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.
that's why in my opinion it really helps us understand the biology not so much of localized prostate cancers but rather when you have a localized cancer that has the capacity to spread so a localized cancer with lethal potential and what's the nature of that of that tumor how do you begin to attack it and understanding the molecular underpinnings of it is key that's precision medicine
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.
what keeps me up and gets me up in the morning and excited is to understand and identify what it is about the indiv idual who develop prostate cancer that is you know localized and you know doesn't have a lethal potential
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.