On the plus side, we're slowly making the public aware that the DNA theory of cancer isn't actually right and that carbohydrate metabolism is much more powerful.
It's not just Coke and donuts. Even bacon and eggs don't reach the threshold of ketosis used in these studies. The pop-culture definition of a ketogenic diet is really more like Atkins or low-card than the ketogenic diets used in these studies.
Ketosis at this level requires not only restricting carbohydrates, but restricting protein intake as well. This usually means drinking heavy whipping cream and oils.
A classic ketogenic diet would require significant quantities of heavy whipping cream (or MCT oil or other oils) with every meal, including snacks. Wikipedia has a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet#Classic
Doing a true ketogenic diet is hard work. Most of what people call ketogenic diets are actually more like Atkins or low-carb. Going into full ketosis requires significant protein restriction and augmenting with significant fat sources.
This is an unnecessary dichotomy. The Warburg effect has been theorized for almost a hundred years. It's not that only one of "DNA theory" vs. "cellular metabolism theory" can be right, the prevailing theory is that they are highly intertwined.
So, yes, some cancer types are fed on carbohydrates, and if that's what people eat, they will get those cancers.
If people have a better diet, a better kind of cancer will kill them. =)
It is very infrequent to actually die of "old age" at over 100.
And the common thing of all cancers is still they are DNA mutations.
Having said that, yes, people should avoid a carbohydrate heavy diet, not only because it helps against common cancers, but because metabolic disease is just getting sick without any unavoidable reason.
Edit: also if you could introduce a change in the cells that only changed the metabolism and didn’t alter DNA you could prove your theorem if you then caused them to be tumorigenic.
If it's "just DNA" then we should focus on relevant therapies. But this is what we've done for 60 years and it hasn't gotten us very far. In fact depending on how you slice the numbers we've made almost no progress since chemo was "invented".
On the other hand if it's mitochondria and DNA damage is just one possible route, and damage happens all the time, then there are metabolic approaches. These include simple diet changes, metformin and all kinds of other things.
We need to abandon the "just DNA" paradigm. Epigenetics is far bigger than most understand, and DNA is far more malleable than most people know.
As both books (I think) say, the TCGA project was largely a failure for exactly these reasons: DNA is a big moving target and the cell-to-cell variance is very large.
The DNA paradigm explains this very well. How does the book explain this treatment?
How about a stem cell transplant? Why do they cure certain cancers? Does the metabolism of the person donating their stem cells get taken up and adopted permanently by the recipient?
Let's look at the first Wikipedia sentence on tyrosine kinase as a starting point:
"A tyrosine kinase is an enzyme that can transfer a phosphate group from ATP to the tyrosine residues of specific proteins inside a cell."
What's ATP? We both know what ATP is. Is ATP deeply part of metabolism? We both know it almost is a definition of metabolism. I want to shout at you. But I don't know who you are or how to connect with you.
Please, for the love of anything that you find Holy, instead of arguing with me on the internet do this: Read the books I recommended, and start looking for the links to metabolism like I just did for you instead of trying to "see DNA everywhere". You will go so much further and help all of us than just arguing with me.
As to the atp issue, yes it is involved with metabolism but so so much more. If you have time read The Biology if Cancer by R A Weinberg. He does a good job of exploring the historical investigations as wellas the science.