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.
we know that you know just from a glycolysis standpoint we know cancer basically is a one trick pony most cancers right they're they're turning glucose into pyruvate all day every day independent of how much fatty acid is available and independent of how much oxygen is available and independent of they they they have perfectly healthy mitochondria used people used to hypothesize the mitochondria were defective that's why they were doing it no evidence that that's the case
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.
one of the things that's long understood about cancer is it's heavily glycolytic and when something is heavily glycolytic it's going glucose to pyruvate to lactate nonstop