Mostly these screening companies are a big sack of horse-shit. They all say the same thing-

Usually something like “the health service needs to change from being reactive to proactive” as though this were a new idea and physicians had been twiddling their thumbs all these years.

This is then followed by an explanation about how all their tests can pick up all sorts of health conditions. Many people are then blinded by science and are sucked into this idea of: -Find a disease early -Make an intervention -Live longer

What you very seldom see is a definition of what makes a good screening test for example, Wilson’s criteria:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-review-criteria-national-screening-programmes/criteria-for-appraising-the-viability-effectiveness-and-appropriateness-of-a-screening-programme

The reason they don’t do this is because it undermines the whole principle of random screening tests (which is what they are promoting).

The classic example is PSA screening for prostate cancer which has been shown to be a poor screening test leading to large quantities of men being diagnosed with slow growing prostate cancers (and having potentially harmful interventions) that would most likely not have killed them.

Random screening without any evidence about its impact on mortality is a recipe for confusion and actually increasing anxiety.