Novel & Alternative Cancer Theories

Beyond the somatic mutation theory of cancer

Hi, I’m Aastha, and welcome to Live Longer World, where I interview scientists researching the frontiers of longevity science and write about health & longevity practices.

---

The most prevalent cancer theory is known as the somatic mutation theory (SMT). The theory states that cancer arises due to random genetic mutations which lead to uncontrolled cell growth.

SMT was first proposed in the early 1900s and it gained traction with the discovery of oncogenes and the genetic revolution in the 1970s. Since then, it has been the dominant paradigm for cancer. However, it doesn't lack criticism. Critics have pointed out that many cancers lack driver mutations, some cancer mutations occur in non-cancerous cells as well, and tumors with similar mutations behave differently depending on context pointing to the role of the tissue environment in cancer as opposed to just mutation.

In 1971, Richard Nixon declared war on cancer. Since then, we’ve unfortunately made little progress in solving deaths from cancer. 1,700 people a day continue to die from cancer in the U.S. And if someone were to have a stage 4 glioblastoma today, the outcome is no different than what it was 100 years ago.

It’s possible that these outcomes look so poor because the underlying theory of cancer is incorrect. We can’t solve cancer on the basis of an incorrect or incomplete theory. This also implies that we should be open to new alternative theories that might have better explanatory reach.

Over the past year, I’ve interviewed researchers who’ve offered new theories to explain cancer. Many of them are promising and worth exploring. This post summarizes some of the alternative cancer theories. I discuss:

1. The Bioelectric theory of cancer

2. The Atavistic (evolutionary) theory of cancer

3. The Metabolic theory of cancer

4. The Germ theory of cancer

5. Upcoming: The Water-bioelectric theory of cancer

The Bioelectric Theory of Cancer

The bioelectric theory of cancer says that cancer is a disruption in the bioelectric signals of cells and tissues. Every cell has its own resting membrane potential. In cancer, this resting membrane potential is disrupted when compared to a healthy cell. Researchers also speculate that these bioelectric signals act as a glue to coordinate cell behavior. Imagine a single cell has its own goals and motivations, just like how you as an individual have goals. But say you’re part of a sports team, as a team you have your own team goals, and the coach is the glue that coordinates behavior. Similarly, bioelectricity is the glue that coordinates cells to work in tandem. A disruption in this bioelectric signal can cause some of the cells to go rogue and not coordinate with the rest of the cellular group. This is what leads to cancer. In other words, bioelectricity is the language cells use to communicate with each other, and a breakdown in this communication results in some cells going astray from the group, resulting in cancer.

For more on the bioelectric theory of cancer, see:

X posts here and here

---

The Atavistic Theory of Cancer

Paul Davies and Charley Lineweaver popularized the Atavistic theory of cancer as they began to study it from an evolutionary lens.

The atavistic theory of cancer states that cancer cells revert to an old memory they have from billions of years, but forget the new memory. The old memory pertains to constant cell proliferation, which happened as single-celled creatures, and in fact in embryogenesis as well. The new memory pertains to regulating cell proliferation and cells knowing when to stop cellular division. In cancer, it seems like cells forget this new memory and revert to the old memory.

The atavistic theory also states that cancer mutations are not random, they can be predicted from an evolutionary lens. According to the theory, cancer is reversion to primitive cellular forms and by mapping the evolutionary genetic tree, we can predict the ‘newer’ genes from the ‘older’ ones, and determine which older primitive genes will be turned on in cancer. This prediction has important implications since by knowing cancer’s pattern of reversion, we can begin to target some of it’s weaknesses.

Find out more:

X posts here and here

---

The Metabolic Theory of Cancer

The Metabolic Theory of Cancer proposes that cancer is caused by damage to the mitochondria. It is primarily a disease of defective cellular energy metabolism, particularly due to mitochondrial dysfunction, not a disease of genetic mutations.

This theory contrasts sharply with the Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT) by claiming that genetic mutations are secondary — a downstream consequence of metabolic breakdown, not the root cause.

Cancer starts when cells lose the ability to efficiently generate energy via oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) in the mitochondria. To survive, cells shift to primitive fermentation pathways — especially aerobic glycolysis (i.e., the Warburg effect).

Thomas Seyfried, researcher who has driven forward this theory states that you can see mitochondrial dysfunction in every cancer cell. Find out more:

X posts here and here

---

The Germ Theory of Cancer

This is probably one of the least well-known theories, but very promising. The proposition is that cancer and other chronic diseases might be caused by latent viruses and infections. We already know that Human Papillomavirus (HPV) causes cervical cancer. And research indicates how the EBV virus shows up in Multiple sclerosis, and chlamydia pneumonia shows in Alzheimer’s. Similarly, HBV and HCV viruses are strongly associated with lung cancer and Helicobacter pylori is associated with stomach cancer.

Paul Ewald, popularizer of this theory, states how genes cannot explain the full reason for chronic diseases, and even if some viruses don’t cause cancer, they certainly seem to be a role. We see that treating glioblastoma patients with antiviral treatment is a promising therapy. Even breast cancer is associated with viruses.

X posts here and here

---

Note that none of these cancer theories proclaim to the be the only way that cancer arises. The theories are open to the idea that there could be multiple different reasons and hallmarks of cancer, including the ones mentioned above. We should be more open to the idea of incorporating some of these theories when studying cancer, and not solely be fixate on the somatic mutation theory of cancer.

In an upcoming post, I’ll be writing my conjectures on what I call the Water-bioelectric theory of cancer. If you want to nerd out on it, stay tuned! And let me know of other cancer theories on your radar.

To beating cancer,

Aastha