Look up extra-cellular vesicles. This is where the magic is.

Olympic gold medals don't make money. It is for national pride. Even hosting the games does not always make money.

Actually I am Aussie. 12 years ago it was calculated that each gold medal costs us AU$12m (so about US$11m in today's money). It embarrasses me.

They kill us for their sport: Williamson laments arts funding cuts

Australia's best known playwright, David Williamson, has attacked the nation's "huge" spending on sports while a "pittance" is spent developing the next Cate Blanchett or Geoffrey Rush.

The Sydney Morning Herald (www.smh.com.au)

I am no fan of Eurovision but it is good value for national pride:

Eurovision is funded by participating broadcasters and this contribution is a total of €6.2 million (£5.2 million), combined.

Everything you need to know about who funds Eurovision

The Eurovision Song Contest is the most popular music contest of the year, which sees 39 countries from actress Europe, and Australia, come together for a magnificent show – but who funds it all?

Daily Star (www.dailystar.co.uk)

Only 6M €? For an event of that size that feels a lot cheaper than I would have thought.

just go to an oncologist and get screened

source: i did cancer

Don't forget that there is also income from advertising and ticket sales.

Yes but, is it profitable?

Someone has to ask the real world questions

If everyone gets tested yearly until they die, this could total as much as most cancer treatments and suffering combined and it would probably still be better for everyone if nobody has to go through that anymore.

Good point. On the other hand, Canada didn't fare any better even without firing its pandemic response team. I suspect project warp speed would have been welcomed either way, even if it was more important in this timeline.

A million americans died of COVID (yes, some of them would have died without); but half a million would still be very bad.

Bit misleading. Tumour-associated antigens can very easily be detected very early. Problem is, these are only associated with cancer, and provide a very high rate of false positives

They're better used as a stepping stone for further testing, or just seeing how advanced a cancer is

That is to say, I'm assuming that's what this is about, as i didnt rwad the article. It's the first thing I thought of when I heard "cancer in bloodstream", as the other options tend to be a bit more bleak

Edit: they're talking about cancer "shedding genetic material", which I hate how general they're being. Probably talking about proto oncogenes from dead tumour debris, but seems different to what I was expecting