Peter Attia· MD
those guys are now vulnerable to dynamics related to stochasticity and effects that the larger populations are not necessarily um you know applicable are not necessarily responsive to
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.
those guys are now vulnerable to dynamics related to stochasticity and effects that the larger populations are not necessarily um you know applicable are not necessarily responsive to
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 thing is instead of just giving this treatment you know putting the the get you know getting the um cancer populations to something that's very very small and then just keep training them at that point hit them again do do something different um apply additional perturbations
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.