CANCER. The weak organ.

What is really known about this "disease" which in 2007 was the cause of death of 7.6 MILLION people? Are tobacco and other substances the real cause of cancer? We are always told that lung cancer is caused by tobacco, is this true, and are there really substances that create one type of cancer or another?

To be honest, I have no idea. But not only me... but the scientific community in general.

But I do have a theory, well, a thought rather, about why it appears in one organ or another. According to me, and only me... (or so I think)... "CANCER APPEARS IN THE WEAKEST ORGAN OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SUFFERS FROM IT".

In a smoker, the weakest organ might be the lung...

I have long wanted to write about this topic. Motivated by having lived cancer up close (like almost everyone else), and knowing that it is very possible that I might have it in my own body (a statistical issue in developed countries), and as always, taking the internet as a GIANT source of information ready to be contrasted, I have been following the evolution and discoveries about this... "evil".

First of all, I have no medical studies, and what you are about to read are just my own reflections (like all my labyrinth of passions).

If you search a little bit on the internet, you will know that cancer itself is not a disease. It seems to be more of a symptom, and as I see it, perhaps it is simply a consequence.

With all the studies that have been done (and thousands of erroneous conclusions that are only based on statistics) we only know something not far from the beginning: we don't know why cancer occurs.

We know that cells in our body mutate, and every day more and more chemicals are "labelled" as possible carcinogens. That is, I suppose they mean that they are products capable of producing this mutation.

Some cells in our body suddenly start to grow uncontrollably. We don't know if it's because of a mutation in the cell (although that's what is assumed, a mutation in its DNA) or somewhere in our body that could control that kind of act. Any doctor would say that cells have that information inside them, in their dna, not needing any "organ" or substance to tell them how to grow. I am a computer scientist... and in the face of an error, I do not undo any cause. My job is to contemplate all possibilities, and when they are not found, to contemplate also the most illogical or absurd ones.

To the point.

We know that cells mutate. And they start to grow. It is possible that they transfer that information to other healthy cells turning them cancerous, that the cells react to these new ones with some strange mechanism, or that the growth is such that they don't need to "infect" anyone, being enough on their own as if they wanted to create a new body inside us.

But why do they mutate?

You don't have the faintest idea. Statistically, we try to draw some conclusions, but the exceptions are too common and too numerous to consider these statistics as scientific.

The research is open, whether it is due to some chemical products, radiation of different levels and intensities, or even some kind of virus that causes these mutations in our cells.

In other words... it is not known why they mutate.

It could be the electromagnetic fields that we generate, imperceptible leaks of nuclear energy, specific medicines, chemical substances with which we make plastic or bricks or the bottoms of tin cans, pesticides, chlorine and other products that we use to purify water, microparticles that we take in over time when we cut aluminium foil, or those that may remain on the dishes after passing through the effects of cleaning products.

We have no idea! But life expectancy today is longer than before the existence of these agents, because with our overcrowding there will not be enough food for everyone, nor enough hygiene. Nature! That lets us discover substances that kill us, but that make us live much longer before doing so.

As to why they mutate in one organ or another, we go back to the statistics. Thus, they conclude (with not a few exceptions as I say) that lung cancer is mostly caused by smoking. And skin cancer has a very special origin in sun radiation.

I will not recount all the existing conjectures, but what about the not inconsiderable number of exceptions?

I believe, from what I have read and thought, that cancer appears, and I don't know why, in an individual. And once the cell mutates in a person, or, whatever the cause is, triggers that disorder in a person, the place where it gives birth, the place where it all originates, is, or so I believe, in the most weakened organ that the person had. In the organ... or organs.

It is common for a smoker's lungs to be the weakest organ, although this is not necessarily the case. And so on with other "substances" or "habits" that come to explain the risk of cancer, and in my opinion, what they explain is the risk of it appearing in those organs and not in others.

I recently read other theories that, personally, I don't think are far-fetched. They talk about cancer (which would be a symptom of this "something") as if it were the action of herpes.

The herpes simplex virus is present in practically all of us. And it is when our defences are a little weakened by stress, poor diet or other reasons that it appears.

Some people say that the reason for cancer, nowadays, we all have it. And that when certain "advantageous" conditions are present in a body, that is when it shows its face. In my opinion, I still insist, in the weakest organ at that moment.

So, some talk about the fact that, without really knowing the origin that causes the mutation, in the meantime, we can only strengthen our body so that the "herpes" does not take positions in our body.

But well, as I said at the beginning, I have no medical knowledge, and I am not a cancer researcher. As always, I throw my thoughts to the wind.