Let's just agree that never the twain shall meet on some of our views

I was not trying to find a link between viruses and cancer - that is your evident obsession.  I was merely doing a search for "cancer causes" to see what the returned links would say - and nary a one of the top three pages of links said that viruses cause most cancers.

Don't presume to lecture me on doing research or cancer.  How many books or articles have you researched and written about cancer?  I am considered to be one of the top writers at three different popular venues I write for.  For example, the Health Science Institute's Healthiertalk.com says that I am at the very top of their writers in regards to well written and researched articles. Among their many writers are:

Jon Barron
Dr. Michael Cutler
Dr. William Campbell Douglass
Dr. Isaac Eliaz
Mark Hyman, MD
Dr. Joseph Mercola
Dr. Keith Scott Mumby
Dr. Scott Olson
Byron J. Richards CCN
Mark Rosenberg, M.D.
Dr. Ray Sahelian
Dr. Al Sears
Dr. Allan Spreen
Jenny Thompson
Dr. Kenneth Woliner

I suppose you would propose to teach them how to research too?  Of course I don't expect you to be that impressed by seeing Dr. Mercola's name on the list as he is diametrically opposed to one of your other questionable natural health views - namely that soy products are safe (even though 85% or more of them contain GMO soy which was engineered to withstand the Agent Orange cousin Roundup).

I understand that you are passionate about viral causes of cancer, the same as you are soy (though why you support it I cannot fathom) and your negative opinion of liver cleansing and other tenets of natural health which are largely supported here.  I would propose that the best course of action would be for us to agree to disagree when it comes to the idea of viruses causing most cancers and of soy being safe or cleansing being beneficial as well - for it is abundantly clear that never the twain shall meet when it comes to our opposite opinions.

You know, I would point out that we do agree on other things and that at any rate it is entirely possible to disagree and still not be disagreeable to the point of acrimony.