{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022131147540983605, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.166666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation: complementarity and contradictoriness of cancer theories. A genetic perspective.

In this Chapter we evaluate complementarity and contradictoriness regarding theories and data of carcinogenesis described in this issue. Most theories and data are compatible with a multimutation model of carcinogenesis. There are a few authors having severe criticism regarding this mainstream. From a view of philosophy of science such criticism is valuable and this type of papers deserves careful evaluation. Zajicek has the most serious criticism. He argues that cachexia, due to the absence of essential molecules, induces the tumor which tries to produce these missing essential molecules. So, in his view, cachexia causes cancer instead of cancer cachexia. The implication is that cachexia should be treated. Duesberg argues that cancer is due to an imbalance of chromosomes rather than to cancer specific mutations. A few points and implications seem important: (a) Duesberg does not really object to a multimutation model; (b) he wants to defend the view that cancer can also be due to chromosomal imbalance, and (c) cancer due to chromosomal imbalance cannot be inherited, in contrast to cancer based on a mutation.