Perhaps it's the time of year...

As I read about cancer immunoediting, I tend to fall on the skeptical side. I like Swann and Smyth's 2007 review, which highlights both the evidence for and against its existence and suggests that the immune system can have three central roles in tumor prevention: limiting potentially oncogenic viral infections, limiting inflammation that could lead to tumorigenesis, and immunoediting--eliminating endogenous tumors as they arise by targeting tumor antigens or stress-induced molecules. The first two seem reasonable and likely, and while immunoediting has a logical and feasible appeal, the evidence in its favor often seems contrived and too broad to have specific implications. It seems that some of the strongest evidence comes from knockout mice, like the Ifng-/- mouse, but to simply see more tumors in this mouse and to conclude that immunoediting is the mediator is a large leap. And many other studies rely on carcinogenic induction methods that introduce many other uncontrolled factors and complicate the studies beyond simple conclusions.

Also, I'm tired of science.