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.
and that's because we know that you know we now understand much better that why cancers are become initially respond and become resistance is because of this heterogeneous genetic heterogeneity that they already have mutations they're not all the same the cancer cells actually all two no two cells are probably the same they're all different they all have slightly different handful mutations that are different between each cell
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.
we've proven now that that certain therapies actually able to pick off the 99% they leave the 1% or and then somewhere in that 1% is a clone that has a resistance mutation like already in it to the drug that we're giving
as cancers evolve um in our bodies um they actually keep mutating um and so you start establishing subclones I mean and like you can have a dominant subclone that's typically the case like that might even be you know 99% of cells um and then in that remaining 1% you might have 10 subclones
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.