the adipose tissue does produce alot of estrogen/progesterone like hormones, which are known hormones for accelerating hormone-sensitive cancers. combined with diabetes which reduced immunity, and increases the chance of cancers. although you are likely become ill from diabetes related heart disease, or high blood pressure before that.
Article title: cause
Article: published in the journal BMJ Oncology, showed that increases in body mass index (BMI) alone are not sufficient to explain the overall rise in cancer incidence, pointing to additional, suspected or currently unknown causes.
Not cause, associated
This is the pr office for the university you think they would have a obligation to get cause and association correct.
We don’t know what causes cancer. It’s the oncogenic paradox. We have lots of theories…
We don’t know what causes cancer. It’s the oncogenic paradox.
Hmm, this is not really true though…
We know that cancer is caused by genetic mutations during cell replication, resulting in malformed cells which behave abnormally. If these cells then replicate successfully they can produce tumors. We know that this can happen with basically any cell type, though some animals have very low cancer rates.
Mechanically, we know that a lot of different sources can provoke genetic mutations in cells. We have identified many, many such influences (radiation, various chemicals, viruses, etc). Asbestos fibers can interfere with chromosomes mechanically during mitosis:
There is experimental evidence that very slim fibers (<60 nm, <0.06 μm in breadth) tangle destructively with chromosomes (being of comparable size). This is likely to cause the sort of mitosis disruption expected in cancer.
We know many causes of cancer. We don’t know every possible thing that might provoke cell mutations. We know that it’s not any one specific thing.
We also know that cellular mutation is part of the evolutionary process. It might not be possible to “cure cancer” in the sense of preventing cellular mutations, as this may be a built-in function of what we are as a species. Preventing mutation might also not be a good long-term strategy for the survival of the species.
We know that cancer is caused by genetic mutations during cell replication
That is the Somatic Mutation Theory the most popular theory, but it is not the only currently researched, and viable, theory of cancer.
So yes, we have theories on the genesis of cancer, we don’t have any causal data to make statements such as “excess weight causes cancer”
We know many causes of cancer. We don’t know every possible thing that might provoke cell mutations. We know that it’s not any one specific thing.
Why do those things cause cancer? Why do some smokers not die of cancer? The reason it’s so vague is because we don’t actually know what causes cancer. We know what is associated with cancer, but not what causes it.
Why do those things cause cancer? Why do some smokers not die of cancer? The reason it’s so vague is because we don’t actually know what causes cancer.
Ah, I see the misunderstanding now.
Just because a natural process contains some inherent randomness does not mean that we do not know how it works. Knowing exactly how a thing occurs does not make the action of that thing deterministic. Just because it is unpredictable on an individual scale does not mean it is mysterious, or beyond our understanding.
Some people exposed to a carcinogen will develop cancerous cells. Some will not. Some of their immune systems will remove the cancer cells before they cause problems. Some will not. Some will develop tumors from those cells. Some of those cells will die and get filtered out by the kidneys or liver before they reproduce and form tumors. Some of those tumors will grow enough to be lethal. Some will become benign before they cause significant health problems.
The outcome depends on many factors like age, health, exercise, diet, exposure, genetic background, etc. There are more variables than we can possibly track for any given person. Even if we could get all of that information, we are ultimately talking about the interactions of certain molecules with proteins in cells - meaning that quantum effects are relevant, so there is some probability involved.
We know what is associated with cancer, but not what causes it.
We know what causes cancer. Genetic mutations during cell reproduction cause cancer. We don’t know every possible thing that can provoke genetic mutations (that would require infinite knowledge), nor do we know if a specific individual will develop cancer in response to a specific carcinogen. The outcome is probabilistic.
Again, just because there is some inherent randomness does not mean that we don’t understand how it works. Understanding something does not make it deterministic.
Genetic mutations during cell reproduction cause cancer.
That is the somatic mutation theory of cancer. It has not been proven, it’s very popular. There are other theories such as the metabolic mitochondrial theory.
https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12050662 - Paradoxical Behavior of Oncogenes Undermines the Somatic Mutation Theory
If the prevailing theory has many paradoxes (i.e. the oncogenic paradox) , then the model needs to be updated. So no, we don’t know what causes cancer, we know what is associated with cancer.
Gene mutations absolutely have a role to play, it’s reasonable, but is it causal or part of the chain toward cancer? I think it’s necessary, but not sufficient. Hence not causal, hence it doesn’t “cause” cancer by itself.
The more cells you have the more tickets to ride the cancer train you have.
The more kilojoules you consume the more excess energy there is for cancer to multiply quietly.
