?

Should you put your money into more costly interventions and the research?

And I think this is a debate now is becoming really important because we do know that people don't take up all of these screening interventions, do they?