Paul Saladino· MD
you know I think I think it may be in the middle you know somewhere but I I err on the side of Thomas Seifert's work obviously yeah I'm a little biased I was
Loading…
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.
you know I think I think it may be in the middle you know somewhere but I I err on the side of Thomas Seifert's work obviously yeah I'm a little biased I was
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.
I think his book and him being a very vocal advocate of the this Warburg effect being the damaged respiration being the cause of cancer
if this if what he was proposing is Act even if it's like 70% like right that has profound implications for not only how we treat disease but how we would prevent cancer from occurring and increase our odds