Andrew Huberman· PhD
to my knowledge there is not a single example of a cancer that is more effectively treated when the burden of cancer cells in the body is higher than when it is lower
Loading…
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.
to my knowledge there is not a single example of a cancer that is more effectively treated when the burden of cancer cells in the body is higher than when it is lower
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.
Cancer screening matters for one critical reason — cancer that is caught earlier is much simpler to treat than cancer that is caught later.
if you get cancer treat it so early treat it when it is basically in the millions rather than the billions of cells
the simplest explanation for why screening matters is the evidence that suggests that a cancer that is caught earlier is easier to treat than a cancer that is cost later that is caught later in other words if you catch a breast cancer or a colon cancer when there are tens of millions or hundreds of millions of cancer cells your odds of treating that successfully are better than if you catch the same cancer years later when there are billions of cells and the evidence for that basically comes from examining how patients respond to the exact same drugs in the adjuvant setting versus in the