I listened to this podcast some time back and as I recall all the ketogenic talk was about keeping glucose low due to many cancers being anerobic (the research he referenced goes back to the 1920s). Without ready carbohydrate byproducts, the cancers are unable to thrive. If the tumors are small they could theoretically then be purged by the immune system. Ketosis doesn't cure cancer it starves tumors.

I guess I recognize that there is much less data for this approach than trying to kill cancers with revenue generating radiation and medicines but I have a hard time understanding why it's harmful to include it as a potential additional treatment.

I tend to feel the same way about climate change. You may not feel confident that humans are causing it or that it's happening at all, but would it hurt anything to increase the fuel efficiency of the cars on the market? Even if your reasoning is just to preserve fossil fuels for future generations?

I suspect there is a similar motivation here. The doctor says in the podcast chemotherapy and radiation treatment are not always effective and neither is his approach. The reason that we're seeing this in the news is that processed food companies don't want people to suspect that all the sugar added to food is harmful and pharmaceutical companies don't want people to feel like their drugs are ineffective. As people we want to find answers and it makes it really hard to determine what is misinformation when there is a profit motivation to all of it... Except for the doctor who goes on a podcast to talk about his research. Sure there's a glucose meter that he helped develop and he mentions donations to Boston College but compared to a course of chemotherapy drugs it's a drop in the ocean. So am I to believe the person with the lowest profit motive in this kind of dispute? Or the highest? It's only our healt so I guess the stakes are pretty low.