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.
I also have never seen data to suggest it initiates cancer. >> Yeah. >> But it seems very biologically plausible that if you have cancer, small amounts of cancer, >> your probability that this becomes clinically significant is higher in that seems like it. I agree. >> Um again, I say that with no data.
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.
How would we address the safety concern? Right? Because you really need to be able to track people for quite a long period of time who are cancer susceptible.