Rhonda Patrick· PhD
so on the post diagnosis the recurrent side of things it is being used in clinical practice to some extent so their oncologists may already be recommending that
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.
so on the post diagnosis the recurrent side of things it is being used in clinical practice to some extent so their oncologists may already be recommending that
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 whole Advantage the idea of this is um we have to be careful that we're not overt treating cancer and of course we're not undertreating cancer so right now we overtreat a lot of patients because we're not sure if they have any uh remaining disease but we just want to be sure and so they get all these treatments that they ultimately didn't end up needing so one of the advantages of this testing uh on the post- treatment side of things is if there is no evidence of any circulating tumor cell circulating tumor DNA we can potentially deescalate the treatments and say you don't need any further treatments right now