The cause of cancer (or causes)

[vannah]

I would really like to hear anyones view on what they believe causes cancer.

I ask this because I am baffled and devastated by the number of people I know or know of who have died of cancer in the past 5 years, most were young - ie in late 30's/early 40s.

I firmly believe that its more to do with emotions, and the effect of stress on your cells, more so than diet. I say this because of the people I know who have died, unhappiness seems to be the common denominator - or 'bitterness'.

Some people agree with me, a few friends believe its more likely genetic (though I believe this is not true for all cancers),

what are your thoughts? If you knew of someone who died, would you say that unhappiness or poor diet may have been a link?

thankyou

Exactly, MB!

My ex h's MIL 'went downhill' fast the second time she had cancer, after 5 years of remission.

Because of the type of cancer she developed, mostly, an atypical lung cancer (she first had metastatic breast cancer).

Nothing to do with her emotions or attitudes, she kept on fighting till the end.

In fact, she even hung on until her boys were able to turn around after she'd sent them home and come back to her side in hospice.

But she was diagnosed in August and died at the end of January.

Kew, I take your point about the survival rates and take back my comment about attitude possibly making a difference to survival rates in some situations. I have heard contradictory information about that point and probably just hope that it is indeed the case. With the exception of that comment, I was basically agreeing with everyone who said that their are a whole host of factors that contribute to causing cancer.

I appreciate that it is a devastating disease that many people, including MNers, are personally living with and that a certain level of sensitivity should be maintained for the sake of those for whom it is a daily reality. I think that the OP was simply trying to make sense of what is basically senseless, so I think maybe we should not be too hard on her.

Dh was given 3-6 months to live in Dec 2006.

that he is still alive is due to bloody good medical care and the 'luck' that his tumours responded well to his primary treatment, and now to the second line treatment.

Re being hard on the OP. I spendt all day in the oncology unit. That was hard.

I've had to tell my kids (11 and 7) that they father is dying, that is hard.

I'm 45 and am looking at the rest of my life without the man I love, that is hard.

Trust me, I bit my lip and was as polite as I could be when I read this cobblers

Certain strains of HPV, for example, are known to feature in over 90% of all cervical cancers, for example.

And some cancers are almost exclusive to smokers or found predominantly in smokers.

Ditto some cancers occur more in obese individuals and it's thought there's a link between the hormones secreted by excess andipose tissue/cells.

But again, it's generally thought a combination of factors - genes, environmental hazards, diet, etc.

I mean, can I emotion myself into being rich, too? . I could wish or want it from now till doomsday, but it won't happen without some hard work and luck in combination!

Are some caused by a virus does anyone know? Or is that not right?

It's a horrible thing. High up in my thoughts today.

some Viruses can cause mutations in the patients genetics.

sorry, that was my ex MIL and my ex h's mother who died from cancer, age 50.

my mothers cancer was "terminal" (actually one stage before but rapidly growing and aggresive so they explained that "realistically they weren't looking at a cure"). I checked out the stats and 5% of cases of her kind and stage of bladder cancer survive two years.

She was convinced she was going to die, and was defintiely not optimistic (and is not by nature).

Three years on she is in remission (what they call a total response). I put it down to:

1. a big pile of chemo and radio - the fantastic Royal Marsden were prepared to nuke her when a local hospital might not have bothered
2. 5% survive past two years, she is just one of the 5% - who knows why? I'm just glad she is.

martianbishop--it strikes me that probably YOUR care of your husband has contributed to his longer-than-expected survival, too. It must be so much harder for people who don't have loving spouses. But God knows, the pain of doing it must be unbearable some days.

MB - my mums cancer also luckily responded to the inital chemo - the consultants noticeably perked up when they saw it. I think that inital reponse can be a good indicator of defying the odds.

One "contollable factor which does affect survival rates (though I'm not sure by how much) is if you are treated as part of a drug trial (as my mum was). Even if you are in the control group (as my mum was) your survival rates improve. I discussed this with her consultant when we were asked if she would like to join the trial and I jumped at it (becuase I had already done the research and knew). Consultants opinion was that most trials are done in centres of excellence which tend to improve survival rates.

I'm sure there's something we should learn from that but I'm not sure what...

and just to buck that thought bridie... my mum had no loving partner...

I'd be really reluctant to ascribe improved survival rates to these type of things - its nice to think they might make a difference (and of course they do to you as a person - cancer treatment is miserable enough without having good support through it), but I think it is dismissive of the science and medicine which does so much to save and extend so many lives.

Am I being too clinical about it?

Very true, Kew!

Ex h's mother's lung tumour did not respond at all to the chemo, and only slightly with other drugs.

She was ineligible for all the trials she looked into because she had previously had metastatic breast cancer.

On the other hand, I know a man who beat the same type of lung cancer she had. He even blew most of his retirement savings because there was such a limited chance of survival beyond 5 years.

I'll never forget a group of us waiting for him when he went to get the results of his last scan.

He came into the cafe he ran and managed, sad-faced.

We were all about to burst out crying when he smiled and said, 'I'm f*cked working in here for the rest of my life, because I blew all my retirement and baby, I'm gonna LIVE!'

Oh I agree--medical treatment for cancer could, realistically, save my life or my children's, though I hope very much that I have not passed on my genes to them.

I am so sorry to hear about your dh MB. I have very limited experience of cancer compared to you, and only wanted to state that I believed that the factors that contribute to cancer are very complex.

Again, I apologise for wading into this debate and for being, in any way, insensitive.

Two years ago I was diagnosed with Breast cancer - being 32 at the time and had only recently had my DD2. I was fit, healthy - organic diet, never smoked and liked a glass of wine every now and again (what mum doesn't?) - I was however a 'worrier' and got 'stressed' over silly things, like how clean my house was. I believe my stress contributed to my cancer - Ironically it has made me a much stronger and more positive person and I feel blessed to have this second chance at life. I firmly believe that my positive outlook and 'bring it on' attitude has enabled me to beat this. Not to mention the added incentive of seeing my DD's grow up. I don't think you can ever guess how you will react to such news - I would have thought I'd be the one to go to pieces yet my reaction was totally the opposite. Life is good - though I still plump cushions too often!!!!

When we discovered about our genetic predisposition the genetics team wanted us to get blood samples from family members in Australia who'd had the cancer and survived.

Because they are believers in chiropractic (sp?) they wouldn't do it. I wasn't surprised but it did seem like a wasted opportunity to prevent more of us from getting it.

i think that no dealing with emotions is not healthy, i don;t think that it causes cancer or anything as simplistic as that. being stressed with no outlet is not good for you, but being upset or stressed cannot simply cause your cells to become cancerous.

i know a young woman who died of cancer, she had a loving husband, 2 wonderful children and a wonderful life. she died regardless of those things, and got cancer regardless of those things

ascribing vastly simplistic reasons to why people get cancer is not a good idea.

if there was an established causal link then we would know about it.

cancer charities are looking all the time for more money for research. it is not just a question of being happier or eating more fruit, although those things can help generally with our well being.

my thoughts are that some cancers can possibly be genetic.. eg the breast cancer genetic link (BRCA?) and there is a link between HPV and cervical cancer, but there won;t ever be a one size fits all answer or cure.

thats a shame bridie.

it always winds me up when people survive cancer and ascribe it to being positive/drinking yoghurt/chiropracty etc when its more likely the result of hard working doctor, nurses, radiographers, researchers and years of experimenting on and learning from patients like my grandad who they cooked with chemotherapy in the 70's.

It comforts me to think that the hell of the treatment he went through might in some way have contributed to the survival many years later of his daughter.

While is it very sweet and kind that people think that I may have some role in DH's survival, the reality is thatI don't.

He is alive because his consultant is an amazing, on the ball doctor, who has kept right up to date with the most recent clinical trials......he had finished treatment, and then about 2 months later she got new data and started his current treatmnet. Thankfully he was lucky enough to respond.

But it was down to luck.

He is positive, because if you only have a limited amount of time, you want to spend it in as positive way that you can, it doesn't always work, but we both try our best. And it isn't being brave either, everyone wants to live and make the most of whatever time they have.

Every three weeks we go to the oncology unit. And do you know, I don't think that I have ever seen anyone there who has 'given up' on life. God knows you wouldn't put yourself through the side effects of the Chemo and the indignity of the treatments if you did.

I'm sorry if I was curt in my first post, its just that this 'Think positive and you will live' sounds worryingly like' And you, you miserable bastard, you brought this illness on yourself'

Be positive if you can, because being positive is good. But there is no proof that being upset causes cancer.

very good book on the subject by a onco-dr

link

he is not an oncologist (I don't beleive) -he is a GP (or at least American equivalent of)

I find books like that so irritating and frustrating
I think you'd be hard pushed to find a cancer sufferer who doesn't cling on to life even when faced with the seemingly inevitable, and to suggest that people are somehow responsible for how their illness progresses is really quite obscene.

I was diagnosed with cancer in Sept 05. It was a total b*stard of a cancer and my prognosis was poor. I'm still here with no evidence of disease. I think that had a lot to with luck and a little to do with some changes I made to my lifestyle, including having a lot of psychotherapy. I had a load of emotional stuff that I'd not dealt with for 20 years, and I do think that that level of stress on my body had an effect. But I don't see it as the only reason I was ill - I see it as one of several contributory factors.

There is no evidence that stress and emotions have any kind of causal role in cancer. All cancer is caused by genetic mutations in cells, ultimately- most people will have some kind of an inherited predisposition, whether a minor or major effect, and exposure to carcinogens will obviously interact with this. A hell of a lot is down to sheer bad luck on a cellular level- we have mutations arising every day, it's just rotten luck when one of them sets up down a tumorigenic pathway.

can I just say that was a wonderful use of the word tumourigenic

I will use it next time I do 'proto-oncogenes' with my sixth form!