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.
melanoma happens to be one of the cancers that has many many more mutations and the more mutations a cancer has the more likelihood that it will produce an antigen that's recognized as non-self and that's why in the early days of immunotherapy the only things that worked were I2 against metastatic melanoma and kidney cancer because kidney cancer turned out to also be one of those cancers that for reasons that are not clear produced hundreds of mutations
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 more mutations a cancer has the more likelihood that it will produce an antigen that's recognized as non-self
and that at least is part of the answer and that is the more mutations you have in the cancer the more likelihood that you'll develop a particular protein foreign protein that can be recognized by the uh by the immune system
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.