I assume it's as incoherent as this entire encounter has been.

I'm not clicking on that.

wut

Australians sure do love molly and blow.

lol c'mon you're trolling right?

I fuckin' love Jae Lee. I've got the first series of Hellshock around here somewhere.

The downvcote is because I think this is a bad video to communicate this area of research. As I've said, Seyfried's claims are way over the top and I don't think accurately inform on the science.

It's definitely interesting and I'll keep an eye on it. I still think Seyfried's way overstating his case and there's a lot of potential for bad outcomes from it, especially in the current climate around medicine.

Thanks for that. I've watched the video now, see my comment to jet.

Ok I watched the video and its exactly what I expected. And to be clear, what I expected when I read the summary of the video, before I read that critique (it's why I looked up the critique).

He makes very strong claims. You said "Seyfried’s diet position is fairly straightforward - there is no downside to not feeding glucose into cancer that thrives on glucose.". That isn't his position in this video at all! He literally says "We understand cancer and we know how to manage cancer". He ridicules the rest of the field and compares himself to Copernicus. His reasoning for claiming that "scientists don’t read the papers" seems to be that if they'd read them then they would obviously agree with him?! He is extremely aggressively saying that he is right and almost everyone else is wrong.

And what's his evidence for this extraordinary claim? Some trials on mice and what amounts to anecdotes on a few individual cases, and the giloblastoma study. Which certainly seems promising! But is a tiny sample size, and that study itself describes its results as "encouraging"; hardly strong proof.

The critique's from the article I linked seem exactly as valid now as they were when it was written. There certainly seems like some promising paths of investigation in this field, but Seyfried is going way over the top with his claims. And I mean, those single cases that he presents in this video are a huge red flag, that just isn't science and isn't how a legitimate scientist presents evidence.

I've been asking for links to relevant papers.

Pilot studies so far.

This is one of the critiques from that article that doesn't seemed to have changed in the time since it was written. The supporting studies are too preliminary or small scale to show any reasonable evidence. You said that Seyfried has published 120 papers but are there any that have a robust methodology and sample size that supports his theories?

See how these are different statements? KMT being a better then chemo isn’t saying keto cures cancer?

I mean, I dunno about "cures" but that statement seems to clearly be saying that keto is a more successful treatment for cancer than chemo? As I said, where is the evidence for that?

I'm not trying to troll anybody or just be negative for the sake of it, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Like, what is the gap between that article's critiques (which I thought were pretty even handed) when it was written and now? Has there been meaningful evidence produced since then?