Peter Attia· MD
so and the standard you're going to hold yourself to in the phase two is 50% shrinkage we wanted to have um at least 50% shrinkage we wanted to change time progression
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.
so and the standard you're going to hold yourself to in the phase two is 50% shrinkage we wanted to have um at least 50% shrinkage we wanted to change time progression
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.
so we wanted to do a latestage breast cancer study because if we could help these patients we would find out right away you know because they were sort of they had already these were patients with metastatic breast cancer metastatic breast cancer who had already progressed through everything everything right so really tough tough high bar
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.