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.
more than 80% of those cancers have antigens that are recognized by the host's immune system I will state it again because it is so profound 80% at least of those cancers actually generate an antigen meaning a little peptide in that cell gets presented to the te- cell and it is recognizable
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.
about 80 percent of patients with the common epithelial cancers it turns out as a result of the research done in recent years do exist that can recognize the products of the mutations but the immune system against them is too small it's not vigorous enough
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.