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.
but there's this popular model called the saturation model so that once there's enough testosterone in the body and it's tends to be a fairly low level um that all the sort of the prostate testosterone receptors you know you kind of think of as have been filled so if you were to give man more testosterone doesn't change anything regarding the prostate cancer prostate growth any of that
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, we think of testosterone and prostate cancer as a saturation model concept. And I actually think we need to be using that model potentially when it comes to breast cancer and have more logic and understanding and less fear.
So, we think of testosterone and prostate cancer as a saturation model concept. And I actually think we need to be using that model potentially when it comes to breast cancer and have more logic and understanding and less fear.