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.
the features of the individuals who had prostate cancer interverse were um on average higher PSAs than the median again the median PSA on Entry was around 0.9 so individuals who are diagnosed with prostate cancer had higher median PSAs and had higher shifts in their PSA while in the Traverse trial than those men that did not develop or were not diagnosed with prostate cancer
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.
the mean PSA for individuals in Traverse in both arms was around 0.9 so this is a lowrisk group of men because we know PSA is the main way that we screen for prostate cancer and in general the higher ones PSA the higher ones risk would be of being diagnosed with prostate cancer so these are men in their 60s on average these are are men with low testosterone on average these are men with low PSAs on average so a lowrisk group