Peter Attia· MD
that's true but but cancers really do um they very much depend on this metabolic disregulation
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.
that's true but but cancers really do um they very much depend on this metabolic disregulation
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.
but but these are the types of insights we just didn't have uh you know five and certainly 10 years ago um that that there were would be there might be ways to actually kind of laser in on um The Regulators of metabolism that cancers are most potentially vulnerable to and I'm not suggesting these are going to be Standalone approaches as I said before rather they're going to poent yeah they're going to potentiate um these other therapies
many people would have thought well you can't Target metabolism get away with that right because every cell in the body needs to be able to regulate its metabolism in a you know kind of condition dependent way that's true but but cancers really do um they very much depend on this metabolic dysregulation