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.
now on the other hand over time we've realized that there are additional genes that I'll call moderate risk genes many of those genes May confer something like a two to threefold increased risk as opposed to something like a tenfold increased risk so there's another probably five percent or so that are due to those
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.
for the genes that I'll call monogenic highly penetrant let me unpack that a little bit monogenic good point monogenic single Gene highly penetrant high probability that over the life course you'll develop cancer if you have this particular Gene genetic variant so when you limit yourself to that yes about five percent of cancers are due to those powerful single genes high probability of cancer