Bad luck, bad journalism and cancer rates
Wait, is this an article from the Guardian making fun of their own article on the same study earlier on ? See <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/01/two-thirds-cancer-cases-caused-bad-luck-lifestyle-genes" rel="nofollow">http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/01/two-thirds-ca...</a> ? If that's the case, that's a novel way of doing journalism: publish crap first, then sell more paper by doing a critique of your crap.