3 ms·
This study should not be used to make ANY medical decisions and is only useful in proposing additional studies. I would recommend against sharing it with anyone
by foxyv 3y ago
This study should not be used to make ANY medical decisions and is only useful in proposing additional studies. I would recommend against sharing it with anyone who is not trained to read and understand these results. Often laypersons will take these studies and make absurd claims based off of them that kill people.
Keep in mind that this is a study of a single person and the tumor reduction was insignificant compared to the 4CM reduction from radio/chemo therapies. There is no way to know if Keto even did anything without a larger cohort. For all we know, it made the cancer worse than it would have been.
- kelipso 3y agoYou read the abstract wrong. The reduction was significant and more than from radiation and chemo (ed. for one of the tumors). > Computed tomography following radiation and chemotherapy showed a reduction in the right frontal lobe lesion from 5.5 cm × 6.2 cm to 4 cm × 2.7 cm, while the mass in the upper-right lung lobe reduced from 6.0 cm × 3.0 cm to 2.0 × 1.8 cm. Two years after KD initiation and without any other therapeutic intervention, the right frontal lobe lesion calcified and decreased in size to 1.9 cm × 1.0 cm, while the size of the lung mass further decreased to 1.7 cm × 1.0 cm.
- foxyv 3y agoFormatting to make it a little easier to parse. There was only a reduction greater than a CM on the right side which almost seems to be just lagging the left side reduction from the Chemo. However without a larger number of participants there is no way to call any of it significant. DIM ORG->CHM->KTD RX: 5.5->4.0->1.9 RY: 6.2->2.7->1.0 LX: 6.0->2.0->1.7 LY: 3.0->1.8->1.0 Edit: Also keep in mind that we are talking about 2 dimensions. For instance on the right side in cm^2: 34.1 -> 10.8 -> 1.9 And the left: 18-> 3.8 -> 1.7
- kelipso 3y agoIt does look like it could be a lagging effect for the left side. But still, remission and even slight reduction in tumor size are all good signs. When you want to do every possible thing to reduce chances of it coming back (the second time is brutal for many cancers), I would absolutely recommend people to do this basically harmless diet. Sure it's just one person but given the mechanics of not feeding sugar to tumors, it's a pretty easy recommendation to make.
- foxyv 3y agoYou may very well be right, but this is how you kill people. You give medical advice based on single person studies and people run with it. For all we know, certain tumors could be supercharged by elevated ketones and it could keep the immune system from doing it's job. We need to the research to know for a fact. If you want to risk it, that's fine. But medical misinformation kills people every single day. The fact is that we have no freaking idea if any of this is true without other information.
- kelipso 3y ago"For all we know"...sure. We already know most cancers use glucose. The problem is you are severely underestimating how dangerous cancers that come out of remission are and severely overestimating how dangerous this diet can be. Any kind of risk analysis would tell you to do this diet.