Editor's note – February 2026: This article, originally published in Innovations & Therapeutics in Oncology (vol. 11, no. 5, 2025), has been the subject of a response from the individuals and entities implicated. The text of this response is available here.
The assertions in the article remain those of its author and are contested by the signatories of the response.
From Willful Ignorance to Fear Programming[1]
Mundus vult decipi: ergo decipiatur[2]
In the joy of the happiness of being happy[3] !
I received the equivalent of a big promotion a few days ago: I was canceled! Canceled, if you prefer. I felt the same emotion as when I started CM1: I was finally going to be able to play in the big leagues! I, the little provincial teacher, was joining the exclusive club of the canceled! Among them a philosopher, Sylviane Agacinski, prevented by a horde of students from giving a lecture in Bordeaux because she had expressed an opinion on surrogacy that they didn't like; a sociologist, Nathalie Heinich, booed in Poitiers because she criticized inclusive writing; an anthropologist, Florence Bergeaud-Blackler, whose lecture was postponed indefinitely by a startled dean; a linguist, François Rastier[4], who was unable to give a lecture at the ENS in Lyon because of a student union with questionable syntax, and of course a famous writer, JK Rowling, who is subject to a general speech ban because she thinks that a woman is a woman and not a "body with a vagina", as the Lancet elegantly puts it… Anne-Sophie Chazaud listed many others five years ago[5], and this list continues to grow. In the middle of August, some people do not agree with this unfortunate Barbie "To the hole!" shouted the bearded men. Hide this film that I cannot see " shouted some Salafists who have the sad habit of seeing cowards obey them.
Anch'io sono cancellato! What a shock when I received the cancellation message! The one from the teenager experiencing his first orgasm[6], of the student who received first place in the philosophy agrégation, of the researcher who finally passed a Western that he will not need to fraudoshopper, of the president elected with 80% of the votes and who is delighted to have nothing more to do for five years, of Claudel discovering God who had hidden behind the third pillar of Notre-Dame (to the right from the entrance). What to do with all this happiness? Announce it to everyone, of course: happiness is something to be shared, and I did it immediately. Then, I asked myself: "What did these blessed people do when they were thus overwhelmed by this sublime joy?" The adolescent of course started again immediately (when you are young, you have triumphant mornings[7]), the young graduate struggled to avoid being assigned to the Annie-Ernaux high school in Chaumont-sur-Seudre, the researcher photographed his impeccable Western, the president did nothing for five years[8], Claudel made his theater.
Guilt or Victimize? What if we spoke to adults?
I was invited in May by a club of young psycho-socio-oncologists, who were very friendly, to give a presentation as part of a colloque Misinformation and Cancer. Precisely, I worked on the subject with regard to charlatanism.[9], and I am now interested in the avalanche of fake news on the etiology and epidemiology of cancers that have flooded the media since the beginning of 2025. Honored by the invitation, I propose a title, a summary, I prepare (and submit) the draft of the PowerPoint that will carry my thoughts, I make insert the conference announcement in issue 4 of the professional journal I edit, Innovations and Therapeutics in Oncology (I even corrected the spelling mistakes!), I offer the columns of the said journal to the publication of the Proceedings of this conference; in short, I fully support this initiative. Only here: our young friends realized that I do not belong to the Camp of Good! I am an incorrigible scientist who dissects articles, who has some skills in statistics, and who does not hesitate to row against the tide of public opinion; I had dared to co-sign an article in a weekly newspaper, reporting on scientific errors overused in the media mainstream. It was fatal for me!
My intention was to provide reassuring information to both the general public and patients, after the media hype that monopolized fears during the first half of the year. Spreading messages of fear is not constructive when these fears are amplified beyond all measure and therefore unjustified. The confidence that caregivers must inspire in their patients must allow them to approach the disease without guilt on the one hand, and without victimization on the other; the atmosphere of fear maintained by irresponsible media, unfortunately followed by certain organizations from whom we would have expected better, does not allow patients to go through the painful ordeal they are going through with any serenity. Explaining, reassuring, protecting, generally seems to oncologists, who are in direct contact with patients, more positive than worrying, frightening or arousing rancor and resentment, especially when their vital prognosis is at stake.
Don't think I'm all alone: Jérôme Barrière, much more active and vigilant than me, and whom I had associated with my report; other oncologists, epidemiologists, journalists of great value, who get to the bottom of things in weeklies like The Point ou The Express, sometimes daily newspapers like Le Figaro, ask themselves the same questions as me and arrive at the same conclusions, since they have access to the same scientific articles and know how to read and analyze them. But faced with two million sheep who are convinced that "thousands of children will die of cancer" because of acetamiprid, what do you want to do? The people responsible are not the majority of the signatories, apart from the Parisian bobos who cannot distinguish a cow's head from its rear end[10], these are people who are in principle educated, including some MPs, who spread these lies to make themselves look good to animal lovers and only pursue political objectives. A female MP, an academic to boot, even told us about her digestive problems and her difficulty in expelling her intestinal gas to show contempt for farmersIt is also science that she despises, as when she says she prefers witches to engineers or when she places Darwin before Malthus.
"It is the nature of censorship to accredit the opinions it attacks[11] »
My intervention in this conference has therefore been cancelled: it is not appropriate to say that aspartame, in a recent study, increases the overall risk of cancer by only 15%, while tobacco increases it by 2500%; that the cadmium contained in cereals grown with the help of Moroccan phosphate fertilizers will not kill children who eat these cereals or organic chocolate for breakfast; that the latest study on glyphosate is riddled with statistical errors; that it has never been shown that acetamiprid is carcinogenic or neurotoxic. On the other hand, what is the point of saying thatHelicobacter pylori will lead to excess mortality from gastric cancer in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia in the coming decades if we do nothing? First, Africa is far away; second, this bacteria is not found in food: so, it does not concern us, or rather, it has no connection with our progressive dietary choices. What is the point of also saying, without irony, that women's reproductive strategy significantly conditions the incidence of breast cancer? It will not change anything, and we can continue to mock those who, including those in power, are worried about the falling birth rate. We must at all costs search for the unknown carcinogenic factor[12], preferably among the usual suspects of pesticides and air pollution: it's better for future elections, some ultra-politicized journalists do not hide it.
The herd-like behavior of certain "learned" societies is worrying, that of the League Against Cancer even more so. I won't even mention the Council of the Order of Physicians, which is not above a stupidity, even if it was unforeseeable. Each of the organizations that signed the second petition claimed to have "scientific" analysis of articles that they had not read! Because if they had read them, they would not be able to say the same thing, it is not a matter of opinion... Since no study has shown that acetamiprid was carcinogenic, one article was highlighted[13], from which they concluded that the IQ of children was reduced proportionally to the concentration of acetamiprid in the urine of their pregnant mothers: but acetamiprid had precisely been excluded from the analysis, which concerned other pesticides. In this race to the bottom, it was a question of who could best show that they were in the Camp of Good – what does Truth matter, after all! Most of the media peddled lies to show that they were in the right camp, not so that crackpots like me and a few others could come and show them that they were wrong! Let us eject as scapegoats those who dare not think like us! Let us not let the contradiction emerge, they say, because, if we were allowed to do so, everyone would see that the Emperors of Good are naked.
And so it was that three young scholars fell into the trap of political correctness. I suggested that they publish the proceedings of their conference in the Bulletin of the National Order of Physicians…since they seem to give importance to this club of incompetents. The young are now released into the wild before they are truly finished. " said my wife[14] ; but " There are construction sites where the project manager has clearly left the site long ago. " suggested a friend. " Off with his head! Off with her head! " shouts the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland ; " I only want to see one head " shouts the adjutant in the remakes of Squadron Gaieties. There is no question of countering, with a serious scientific analysis, what two million people have shouted in chorus: if they have the numbers on their side, they must be right! One of these young scientists suggested that I answer the question instead: "Do mRNA vaccines cause cancer?" It must be said that we had debunked with some colleagues a pernicious and mendacious article a few years ago, which predicted the death of billions of vaccinated people[15]But nobody cares about mRNA vaccines anymore.[16]! Why not the flocks of grey herons? One flew over the neighbor's house: crack! He got cancer three months later[17].
"Nothing creates consensus like prejudice."[18] »
We are in an era where everyone's opinion is worth as much, in the eyes of the general public, as that of scientists; where discussions in coffee shops are "liked" by the ignorant who impose their truth, on the grounds that they are the most numerous and that a thousand ignorant people know better than an expert; where politicians wallow, with the prophets of false science, in the alternative truths advocated by the American Nero and his retinue of buffoons. No, science is not democratic: Isaac Asimov denounced a long time ago this false notion that democracy could mean that " my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge " Louis-Pierre Anquetil, in his History of France, already wrote in 1852 that " A hundred thousand people can be wrong and silence one person who is not wrong. ". There it is, it happened! Except that... I do not resign myself to silence, as some would like, including in our learned cancer society! I do not resign myself to decipiatur : we cannot let the world be so deceived, our duty is to proclaim the truth. Would truth necessarily emerge from consensus?
I wrote four years ago in a mood piece[19] : " Here we are back to the time when the Church banned Jacques Rivette's film, The nun ; where the mayor of Arcachon banned the screening of Martin Scorsese's film in his town, The last temptation of Christ ; where the Nazis burned thousands of books; where the Bolsheviks banned works by Pasternak, Bulgakov or Solzhenitsyn; where McCarthy hunted down actors and directors suspected of being “communists”. Erasure, ostracism, anathema, denunciation, banning, censorship, cancellation then flourished: a hundred flowers bloom again, they are as poisonous as those cultivated by Chairman Mao. This is called the cancel culture today… Wouldn’t it rather be the cancer culture, the one that gnaws like a crab at the universalism of thought? "From this paragraph, do I have an example to delete, a line to change, a word to replace? It is my turn to be erased, ostracized, anathematized, denounced, banned, censored, canceled, deprogrammed, canceled To be honest: I'm in good company; these young colleagues don't know the honor they're doing me!
On the other hand, it is their honor that they have lost: they had told me before this cancellation that they were receiving pressure. Yes! Anything happens... Preventing free speech and silencing those who do not share your analysis is back on the agenda. Where has academic freedom gone? Where has freedom of expression gone? We are witnessing a decline, not only in tolerance, but in simple dialogue. I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for you to have the right to say it » the Englishwoman Evelyn Beatrice Hall made Voltaire sayWe are far from that! It used to be excited and sincere students who had the lectures of those they didn't like canceled: now it is doctors, researchers, academics, colleagues in short, who are trying to silence the dissenting voices, thus making themselves the champions of the tyranny of Good. And they boast in social gossip, insulting those who disagree with them instead of opening the debate.
“Denunciation is the first article of tyranny.”[20] »
This is what the organizers of this conference wrote to me: “ Several researchers in oncology and public health, outside our projects, have questioned [so] by email our team as well as the directors and presidents of our laboratories and establishments [re-sic] respective, worrying that your intervention could paradoxically become the relay of information [re-re-sic] wrong[21] regarding questions of carcinogenesis and environmental factors " They gave in to this intimidation. They thus provide a fascinating and paradoxical example of what not to do to combat disinformation.
If those who, precisely, wish to fight against charlatans behave like them, their fight is inevitably vain and their discussion useless. I will not call the informers[22] and will not say, like everyone else, that they are taking us back to "the darkest hours of our history"; to ignore these young budding academics to alert (with threats to back it up?) their directors and presidents is extremely base, unworthy of their position. Wanting to silence one's opponent without debating with him is only evidence of great mediocrity. As for these young people, they are off to a great career in the sheepfold where they will be able to bleat in unison instead of reading, analyzing, thinking, and then dialoguing and debating. But I promise never to speak ill of them to their superiors in order to harm this career: they will manage it on their own...
Medicus in aeternum
I deeply regret this eviction and I strongly reproach myself for not having been able to convince the organizers of the validity of my analysis, which is much more benevolent and compassionate than that of my anonymous accusers. Protecting our patients from suffering, both that linked to the disease and that linked to the fallacious nature of the promises of cures made by charlatans or the intrusive nature of questionable or false epidemiological studies, is the mission of doctors. I am a doctor first and foremost, and most of the oncologists I interviewed and with whom I work, like Jérôme Barrière, whom I had associated with this presentation, know as I do that they are invested with the mission of caring, and if possible of curing, but also with the mission of protecting and reassuring, a mission essential to ensuring that the support of our patients is optimal. I am medicus in aeternum, as those who denigrated me seem not to be, and who, by intimidating the organizers, led to my eviction.
