The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
one is figure out a way to extend the period of time you live once you have a disease and by the way that's everything medicine 2.0 does we're going to wait till you have a disease and we're going to figure out a way to just drag you through that and keep you from dying okay that strategy worked a little bit strategy two which is medicine 3.0 is no way we have to figure out the time we have to figure out a way to drag out the time you live without a disease
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.
first medicine 3.0 places a far greater emphasis on prevention than treatment when did Noah build the ark long before it began to rain medicine 2.0 tries to figure out how to get dry after it starts raining medicine 3.0 studies meteorology and tries to determine whether we need to build a better roof or a boat
but medicine 3.0 job is to make those encounters with medicine 2.0 less frequent less severe and later in life
because when it hits the fan and something goes really wrong you know again trauma infection Heart Attack by all means you want medicine 2.0 there to back stop those things but medicine 3.0 job is to make those encounters with medicine 2.0 less frequent less severe and later in life