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.
all men are either gonna die with or from prostate cancer so you really want to be able to separate those out so he'd be doing PSA or or kay and all I would do was say yet there's an increased risk of something going on but is it going on
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.
a lot of people are saying well treating this is like a big deal I don't want the biopsy and people get a choice of what they want to do a lot of men are saying look I want to see what's going on I want to see if there's gonna be a change and if it actually starts to grow or something's growing in the prostate at an accelerated rate that's what I want to deal with it whereas if it's actually just there and holding still and not changing much I'm not gonna worry about it because something else may take me first
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.