Quote:
Originally Posted by marcop
The Guardian newspaper posted an article that takes issue how the study has been reported: Bad luck, bad journalism and cancer rates | @BobOHara @GrrlScientist | Science | The Guardian
From the article: "The big science/health news story this week is about cancer rates, with news outlets splashing headlines like ?Two-thirds of adult cancers largely ?down to bad luck? rather than genes? (for example, here) or ?Most cancer types ?just bad luck?? (here)... ...But these headlines, and the stories, are just bollocks. The work, which is very interesting, showed no such thing." |
the best part of that article is how wrong it is. The author takes issue with other journalists' reporting incorrectly but the simple fact is the scientist (vogelstein) who conducted the study is in fact on record stating 2/3rds of cancer cases are based on chance. It's in the original paper. I've posted several of his quotes in this thread already.
The author even questions what bad luck is in this yet the study goes into depth on what that is here.