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.
I think that in many ways the problems that Tom has been working on for the last 30 or 40 years are very slowly beginning to gain acceptance and I don't like to use the word mainstream but in I think you know what I mean in the more mainstream circles of oncology
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.
you know i i'm not trained as a scientist and i interview one person you know famously thomas sieffried who is very much a warburgian who thinks that warburg got it exactly right and that it is a problem of defective mitochondria and he cites the research of uh i believe uh peterson at johns hopkins who also believes this