I think the verdict is too quick to dismiss the LA Veterans study. The fact that it showed a cancer divergence after 2-5 years, and that the effect wasn't detectable until 8+ years, suggests that the timing of cancer development is complex and possibly influenced by factors we don't fully understand. The idea that preventing heart disease could indirectly lead to more cancer cases isn't a full explanation — it's just one possible factor. We shouldn't assume that a single study's limitations mean the entire pattern is meaningless. The real question is whether we're accounting for all variables, not just ruling out one possibility.