We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
to your point it's not a screening test right because you know even in relatively healthy and and you know women of childbearing age um you know a population of 100,000 you know uh you know you expect epidemiologically you know 10 times or so or 50 times that number of cancers right you know over a year or so so um you know clearly you're missing the majority of of cancer so it's not a screening test right
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.