Peter Attia· MD
my view is that cancer is about as hard disease as there is ever going to be to target and therefore we ought to turn our attention to as many legs of the stool as possible and not just one
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.
my view is that cancer is about as hard disease as there is ever going to be to target and therefore we ought to turn our attention to as many legs of the stool as possible and not just one
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.
I spend a lot of my academic time railing against the impediments that keep us from pushing drugs together in supervised settings, both experimentally and clinically in clinical trials.
so that's um you know as we think about cancer we we obviously think the first and most important thing is to do everything you can to avoid getting it but as I alluded to that Playbook is not as thick as the don't get heart disease Playbook
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.