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.
prostate cancer screening is is really quite poor I mean really it's like kind of a it's a it's almost like just you know um non-randomly assigning people to get prostate biopsies right as you know getting PSA tests basically it's it's it's not a great way of detecting um Cancers and certainly not potentially dangerous prostate cancers
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's a highly highly sensitive test with very low specificity... you're going to be catching a lot of people who don't have cancer and it's for that reason as you said that it is no there is no longer a formal recommendation around the use of PSA screening it is now kind of been relegated to the just talk to your doctor about it