FWIW (and this is where I think philosophy can help with medicine), I believe evolutionary teleology, like most forms of teleology, often gets in the way of good science. Though useful as a hypothesis generating heuristic, it easily becomes a just-so story for pet theories. 1/2
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @eeo361 @DrJenGunter
Sure, understood. I recommend this
@ScienceBasedMed piece by@gorskon for a pretty compelling skeptical take on Seyfried's approach. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-hype-versus-science/ …1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @eeo361 @DrJenGunter and
IMO it's very easy to mistake *complicated* science for *accurate* science.
@paulmromer coined the term "mathiness" to describe how complicated math gets mistaken for good economic theory. Maybe we can call it "scienceyness" in other disciplines?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Cancer as a metabolic disease was a big fad ~5 years ago, when huge numbers of abstracts were presented at @ASCO and @AACR. Then it faded. Immunotherapy is the big thing now. That's not to say that cancer metabolism isn't important. It's just one of many potential targets.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.