Andrew Huberman· PhD
So if you're a 80year-old male and you have an autopsy, then there's at least a 50% chance that you have a prostate cancer. If you're 90 or 100 years old, there's at least a 90% chance.
Loading…
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.
So if you're a 80year-old male and you have an autopsy, then there's at least a 50% chance that you have a prostate cancer. If you're 90 or 100 years old, there's at least a 90% chance.
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.
in prostate cancer uh it's generally well understood that the prevalence of prostate cancer approximates the decade of life of the male so a guy in his 50 you know basically half of men in their 50s have some prostate cancer you know glein 3 plus three this is not a prostate cancer you would take out but on autopsy you would find it
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.