The Warburg effect's claim that mitochondrial damage causes cancer is not conclusive.

“and i don't either i mean i just think on first principles it doesn't actually make sense right so if if you if you follow the logic of warburg um if the primary insult or the prime cause to use his language is damage to the mitochondria that's an insult to a cell that's a deficit to a cell that's an inhibition of a cell's ability to respire and frankly acquire energy so the fact that the cell has the ability to do something outside of the mitochondria in a compensatory fashion is great but in and of itself that doesn't explain why it would take up more nutrient it simply explains why it would metabolize nutrient in a different way