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.
I think that the reason for that is remember when we talked about what causes cancer it's this evolution where c cells start to accumulate mutations numerically a lot of the cells that have the mutations will die off and it's just a game that unfolds over time and the more time you have cells dividing and sticking around in the body they're accumulating more damage and eventually you're more likely that that damage would actually transform the cells into a cancer cell.
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.
there can be changes to the dna to the sequence right so the sequence of the dna is the information yep right those are called mutations and those accumulate as we age and that's that's honestly what drives a lot of cancer right
why does a normal cell ultimately become a cancer cell and we Now understand that that's due to the accumulation of mutations in DNA of these cells divide which explains why it's the common organs of the body all of which have ducts the lining of those ducts are constantly turning over and as that DNA is turning over uh mistakes are made called mutations and it's that accumulation of mutations that results in the cancer itself
So it often takes several decades before you actually get a mutation in a tumor suppressor gene. And this is part of the reason why cancer is often a very age related disease.