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.
And I think in their studies maybe with both or at least one...maybe both studies showed a suppression of spontaneous tumors too. So, this has major implications, I think. We're very interested in actually taking animal models that have inducible tumors, for example, you know, various genes that will kick on at 200 days and then form spontaneous tumors or a melanoma model where you subject to UV radiation. And if they're fed a ketogenic diet, can you suppress that?
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 also as you mentioned earlier with Dr. Eric, Verdin, and John Ramsey's co-published studies, there was a reduction...I mean, there's a possible preventative, you know, mechanism as well with at least...according to animal research, there being a reduction in spontaneous tumors in these rodents seems promising to study, you know, as well if there's any way we can reduce cancer incidents.