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.
What struck Warburg is the amount of lactate that they produced. Was that what struck him more than the fact that they use so much glucose, even in the presence of sufficient cellular oxygen and insufficient ATP demand? So it was more the lactate accumulation.
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.
and of course glucose as well glucose being of course the preferred fuel of cancer