[nonbel]

Thanks for responding, I hope to get back to you in more depth. But first of all:

>"An old theory, that uses simplifying assumptions that do not apply with this data."

Yes, get rid of one simplifying assumption that was originally introduced for computational reasons and is totally unnecessary today (low mutation rate), and you can see it is impossible for that theory fit the age-specific incidence data using accepted mutation rates + division rates.

Something is wrong, yet in the supplement of the Alexandrov et al (2016) paper, which has the same first and last authors as Alexandrov et al (2013) paper you cited, they use this model without comment on that issue.

Also, in the 2013 paper, Armitage-Doll is not mentioned but it is clear to anyone familiar with that model that it is guiding their interpretation of the results.