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.
amplification of Mick is another one too it's the end okay so it's interesting so basically between Mick and p p uh P 53 and all of k-ras I mean I'm sure k-ras is associated less so chaos but yes those are classic markers of lethal Cancers and so prostate is not you know uh you know immune to that as well
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 general genetic trait associated with that transition from localized to localized with lethal potential is an is something to do with the P10 akt pathway sure and that doesn't mean that you have a lethal tumor if you have P10 loss but it in my mind it begins to open up the book to say lots of other mischief and nonsense can go on within the tumor we know from lots of studies that if you have loss of p53 for example that that's associated with lethal prostate cancer amplification of Mick lethal cancer in general yes exactly amplification of Mick is another one too