Peter Attia· MD
you're basically saying look there needs to be a new type of oncologist which is the metabolic oncologist
Loading…
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.
you're basically saying look there needs to be a new type of oncologist which is the metabolic oncologist
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 you're beyond gracious in your suggesting I have even something to do with helping that evening turn into a what sounds like a very productive collaboration between you and Lou and I'll be talking with Lou as well when the next month I'm sure but let's talk a little bit about what came out of that collaboration and certainly bring it back to Ben Hopkins paper that was in nature I believe was the nature yeah exactly yeah so let's talk a little bit about the question what were you trying to understand the question is there's a very wide question and there's a very narrow question the wide question is how does the body's metabolic state affect cancer it's a very big question because cancer is like all cells are eating nutrients as well too in order to grow and the question therefore is the cancer eating a different set of nutrients than normal cells