3 ms·
Formatting 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 si
by foxyv 3y ago
Formatting 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.