Cancer Cannot be Prevented, Really?
A Story of Lapdog Medical Journalists
Majid Ali, M.D.
Medical journalists have served their readers poorly for decades, often grievously. I am sympathetic because they seldom write with any depth of perspective. They seek materials largely from those who promote the prevailing “disease-drug-device dogma.” Here is an astonishing example of such a journalistic misadventure. I follow that with links to my books on cancer (at http://www.AliBooks.Org), as well as some videos from my Science, Health, and Healing Encyclopedia on the general subject of cancer.
The editorial in the January 2, 2015 issue of Science was entitled “Cancer Due to Bad Luck.” The subheading delivered the devastating news in the following words: “Analysis Suggests Most Cases Can’t Be Prevented.” How could any journalist believe that toxicities of food, environments, and stress could not cause cancer? Why didn’t any journalist recognize that Science’s subheading made no sense whatsoever?
The ill-considered and misleading Science editorial was based on the claim of some researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who reported that in about two-thirds (22 of the 31) of cancer tissue types the cancer could be largely explained by the bad luck of random mutations that arise during DNA replication in normal noncancerous stem cells.
Much damage was done by journalists untrained in the ways of science or even commonsense. They spread Science’s “cancer unpreventability gospel” widely before Science recognized its grievous error and issues an explanation.
Consider this quote from a Medscape Medical News of January 15, 2015: “But the data do not support either of these ideas, noted George Davey-Smith, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Bristol University, United Kingdom, in a BBC News report. He also noted that “in the press release [from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine], the authors say they’ve come up with a method to quantify the contribution of these stochastic or chance factors, which their method doesn’t,” he adds.”
How did the Science editor have made such an egregious error? I leave that to your imagination.