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.
it would be very easy to conduct clinical trials that would have a crossover arm where you know you could take this adoptive approach pit it against a standard approach and if the patients and the adoptive approach were progressing you could cross them over and by the way vice versa when the patients who are progressing on the standard therapy too quickly you would cross them over
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.
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.