Peter Attia· MD
they show you know essentially because people don't die from gleon 6 disease as we all know they really do because quality of life they do so well with the radiation there is just less of a chance of it progressing to seven
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.
they show you know essentially because people don't die from gleon 6 disease as we all know they really do because quality of life they do so well with the radiation there is just less of a chance of it progressing to seven
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.
but there's a lot of Gleon six folks that even in this day and age will choose to have radiation just because it's maybe a little bit more aggressive form of watchful waiting and in that case there is no Androen ablation and they just you know they just glidec of Gleason 3 plus 3 watchful waiting versus XRT no ablation no unfortunately there's no actual trial there's just observational studies that's that's kind of what we're dealing with there