Peter Attia· MD
there are studies that have shown that that when you when you do see high levels that that is a negative prognostic marker a bad thing and that those patients are at higher risk of recurrence
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
there are studies that have shown that that when you when you do see high levels that that is a negative prognostic marker a bad thing and that those patients are at higher risk of recurrence
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
with very high levels of certain tumor cells one could have envisioned if one were to do a very large studies to predefinitely prove that these are patients with a certain threshold even though they're a small minority if that is really very highly associated with recurrence that that that could work