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.
for most people in any given span of time the risk of developing a cancer is pretty low and so even in that study which sought to uh enrich for a group of women who are slightly greater than average risk of breast cancer the absolute benefit turns out to be modest
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.
and did that reduction in Risk translate to a survival benefit or just an incidence it did not for a couple reasons one is obviously the risk is really low second um we have good treatments for those women who do develop breast cancer and third if you're using Tom oxin as a preventative arguably you're preventing the most treatable types of breast cancer from arising so you're pulling out the better actors if you will and what's left are tumors that remain somewhat resistant to the anti-estrogens and therefore more worrisome
but for most ordinary risk women um that risk is sufficiently low that the relative reduction only amounts to a percentage point or two