The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
those men are at increased risk for developing breast cancer and prostate cancer and in the case of prostate cancer if you develop prostate cancer it's a more aggressive disease course and you have to be very very careful with individuals who have that deficiency and have prostate cancer
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.
if you had the highest let's say desile or quartile of snips you had about a fivefold increased risk of developing prostate cancer compared to the average man which is the same fold increase as if you're brocka to deficient
having a poor genomic risk score is just as potent as having deficiency in brona 2 which we know is not good
if you had the highest let's say decile or quartile of snips you had about a five-fold increased risk of developing prostate cancer compared to the average man
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.