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.
what we know is that the limiting factor in this is the dynamics at this metastatic site that if you inject cancer cells into mice the nearly all of them die at the metastatic sites only a very small percentage of them that will form even a few cells in a smaller percentage of those that ultimately form more cells that form a population
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.
but for sure I mean I think what what we know is that the limiting factor in this is the Dynamics at the metastatic site that that if you inject cancer cells into mice the that nearly all of them die at the metastatic site it's only very small percentage of them that will form even a few cells and a smaller percentage of those that ultimately form more cells uh that form a population
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.