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.
This idea that by a cancer co-opting this one molecule, it's actually now essentially using it to drive kind of more components of cancer biology than you would have thought in terms of the normal physiologic role of that molecule and where there's compensatory mechanisms and parallel processing that can happen in normal cells that make it not so dependent on the function of that one molecule.
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.
It really relied on this idea concept and the term oncogene addiction, when did I first hear that? I suppose it was in the early 2000s.