February 21, 2016

Meta-Post: John Horgan Posts on Cancer, Etcetera

Cross-Check columns on cancer and related topics

Photo of lung cancer tumor: James Heilman, Wikimedia Commons.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

This is a meta-post linking to posts I’ve written for this blog on cancer and related topics. If I'm missing any posts, please let me know.

Sorry, But So Far War on Cancer Has Been a Bust.

Cancer Establishment Admits We’re Getting Overtested and Overtreated.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Cancer Spending Higher in U.S. Than in Europe--and So Is Cancer Mortality.

Do Mammograms Kill More Women Than They Save?

Questioning Mammograms Versus "Torturing the Data."

Consumers Must Stop Insisting on Mammograms and Other Ineffective Cancer Tests.

ABC Reporter, National Football League Promote Mammograms While Experts Question Benefits.

Celebrities Should Inform Women about Risks as Well as Benefits of Mammograms.

When Mammograms Are Mandatory.

Why I Won't Get a Colonoscopy.

How Can We Curb the Medical-Testing Epidemic?

Maybe Now Americans Will Finally Get Affordable Care!

Bayes's Theorem: What's the Big Deal?

So Far, Big Data Is Small Potatoes.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American