The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
don't forget the cancer cell is absolutely dependent on this fuel the normal cells get they can burn the ketones also so they're not gonna be energy deprived completely whereas the tumor cell will be deprived energy completely
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.
if a cell can live with ketones without glucose and glutamine you'd obviously have some mitochondrial function that would keep them alive because they wouldn't be able to firm it
so this is the ketones are not to kill cancer cells they to provide the normal cells with a fuel as an alternative to glucose that the tumor cells can't use the ketones
you need a good mitochondrial system to burn ketones for energy