> so increasing your risk of cancer by a few percentage points for a significantly improved shot at an extra few decades That reasoning only works given a bunc

> so increasing your risk of cancer by a few percentage points for a significantly improved shot at an extra few decades That reasoning only works given a bunch of conditionals which to most people including experts in the relevant fields seem pretty unlikely. Given that, it'd be great to read more about why he believes the things he does rather than what he's doing about his beliefs, as it's impossible to tell if he's got some interesting insight, or is doing something that only makes sense for him, or in fact is doing something that doesn't make sense at all without knowing more.