Andrew Huberman· PhD
I mean, it's still one of the most deadliest of the cancers. And there are others that you certainly wouldn't want to get. But that's among the ones you wouldn't want to get the most.
Loading…
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.
I mean, it's still one of the most deadliest of the cancers. And there are others that you certainly wouldn't want to get. But that's among the ones you wouldn't want to get the most.
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 clinical readout is just sitting there itching to be improved and so there's the capacity to do really compelling clinical tests of any idea and it's a terrible disease most of these uh you know clinical efforts are going to fail but they can be done relatively fast relatively cost effectively
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.