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.
there were some pretty impressive studies with prostate cancer can we just talk about the prostate cancer study with deuterium depleted water and the deuterium stuff and give people a sense of like how you guys have been involved in trials and certain cancers because these are pretty impressive
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.
by using a Tyrian depletion we want it to be so self evident that any oncologist that doesn't consider this as part of regular medicine is suspect because it's no side effects there's not a lot of downside to it
do the conventional therapies for XYZ and do these other therapies as adjuncts
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.