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.
there are 15 studies in the literature looking at hormone replacement therapy after breast cancer and all but one of them show no increased risk of recurrence and the one that shows an increased risk of recurrence was stopped prematurely had a follow-up of two and a half years and is a worthwhile study to look at but clearly should not be the last word including the senior author of that study
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.
we eventually did get FDA approval to do this study which we did for 14 years and reported the results every year what were the rewards were the resistance it was a small study but it fit in with the other 14 showing no increased risk of local recurrence contralateral breast cancer or distant recurrence among the women who took hormones compared to the women who didn't when they were matched stage for stage