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.
That was just a big aha moment in the field because it showed how essential, well, A, how cancers do it, that they create this so-called plasticity, this ability to basically go from being a differentiated lung cell into a less differentiated lung cell that's not now able to do things that its normal lung cells are not supposed to do.
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.
More and more evidence suggests that, yes, a lot of that work is done by mutations, but then the mutations in some cases actually make the cells more plastic, make them more able to read parts of the genome and use parts of the genome that that cell type isn't normally supposed to have access to.
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.