Peter Attia· MD
and historically the teaching was that actually the risk was the same in each breast with very large studies there's probably a slightly greater risk in the affected breast itself
Loading…
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.
and historically the teaching was that actually the risk was the same in each breast with very large studies there's probably a slightly greater risk in the affected breast itself
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.
because the drug therapy obviously affects both breasts and so you can help prevent a new cancer in the opposite breast which adds a percentage point or two of the benefit
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.