Well, maybe it wasn't HPV after all. Second hand smoke is a risk factor that I did have. Grew up in a house where Mom smoked on the couch while we picked out her gray hairs. Continued in college, law school and work with lots of smoky bars and restaurants. Had to fly a lot in the seventies where my "non smoking" seat was right behind or in front of the smoking section with only imaginary barriers on the planes.
Here is a link to one person's lament - sounds like he had a tough time of treatment. I do wish he had suggested joining OCF instead of the ACS action line. Of course he offers zero proof of his supposition outside of hearsay from his doctors.
Smoking caused tongue cancer

[quote=Charm2017]Well, maybe it wasn't HPV after all. Second hand smoke is a risk factor that I did have. Grew up in a house where Mom smoked on the couch while we picked out her gray hairs. Continued in college, law school and work with lots of smoky bars and restaurants. Had to fly a lot in the seventies where my "non smoking" seat was right behind or in front of the smoking section with only imaginary barriers on the planes.
Here is a link to one person's lament - sounds like he had a tough time of treatment. I do wish he had suggested joining OCF instead of the ACS action line. Of course he offers zero proof of his supposition outside of hearsay from his doctors.
Smoking caused tongue cancer [/quote]

While I have quit smoking myself (3 months and 1 week ago) I find it astounding when doctors assert that a cancer was caused by smoking. As far as I know there are no tests available to determine the origin of a cancer.

Bravo Mike - and congratulations on stopping smoking too.

I also do not believe that the doctor can look at you and say "this caused your cancer". If they could, I would presume that after reading my first pathology report that states that they found no cancer anywhere but the tissue from the floor of my mouth that was removed I would not have a recurrence because I would know what caused it and would not do that anymore.

There is a lot of cancer out there and a lot of risk factors too. The area that I lived in in the west was known for nuclear fallout from testing a long time ago. There had even been payments made under class action suits. I had a well on my property - did I get cancer from the ground water?? Something that we are doing is creating more cancer in the world. Something that is different from the old ways. Maybe it is food additives, chemicals, second hand smoke, genetic engineering, who knows?

This man does sound terribly angry and certainly needs someone to be responsible for his cancer.

I prefer to be responsible for my future.

Patty

I agree that there must be something we are doing now that we didn't do earlier. Like you said Patty we are eating more pesticides and chemicals rather than organic food.. So much of our food is prepared food or preserved food. Look at margarine the chemicals alone and diet pop...(sugar substitues)

I think also we keep better records now. The numbers may have been higher but not recorded or the cause of death or illness unknown.

This being said supports what ya'll been saying though...although smoke cannot be good for humans in anyform.

You guys have to realize that in many cases we know certain things cause cancer. Not in everyone that uses them, this is a genetic issue, but in numbers vast enough to take the question pretty much out of the equation. Tobacco causes cancer. It s fact, not an guess, ditto second hand smoke. Millions of people have died because of it. We have essentially had the medical documentation since the 40's. If you engage in a known risk factor and you get a cancer.... the cause and effect issue is a mute point.

As to finite determination of a cause, in many cases there is. You find a cancerous cell and you find HPV16 in it, the mutation has characteristics that are unmistakable. This is only one example of many. If you do not believe this you should learn more about histology and etiology.

For sure there are some that we have no clue as to exactly where they come from, but that lack of understanding is not universally true to all cancers.

I agree that in HPV the cellular markers are there but if it's not there then they say it's HPV-SCC. There are no cellular markers to identify that tobacco was the cause, it's just assumed that tobacco caused the OC when there's a history of use pre Dx.

Now comes along a new group of people without a history of tobacco or even alcohol abuse and they test negative for HPV so to me something's missing. I know Brain wants me to get out of my "box" thinking but I just think that researchers have missed something that may better explain HPV-SCC. Perhaps the HPV testing is not very accurate or uniform?

Help me Brian. The more I learn about cancer, the less I think I know.

Yes Brian, there's no doubt that smoking contributes or causes cancer, heart disease blah, blah, blah. No argument on that. However, to the best of my knowledge, there is no test available that would allow a doctor to definitively state that an individual's cancer was caused by second hand smoke or directly smoking just as they can't definitively state that an oral cancer was caused by consuming alcohol. It is entirely possible for an individual to smoke, drink and have HPV and develop cancer due to another cause. On a side note, I see in the news today that third hand smoke is now becoming an issue ie. smoke particles in carpet apparently contributing to cancer in crawling infants etc.

Cellular mutations for many of the cancers are unique. In those cancers they can indeed tell you what began the mutation that led to that particular cancer. Leukemia would be one of these. I'm not sure what the point of your posting is. If you expose yourself to three known risk factors, that are well documented as the primary causes of the disease (90%+), you would like to state that it is likely that you came from some unknown source?

I will agree that there are no absolutes in cancer. But wanting to believe that you were biologically unique enough to not have what happened to millions before you, happen to you, and blame it on some esoteric other possibility, serves what purpose? Since you can't go back and change things, (nor change your genetic make up) this seems like a mental exercise that has few benefits other than rationalization. As cancer survivors, I would think that we have gotten a taste of the big picture enough that this kind of thing is no longer important to us. But you are right, in some instances people will never know which, of the may possible combinations of things, brought them to a specific place. But we certainly have a good understanding of why the vast majority of people come to this disease. Having said that, nothing in life is absolute... except perhaps that it will eventually end.

My point was merely to point out that it is folly, and pointless, for a doctor to make a statement attributing a cancer in an individual to an absolute cause. There may be a limited number of cases where the absolute statement can be made but I don't believe that the absolute serves any purpose other than to reinforce the guilt feelings a smoker, drinker etc. may have due to the negative stigma of their behaviour.

At any rate this topic probably doesn't warrant a long discussion and I understand and respect your view so end of discussion for me.

If you had been here for awhile, you would know that I have been particularly harsh on doctors who berate patients for lifestyle issues. I've even written letters to some of them regarding the manner in which they dealt with a particular patient. You are right, it serves no purpose. But where it is important is when a patient CONTINUES during treatment to engage in a known risk factor for the disease. Those patients have to be turned around, as we know that it diminishes survival rates in both the short and long terms significantly. Ideally this takes place by offering them a nicotine replacement therapy like inhalers or nasal sprays. These are prescribed far too little in my opinion. Harm reduction is essential.

As to guilt feelings, we are all the architects of our own situations in life. If I had known I was going to live this long, I wouldn't have treated my body like a rental car for as long as I did. That being said, I still likely could not have side-stepped a viral caused cancer. Guilt can be a useful emotion. Speaking only for myself, I have felt guilty about some of my past actions, and curtailed/reined in that part of my personality that allowed those events to take place. Fear and guilt, while negative, can often be pathways to growth. I am particularly thick skulled, and I can tell you in my own life, I sometimes only change when the pain of not changing exceeds the pain of change itself.