When I said that modern science doesn't understand cancer very well, I
meant that -

1. We are not able to predict the risks of cancer. Suppose I eat x
calories/day, y from protein, z from fat, t from carbohydrates
(including t1 from sucrose, etc); that I eat a milligrams of vitamin
A, c mg of vitamin C, e mg of vitamin E, f grams of fiber, p% of raw
food; that I smoke s cigarettes, ingest a1 micrograms of Additive A1,
a2 microgr. of Additive A2, etc. etc. (And there are many other
factors, such as environmental, hormonal, lifestyle, psychological,
viral, bacterial ones.)

Then what is my risk of getting liver, colon, stomach, oesophagus,
bladder, pancreas cancer?

Why does a given antioxidant (e.g. vitamin A, or C) protect against
some
cancers but not all cancers?

2. I have read that people eating a lot of meat or fish have increased
risks of getting cancer, but the factor is close to 50%, and no one
knows why meat has such an effect.

3. Cancer is rare in Eskimos, despite the fact that they eat
considerable amounts of meat and no, or almost no
fiber/fruits/vegetables. This certainly means that diet and lifestyle
are important regarding cancer prevention, but I don't think there is
any consensus on *why* cancer incidence is low in some populations.

4. There is not even any consensus on what protective or enhancing
factors (e.g. fiber) are.

--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>