>Yes, if the person has a predisposition to cancer. The evidence? They got cancer in the first place.
It's odd you can make that assumption and then breezily mention the correlation/causality problem in the very next paragraph. Just because a person gets cancer there's not necessarily any reason to believe they're predisposed to it. We know a wide range of environmental factors cause genetic damage.
>You aren't bothering to read what I've posted.
I can tell based on the snippets you're posting they're not relevant to the conversation. You keep making the same tangential point over and over. Yes, okay, I understand an oncologist won't ever tell you your cancer is cured.
> You keep making the same tangential point over and over.
So the scientific standing of cancer research is "tangential"? Your claim has been that scientists know that people are sometimes cured of cancer. This is false -- only religious zealots believe that. Scientists know better.
> Just because a person gets cancer there's not necessarily any reason to believe they're predisposed to it.
Dubious for an individual, true for a population. But I can see there's no point to this -- you don't have the required scientific background or appreciation for statistics.
It's odd you can make that assumption and then breezily mention the correlation/causality problem in the very next paragraph. Just because a person gets cancer there's not necessarily any reason to believe they're predisposed to it. We know a wide range of environmental factors cause genetic damage.
>You aren't bothering to read what I've posted.
I can tell based on the snippets you're posting they're not relevant to the conversation. You keep making the same tangential point over and over. Yes, okay, I understand an oncologist won't ever tell you your cancer is cured.