Cancer is the body's own plan ('a self plan'): body cells are ordered to transform because this was necessary for the person's life; it is not caused by external agents.
Original statement
هذه الخلايا الجسديه صدر لها امر بالتحول [موسيقى] بالتحول هذا امر التحول كان ضروري لحياه حضرتك
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
Cancer is the body's own plan ('a self plan'): body cells are ordered to transform because this was necessary for the person's life; it is not caused by external agents.
Origin
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- السرطان ١ (Open source)
- Published
- 26 January 2025
- Timestamp
- 0:23:23 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; spelling errors of the machine transcript are kept verbatim; wording may deviate from the spoken words.
- Claimed mechanism
Body-ordered transformation
- Claimed health effect
Cancer as protective
- Population concerned
General
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Diverging source versions
قلت السرطان خطه ذاتيه
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live!صباح الخير اتباع العوضي (Open source)
- Published
- 19 September 2025
- Timestamp
- 0:29:32 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
ما بتموتش اطلع السرطان دلوقتي يحميك برده
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- حاله من وعي وحصار الأصحاء لجهل الاطباء (Open source)
- Published
- 25 March 2026
- Timestamp
- 0:26:11 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
المشمش انا بقي ساعه بشرح بقى وجهه نظري عن السرطان وانه مش مرض وانه خطه ديفنس ميكانزم ازيك ابو النصر في النمسه ازيك عامل
Cancer is not a disease but a defence mechanism (a defensive plan) of the body.
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr.D Clinics - Diaa Al Awady is live! رمضان كريم (Open source)
- Published
- 5 March 2025
- Timestamp
- 0:55:26 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; 'published' is the date listed by the archive and may be the upload date. Live-stream transcripts can contain viewer comments read aloud; the quoted passage was checked in context to be spoken by Elawady.
Scientific assessment
Mostly false – Essential parts of the statement are not supported by the evidence or are strongly exaggerated.
Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.
1. What was claimed?
Cancer is a purposeful, protective transformation ordered by the body.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Cancer cells derive from the body's own cells and use normal cellular programmes (growth, migration, hormone production), and tumours partly evade immune control - points Elawady describes.
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
There is no evidence that tumours are 'ordered' for the person's benefit. About 40-44% of cancer cases/deaths are attributable to external modifiable factors, led by smoking (I-CAN-02, I-CAN-03); 2.2 million cancers per year are caused by infections (I-CAN-05). Nordic twin data show a heritable component of about 33%, with most of the remaining variation due to non-shared (individual) environment and chance; the authors stress that heritability is not a population-attributable fraction and does not reduce the role of lifestyle and environment (I-CAN-04). Neither finding supports a purely internal cause. When immune tolerance is lifted, the immune system can control metastatic cancer (I-CHM-08).
4. What remains unclear?
The teleological claim that the body 'orders' cancer for a purpose cannot be tested scientifically. The relative weight of chance, external and inherited factors differs between cancer types.
5. Which studies support it?
None for the claim that cancer is purposeful. The kernel that cancer arises from the body's own cells is textbook biology (not separately sourced).
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-CAN-01, I-CAN-02, I-CAN-03, I-CAN-04, I-CAN-05, I-CHM-08.
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
Not region-specific; the heritability data come from Nordic twin cohorts (I-CAN-04) and the attributable fractions from US and global analyses (I-CAN-02, I-CAN-03).
8. What is known about Egypt?
Hepatitis B/C-related liver cancer is an example of an infection-driven cancer relevant to Egypt (I-CAN-05, global data).
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Prevention (no tobacco, vaccination, healthy weight) and treatment are evidence-based; viewing cancer as protective may lead to dangerous delays.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Not testable in its teleological form; contradicted by strong evidence on carcinogens, infections, heredity and immune control. Partial truth: cancer arises from the body's own cells and exploits normal programmes.
- Source quality
Machine transcripts.
- Regional transferability
High.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 26 October 2026 provisional
Scientific evidence in detail
Scientifically refuted – High-quality evidence shows the opposite, or the claim contradicts well-established physiology.
Research question: Is cancer caused only by an internal, purposeful 'order' of the body, or do external agents (tobacco, infections, radiation, alcohol) cause a substantial share of cancers?
Research question in detail (PECO)
- Population
- General population
- Intervention or exposure
- External carcinogenic exposures; inherited and random internal factors
- Comparison
- No exposure
- Geographic scope
- universal biology
- Outcomes
- Cancer incidence and mortality
- Attributable fractions
- Mutation origin
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
Random copying errors in cells and cancer
Tomasetti C et al.. Science 2017 · PMID 28336671 · DOI 10.1126/science.aaf9011 Ecological studyabstract checkednewly addedModelling study: replication errors in dividing stem cells explain about two-thirds of mutations in cancers.
- Actual result
- Correlation 0.80 between stem-cell divisions and cancer incidence; ~2/3 of mutations from replication errors
- Methodological quality
- moderate (ecological/genomic modelling; contested)
- Relevance
- indirect: supports an internal, chance origin of many mutations
- Limitations
- Mutation share is not case share; authors stress compatibility with preventable fractions.
What speaks against the claim?
Four in ten cancers in the USA are linked to avoidable risk factors, led by smoking
Islami F et al.. CA Cancer J Clin 2024 · PMID 38990124 · DOI 10.3322/caac.21858 Risk assessmentabstract checkedUS attributable-risk analysis.
- Actual result
- About 40% of cancer cases attributable to modifiable risks; smoking 19.3% of cases (as recorded)
- Methodological quality
- high (risk assessment)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Model-based.
Most cancer risk comes from outside factors
Modelling study: intrinsic factors explain only about 10-30% of lifetime cancer risk.
- Actual result
- Intrinsic risk <~10-30%; cancer risk heavily influenced by extrinsic factors
- Methodological quality
- moderate (model-based)
- Relevance
- direct counterpoint to an internal-only view
- Limitations
- Contested modelling.
Infections cause about 2.2 million cancers a year worldwide
de Martel C et al.. Lancet Glob Health 2020 · PMID 31862245 · DOI 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30488-7 Risk assessmentabstract checkedGlobal burden of infection-attributable cancers.
- Actual result
- 2.2 million cancers in 2018 attributable to infections (as recorded)
- Methodological quality
- high
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Model-based.
Cancer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors
Grant EJ et al.. Radiat Res 2017 · PMID 28319463 · DOI 10.1667/RR14492.1 Cohort studyabstract checkednewly addedA-bomb survivors: radiation causes solid cancers in a dose-dependent way.
- Actual result
- 992 of 22,538 cancers radiation-associated; significant dose response from 0-100 mGy
- Methodological quality
- high (cohort)
- Relevance
- direct for an external agent
- Limitations
- Low-dose shape uncertain.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
Cancer arises from the body's own cells through mutations caused by external agents, inheritance and chance; a substantial share is caused by external agents and is preventable. There is no evidence that it is 'ordered' for the person's benefit.
Why some studies weigh more
Attributable-fraction and cohort data with dose-response (I-CAN-01, I-CAN-02, I-CAN-05, I-CAN-123) weigh more than the contested modelling of I-CAN-117, which itself does not deny external causes.
Is a causal relationship established? Yes, established Tobacco, infections and ionising radiation meet established causal criteria (dose-response, consistency, cessation benefit).
Remaining uncertainty
Relative weight of chance vs environment differs by cancer type; teleological 'purpose' is untestable.
Justified conclusion
The claim that cancer is not caused by external agents is false; the 'self plan' idea is not scientifically supported.
Why do studies seem to disagree?
I-CAN-117 (chance mutations dominate) and I-CAN-130 (intrinsic factors <10-30% of risk) disagree on the share of unavoidable risk because of different models; attributable-fraction studies (about 40% preventable) appear to conflict with I-CAN-117 but answer different questions: share of mutations vs share of cases that would not occur without the exposure; the authors state they are compatible.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Universal human biology; applies in Egypt, Germany and elsewhere.
- Eating habits
- Not decisive for this claim.
- Origin of the food
- Not relevant.
- Contaminants
- Some carcinogens (e.g. aflatoxin, smoke) are environmental; their importance varies by region.
- National production conditions
- Not relevant.
- Legal rules
- Not relevant.
- Actual monitoring data
- Egypt: hepatitis C-related liver cancer and smoking-related bladder cancer are documented regional examples (I-CAN-05, I-CAN-124).
A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.
Statistical re-check
- Radiation-attributable share – 992/22,538 = 4.4% of solid cancers among survivors associated with radiation. recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Causation of cancer by external agents
- Starting level
- low (observational studies)
- Reasons for upgrading
- large effect (smoking)
- dose-response
- consistency
- Result
- high
Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.
Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
- WHO: Cancer - fact sheet (2026) · Original publication
About 38% of cancers can be prevented by avoiding risk factors (tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy diet, inactivity, air pollution); about 10% are attributable to infections; many cancers can be cured if detected early and treated effectively.
Search strategy
Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).
| Database | Date | Search | Looking for | Hits | Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | TITLE:"Stem cell divisions, somatic mutations, cancer etiology, and cancer prevention" | both directions | 1 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (Tayebat OR Tayibat OR Elawady OR "El-Awady diet" OR "Al-Awady") | both directions | 377 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (cancer[ti]) AND ("replication errors"[tiab] OR "intrinsic risk"[tiab] OR "bad luck"[tiab]) AND (stem cell divisions[tiab]) | supporting evidence | 11 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | ("population attributable fraction"[tiab]) AND (cancer[ti]) AND (modifiable[tiab]) AND (global OR worldwide) | contradicting evidence | 20 | |
| Web (WebFetch, WHO) | 26 October 2026 | https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer | guidelines | 1 |
How deeply was this checked?
11 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (2 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 9 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.
Last scientific review: 26 October 2026
History of the verdict
- 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Mostly false (moderate)
- 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly false (moderate)
Unchanged. New evidence (I-CAN-117) gives fair weight to internal chance mutations, which partly fits the 'from within' kernel, but it does not support 'not caused by external agents'. The teleological core remains untestable, which keeps certainty at moderate rather than high for the whole claim.
New sources: I-CAN-117 I-CAN-118 I-CAN-122 I-CAN-123 I-CAN-130
In plain language
Dr. Diaa described cancer as a plan of the body that is necessary for the person. Science shows that cancer starts in our own cells, but it is mostly caused by damage to the genes from smoking, infections, alcohol, radiation, inherited factors and chance. The immune system can attack cancer when helped by modern drugs. There is no evidence that a tumour protects the body.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (0)
No studies in this group.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (9)
-
Smokers die about ten years earlier; quitting gives years back
Doll R et al.. BMJ 2004 · PMID 15213107 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AECohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studySmoking tripled death rates; stopping at 30 avoided almost all the excess risk.
External cause of cancer
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Measure smoking hazards over 50 years.
- How was the study done?
Prospective cohort.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
34,439 doctors.
- What was actually found?
Smokers die ~10 years earlier.
- How large was the observed effect?
3-fold mortality.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Stopping smoking at any age helps.
- What are the study's limitations?
Men only.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts smoking dismissal.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Effects of other tobacco products.
-
Four in ten cancers in the USA are linked to avoidable risk factors, led by smoking
Islami F et al.. CA Cancer J Clin 2024 · PMID 38990124 · DOI 10.3322/caac.21858Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studySmoking accounted for 19% of cancers and 29% of cancer deaths; excess weight and alcohol followed.
External causes
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate preventable cancers.
- How was the study done?
PAF analysis.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
US 2019.
- What was actually found?
40% of cases attributable.
- How large was the observed effect?
Smoking 19.3%/28.5%.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not smoking, healthy weight, less alcohol and a diet with fibre, fruit and vegetables lower risk.
- What are the study's limitations?
Model assumptions.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Diet matters but is not the main cause.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Individual cause.
-
Smoking, alcohol and excess weight lead global avoidable cancer deaths
GBD 2019 Cancer Risk Factors Collaborators. Lancet 2022 · PMID 35988567 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01438-6Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment44% of cancer deaths worldwide in 2019 were attributable to known risk factors, smoking first; diet accounted for about 5-6% of cancer burden.
Known external causes
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Global attributable cancer burden.
- How was the study done?
GBD modelling.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
204 countries.
- What was actually found?
4.45 million cancer deaths (44.4%) attributable to modelled risks in 2019; tobacco 33.9% of male and 10.7% of female cancer DALYs; dietary risks 5.9% and 5.1%.
- How large was the observed effect?
4.45 million deaths.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Avoid tobacco and alcohol, keep healthy weight.
- What are the study's limitations?
Model-based estimates; sparse data in many countries; infections and UV not included.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Diet is one factor among several.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That the remaining 56% of cancer deaths have no external cause (infections and UV were not modelled); individual risk for a given person.
-
About a third of cancer risk is inherited
Mucci LA et al.. JAMA 2016 · PMID 26746459 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2015.17703Cohort studyindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentHeritability of cancer overall was 33% in 200,000 Nordic twins.
Heritable component
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate heritability.
- How was the study done?
Twin cohort.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
203,691.
- What was actually found?
33% heritability.
- How large was the observed effect?
Melanoma 58%, prostate 57%.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Family history matters for screening.
- What are the study's limitations?
Nordic, mainly white population; twin models assume equal shared environments, which cannot be tested.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Not all cancer is lifestyle.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That the remaining two-thirds of risk is due to food; heritability is not the share of cancers preventable by lifestyle (authors); specific genes.
-
Infections cause about 2.2 million cancers a year worldwide
de Martel C et al.. Lancet Glob Health 2020 · PMID 31862245 · DOI 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30488-7Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkabstract checkedH. pylori, HPV and hepatitis B/C viruses cause most infection-related cancers.
Infectious causes
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate infection-related cancer.
- How was the study done?
PAF.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Global.
- What was actually found?
2.2 million cases.
- How large was the observed effect?
ASIR 25/100,000.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Vaccination (HBV, HPV) and treatment of infections prevent cancer.
- What are the study's limitations?
Modelling.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Not all cancer is food-related.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Individual cause.
-
Immunotherapy lets half of patients with advanced melanoma live at least five years
Larkin J et al.. N Engl J Med 2019 · PMID 31562797 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1910836Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checked5-year survival 52% with combined immunotherapy vs 26% with the older drug.
Tumours are attacked when tolerance is lifted
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Report 5-year survival.
- How was the study done?
RCT.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Advanced melanoma.
- What was actually found?
52% 5-year OS.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 0.52.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
The immune system can fight cancer when helped.
- What are the study's limitations?
Industry funding.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts immune claim.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Effect in other cancers.
-
WHO: many cancers are preventable and curable
World Health Organization. who.int 2026Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract checkedAbout 38% of cancers can be prevented by avoiding risk factors, and many can be cured with early, effective treatment.
38% preventable; infections ~10%
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Summarise cancer facts.
- How was the study done?
Agency fact sheet.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Global.
- What was actually found?
Preventable external causes; curable with treatment.
- How large was the observed effect?
38% preventable.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Avoid tobacco and alcohol; get treated early.
- What are the study's limitations?
Summary.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'not caused by external agents'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Detailed estimates.
-
Cancer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors
Grant EJ et al.. Radiat Res 2017 · PMID 28319463 · DOI 10.1667/RR14492.1Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyRadiation raised solid cancer risk even at doses of 0-100 mGy; most cancers in survivors were due to other causes.
External agent (radiation) causes cancer
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Radiation dose and cancer.
- How was the study done?
Cohort, 1958-2009.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
105,444 people.
- What was actually found?
Dose-related increase, also at low doses.
- How large was the observed effect?
ERR 0.64/Gy (women).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not only massive exposures matter.
- What are the study's limitations?
Low-dose shape uncertain.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'only Hiroshima-like exposures'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Smoking effects (adjusted, not studied).
-
Most cancer risk comes from outside factors
Wu S et al.. Nature 2016 · PMID 26675728 · DOI 10.1038/nature16166Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyModelling suggests that internal 'bad luck' explains only about 10-30% of lifetime cancer risk; the rest depends on external factors.
Intrinsic factors explain <10-30% of lifetime risk
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate intrinsic vs extrinsic cancer risk.
- How was the study done?
Modelling with several approaches.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable.
- What was actually found?
Extrinsic factors dominate.
- How large was the observed effect?
Intrinsic <10-30%.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Much cancer is preventable.
- What are the study's limitations?
Model-based; contested.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts 'not caused by external agents'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Which specific exposures.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (2)
-
Random copying errors in cells and cancer
Tomasetti C et al.. Science 2017 · PMID 28336671 · DOI 10.1126/science.aaf9011Ecological studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyAbout two-thirds of cancer mutations may come from random errors when cells divide; preventable causes still matter.
Internal replication errors are a major mutation source, but environment remains important
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Estimate sources of cancer mutations.
- How was the study done?
Modelling across countries and genomes.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
17 cancer types, 69 countries.
- What was actually found?
Replication errors are a major source.
- How large was the observed effect?
~2/3 of mutations.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Not every cancer is caused by lifestyle, but many are preventable.
- What are the study's limitations?
Contested method.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports internal origin, not a 'plan'.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Purpose or benefit of cancer.
-
Hallmarks of cancer
Hanahan D et al.. Cell 2011 · PMID 21376230 · DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checkedCancers acquire the ability to escape immune destruction; this is why they can grow despite immunity.
Cancer uses normal cell programmes; no purpose implied
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Define cancer capabilities.
- How was the study done?
Review.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable.
- What was actually found?
Immune evasion is a hallmark.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Tumours hide from immunity; this is a disease feature.
- What are the study's limitations?
Conceptual.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly explains Elawady's observation, not his conclusion.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Any purpose of cancer.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
Not region-specific; the heritability data come from Nordic twin cohorts (I-CAN-04) and the attributable fractions from US and global analyses (I-CAN-02, I-CAN-03).
Egypt
Hepatitis B/C-related liver cancer is an example of an infection-driven cancer relevant to Egypt (I-CAN-05, global data).
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Mostly false Cancer is not a protective 'self plan'; it has well-established causes and can be attacked by the immune system.
This statement concerns biological or medical relationships. The scientific assessment above applies regardless of the country; country-specific food data do not change it.
References
- Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors.. Doll R et al.. BMJ 2004 · PMID 15213107 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.38142.554479.AE
- Proportion and number of cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in the United States, 2019.. Islami F et al.. CA Cancer J Clin 2024 · PMID 38990124 · DOI 10.3322/caac.21858
- The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.. GBD 2019 Cancer Risk Factors Collaborators. Lancet 2022 · PMID 35988567 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01438-6
- Familial Risk and Heritability of Cancer Among Twins in Nordic Countries.. Mucci LA et al.. JAMA 2016 · PMID 26746459 · DOI 10.1001/jama.2015.17703
- Global burden of cancer attributable to infections in 2018: a worldwide incidence analysis.. de Martel C et al.. Lancet Glob Health 2020 · PMID 31862245 · DOI 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30488-7
- Five-Year Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma.. Larkin J et al.. N Engl J Med 2019 · PMID 31562797 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1910836
- Cancer - WHO fact sheet. World Health Organization. who.int 2026
- Solid Cancer Incidence among the Life Span Study of Atomic Bomb Survivors: 1958-2009.. Grant EJ et al.. Radiat Res 2017 · PMID 28319463 · DOI 10.1667/RR14492.1
- Substantial contribution of extrinsic risk factors to cancer development.. Wu S et al.. Nature 2016 · PMID 26675728 · DOI 10.1038/nature16166
- Stem cell divisions, somatic mutations, cancer etiology, and cancer prevention.. Tomasetti C et al.. Science 2017 · PMID 28336671 · DOI 10.1126/science.aaf9011
- Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation.. Hanahan D et al.. Cell 2011 · PMID 21376230 · DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013