Peter Attia· MD
ultimately it seems to me mathematically by definition you are also going to cure more women of cancer because you will shift the risk pool towards stage one tumors
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.
ultimately it seems to me mathematically by definition you are also going to cure more women of cancer because you will shift the risk pool towards stage one tumors
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.
the better we're able to identify breast cancer early on seems to me our best bet at curing cancer because you will shift the risk pool towards stage one tumors
the better we are able to identify breast cancer early on seems to me our best bet at curing cancers which acknowledges you will catch more cancers in other words you will increase the the size of the pool of women who have cancers there will be lead time bias all of those things will be true but ultimately it seems to me mathematically by definition you are also going to cure more women of cancer because you will shift the risk pool towards stage one tumors
Whole-body MRI screening in healthy adults produces more incidentaloma harm than cancer-mortality benefit.
Starting colonoscopy screening at 45 (vs 50) prevents enough early-onset cancers to justify the population cost.
Multi-cancer liquid-biopsy tests like Galleri detect early cancers at a stage that meaningfully improves survival.