Seems like your opinion of what he would say. They readily admit certain cancers are not approachable with a ketogenic approach.aphorist wrote:He seems to espouse the concept that oncogenes are a bunch of nonsense and all the R&D money spent studying oncogenes is foolish, because all cancer is related to ketone burning oxphos vs. glycolysis.
Read the Cancer: The Emperor of All Maladies (Mukherjee?). Pay attention at the end when a guys work (from NIH) is brought up who pays attention to the effect smoking, early intervention have had. While there are some very clear winners with the approaches that Mukherjee outlines in his book, when you properly control for key variables, then consider how much we are spending and the ravages that ineffective standard of care therapies reek on the last months of patients lives, it is pretty clear the genetic approach to curing cancer has (by and large) failed. Some universities have done some good stuff... starting institutes of study dedicated to catching it early, etc., etc. So don't get me wrong. But if you read M's book with a careful, reasonably experienced eye, paying attention to the last bit of not making any progress, but with a little new magic we're winning the war.... ummmm.....very weak sauce ending.aphorist wrote:It seems like quackery to me, just given the basics of how a virus like HPV integrates itself into the host and ultimate ubiquinates p53 (causing runaway cell proliferation because it has killed off the primary self-destruct checkpoint in the cell). But I'm not very well read at all on cancer to have an in-depth though and I barely grasp ketosis at this point.
Read up on these "novel cancer therapies" of today. They develop drugs costing $000M in order to get a few extra months of chemo laden "victory" for shareholders, whoops patients. System may not be broken. But its damn close.