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.
So we have to you know ask the question who's going to fund this clinical trial. So they have the policy makers and the people at the foundations, people at the the federal government, the NIH, the DoD, they fund uh cancer. They have to be convinced that this is going to work, 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.
So what's the hold up? Right. I interviewed I interviewed Tom 7 years ago and we had this exact same conversation. Why do you think for especially for these cancers that have that are basically just killing machines like they just they they kill people are dead within a year of diagnosis. Why why is it so hard to do these trials?