The Cause of Cancer

The cause of cancer became obvious to me after I abandoned faith in academia, Susan G. Komen, ACS, etc. and used my own inductive reasoning. I did this because I believe there is too much specialization today. For today’s scientists, the goal is always to find the difference and disregard the similarity. For example, if skin cancer and throat cancer looked the same and behaved the same, scientists would put the cells under a microscope and magnify and magnify until that speck of uniqueness is found. It’s then given a 10-syllable name and the scientists are given a 10-digit research grant. As a result, today, cancers that occur at different parts of the body are considered to be extremely unique from each other. This has many people saying cancer cannot have a single cause, a single prevention, or a single cure. Furthermore, each type of cancer has its own researchers and doctors dedicated to just that type. My thought process goes the opposite direction: cancer is cancer; it simply occurs at different parts of the body.

You may be begging to tell me that the cause of cancer is already known. Indeed, if you do a search online it appears the cause is well-known. Case closed! Wrong. Many people today don’t really understand the definition of causation. The cause of cancer, according to many, is when cells do not experience programmatic death, or apoptosis, and instead continue to grow and divide, which leads to a mass of abnormal cells growing out of control. Do you see what’s wrong? This is not causation. This is merely a description of cancer at the microscopic level. With a causation that makes sense, you can stop doing the stated cause and then not produce the effect.

I hypothesize that cancer is caused by exposing a body part to an external source of heat over a long period of time. This requires two things: first, the heat should be hot enough to cause discomfort yet not hot enough to burn; second, this must happen frequently. In other words, cancer is the result of tolerating an uncomfortable heat for many years. I wish it was this simple but there’s one more thing: different tissues of the body have different “boiling points”. That is, certain tissues are more prone to cancer—or “overheating”—than others. The most heat-tolerant are probably skin, fat, muscle, and joints. The least tolerant—and thus most prone to cancer—would be everything else: mouth, esophagus, nipples, lungs, etc.

What’s the External Heat?

It is well established that smoking cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer. The external heat here is tobacco smoke, which comes in contact with the surface of the lungs for many years. But wait—everyone says smoking is dangerous because of the chemicals in cigarettes, like acetaldehyde and N-nitrosodimethylamine. Well, a “meta-analysis” by Lee on North American and Scandinavian studies published after 1990 found that chewing tobacco does not increase the risk of mouth cancer. So chewing tobacco is safe but smoking it is not. Since it’s not the chemicals in tobacco that make cigarettes carcinogenic, it’s reasonable to conclude that it’s the heat.

For digestive-system cancers, the external source of heat comes from the food and drinks we consume. A study by Malekzadeh in 2009 found that the hotter a person preferred their tea, the more likely that person would develop esophageal cancer. The external heat here is hot tea, which frequently comes in contact with the surface of the esophagus. It’s not just the temperature of the food or drink that’s carcinogenic, however. It’s also the spiciness (i.e. capsaicin), alcohol content, and, possibly, acidity. These are defined as irritants because they give an uncomfortable burning sensation—heat. Studies have found that long-term use of mouthwash, which contains ethyl alcohol, is correlated with oral cancer. Also, if you look at the incidence of stomach cancer by country, you’ll see that stomach cancer is strongly correlated to the spiciness of the typical diet of the country. Out of all countries, Korea has the highest incidence of stomach cancer, which doesn’t surprise me because Koreans typically eat very spicy foods like kimchi.

Perhaps the best evidence for my “external heat” hypothesis is skin cancer. Everyone knows that skin cancer is caused by overexposure to the sun. More specifically, today’s scientists say it’s the UVA and UVB rays from sunlight, just as they say it’s the acetaldehyde, N-nitrosodimethylamine, etc. from tobacco that cause lung cancer. Please understand that specific terms like these do not disprove my hypothesis that cancer is caused by external heat in general. To me, these specifics are the means through which heat is carried to biological tissue. UVA carries heat to the skin. Acetaldehyde is a vessel for heat to reach the lungs.

Prostate and testicular cancer are a bit tricky to explain because, here, the external heat isn’t exactly external. The heat originates from physical activity of the thighs. It then propagates via underwear to the prostate and/or testicles. Thus, the heat is foreign from the perspective of these organs. Prostate and testicular cancer should be preventable by not wearing layers of underpants while doing physical activities involving the upper legs. In general, heat produced by physical activity is trapped under layers of clothing and may transfer to heat-sensitive organs.

Are there any other external hot things we subject ourselves to? Hot water is one. Shower water temperature is personal preference and, for most people, it’s nothing to worry about. However, some people like their water extremely hot and I hypothesize that this can lead to brain tumors and breast cancer. The variables involved would be temperature of the water, duration of the shower, number of showers taken, person’s height relative to the showerhead, and direction they face relative to the showerhead. So why would scalding hot showers cause breast cancer yet not skin cancer? Remember how I said some body tissues are more heat-sensitive than others? It is known that most cases of breast cancer begin at the cells that line the lactiferous ducts. I hypothesize these ducts are delicate and prone to “overheating”. As for brain tumors, I hypothesize that these are caused by taking extremely hot showers with the water falling onto the scalp first rather than the chest (for many years). Hair dryers are another source of external heat. I believe brain tumor growth would be compounded by blow drying hair (for many years).

Closing Thoughts

You’re probably thinking that if the cause of cancer were this simple then scientists would have thought of it already. I don’t think so. Look at the direction of scientific studies. They’ve gotten more and more specific: 20 years ago, lung cancer was caused by smoking tobacco; 10 years ago, lung cancer was caused by 10 specific chemicals in tobacco; today, lung cancer is caused by 50 specific chemicals in tobacco. I’ve gone the opposite direction—I generalized. I pieced together many cancer studies that limited themselves to a certain type of cancer (read: location on the body). I think it’s highly unlikely that today’s cancer researcher, deep in his or her specialty, studying the effect of N-nitrosodimethylamine on the DNA nucleotides of lung cells in naked mole rats, is going to take a million steps back in specificity and perspective, and see the similarities as I have.

A new article is published every day suggesting that defective genes cause cancer. This is based on a weak correlation found between a certain gene and cancer. This is wrong. It is extremely deterministic to think that something coded in a person at birth is responsible for a disease that emerges 65 years later (on average). The problem is temporal; genes and cancer will forever remain a weak correlation because there are 65 years of free will and environmental influence between the genes inherited at birth and the onset of cancer. A genetic correlation does not disprove my hypothesis. My hypothesis is a direct causation: if X, then Y (where X is long-term external heat and Y is cancer). The way genes fit into the picture would be something like: if Gene A, then increased likelihood for behavior B, then increased likelihood for body type C, then increased likelihood for behavior D, then increased likelihood for long-term external heat, then cancer. I believe today’s society has far too often wrongly attributed genes to be the cause of a disease or condition. To say “genes caused it” is a cop-out. It’s not much different than saying “God made it so”. To say that cancer is random in who it affects is also a cop-out.

Back to
© Buism 2014