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 are in general though number one not trying to detect cancer so any what I talked about not the purpose of what they're doing they're in general not trying to read out the genome at least not for the purpose of getting you medical information for what I call news you can use to manage your own health care they're largely doing it in a way that I'll call more recreational
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.
so 23andMe as an example or ancestry.com as another example those are more things that are not medically sort of targeted they're not trying to answer a specific medical question of do you have an increased risk of breast cancer do you have an increased risk of heart attack they're really not getting at that level of detail
they're in general not trying to read out the genome at least not for the purpose of getting you medical information for what I call news you can use to manage your own health care
number one not trying to detect cancer so any of what I talked about not the purpose of what they're doing