Under normal circumstances, I would be writing this argument – it's politely called an “article” – with the typical background information and experience. But this is not a normal article, not normal at all. In 1971, Richard Nixon, then president of the United States, declared war on cancer. He did not use that word – war – but the policy document strongly suggested that we were in a battle, and Nixon wanted to emphasize that Americans were determined to battle it out with this “disease.”

“Yes, President Richard Nixon declared a 'War on Cancer' by signing the National Cancer Act of 1971 on December 23, 1971. This act significantly increased funding for cancer research, established the National Cancer Institute's independence, and created programs aimed at reducing cancer incidence and mortality. The 'War on Cancer' launched by the act has had a profound impact, leading to a 70% increase in relative survival rates for all cancers and the development of targeted therapies."

I was laying in a hospital bed in Santa Rosa, CA. I was dying, I could barely move myself in the bed. I could not really walk, if I did it was with extreme difficulty. This was the first week of July 2024. 15 months ago. My oncologist told me at this time that I had only several more months to live. He thought I had pancreatic cancer, but he was waiting for the biopsy results to come in. How did I react? It is actually pretty interesting to say that I was not alarmed, I was not alarmed at all. And why? I sensed that I was not going to die, and that I did not have pancreatic cancer. To be honest, I did realize that I was dying, and I realized I might very well die, but I was rationally analyzing the situation – the situation in my brain and body – and I was confident that I did not have pancreatic cancer. And that I would not die.

My oncologist – I would identify him, but I will spare him the fame – did not really take me seriously when I politely demurred and told him that I did not have pancreatic cancer. I am not really sure he knew who I was at that point, probably not. How did I know I did not have pancreatic cancer? Two reasons: 1) the CT scan showed I had two large tumors very near my pancreas and spleen, actually really large, and these would have been felt by me, they would have caused either serious discomfort or pain, and they did not; 2) pancreatic cancer, at an advanced stage, causes a diabetic condition to develop, which tests showed I did not have, I was not at all diabetic or even pre-diabetic. I told my oncologist this.

I am not criticizing my oncologist, he's an outstanding man and he's now a friend of mine. I don't need to tell my audience who I am, you all know who I am by now, so I will not tediously repeat this biographical information. I was able to analyze my situation, of course this analysis was buttressed by results of all the tests I was undergoing. After about 13 days or so, since being admitted in the hospital, the results of the biopsy came in: large diffuse B-cell lymphoma, a white blood cell cancer. It is a liquid tumor, in fact they call it “liquid cancer.” It is not a solid tumor.

I plan on writing up a detailed article, actually part two of my first article on my cancer, so I will not say more about my cancer experience here. This is an academic exercise, but it is one with a special input – personal experience. I know what I am talking about, because I have experienced this “disease” myself.

And what's funny is that I am now, for the 4th time – I did it with epilepsy, with “psychiatric" disturbance, with obesity, and now with cancer – declaring that cancer is not a disease. That's right, it's a not a disease.

What is it then? It is “the normal functional expression of aging.” Getting old, the biology is getting tired and old, and mistakes are made, mistakes made by the genetic material.

Aging is caused by “mutational load” and cancer is the almost inevitable expression of this mutational load.

Mistakes build up, and at some point they cascade and grow exponentially, or near exponentially. Death results – it is not necessarily premature death. It is just normal to have this phenomenon in the body and brain, it is called aging. Perhaps you will want to call it “the process of getting nearer to death.”

“Mutational load refers to the accumulation of harmful genetic mutations in a population or individual. It is a measure of the genetic burden caused by these mutations.

Mechanism:

Mutations occur spontaneously during DNA replication or can be induced by environmental factors. Deleterious mutations, which reduce an individual's fitness or survival, tend to accumulate over time.

Impact:

Mutational load can have a significant impact on population health and evolution. It can lead to: Reduced fertility and reproductive success, Increased risk of genetic disorders and diseases, Reduced lifespan, and Reduced overall fitness.”

The technical details are beyond the scope of this article, obviously. But I figure I am correct, this is basically what cancer is. The etiology of cancer is pretty much the same as the etiology of aging. I deploy the technical word “etiology” because this is a scientific argument, I am proposing a scientific theory.

I remember reading that your chances of getting cancer are about 1/30,000-1/50,000, if you are 30 years old and under. If you are 65 years old and over, your chances of getting cancer rise dramatically, to about 1/3 or a bit higher, maybe even as high as 2/3. These are rough estimates, because cancers differ, and differ quite a bit. 50 years ago, the chances of dying from cancer were much higher. I will check to see if these estimates are reasonably accurate, I tend to think they are, but I will certainly check.

So, a precise definition of cancer and “the process of aging” – and the inevitable death – is this: homeostasis breaks down in function, becomes effectively dysfunctional, totally failing. Then death results.

Cancer and aging are basically the same, as I have argued.

“Homeostasis is the ability of an organism to maintain a stable internal environment, such as body temperature and blood sugar, despite changes in its external environment. This self-regulating process helps the body function optimally for survival and can be compared to a thermostat that keeps a room at a consistent temperature.”

How important was getting cancer myself – lymphoma – to understanding what is going on? I would have to admit that it was crucially important. I could tell what was going on in my body. I was a witness to everything. Now, admittedly, I was beginning to suffer from dementia as the power of the cancer built up, and was destroying my body and brain, but I was sufficiently lucid and intelligent to analyze what was going on. Of course, I had the data coming in from all the myriad of tests that were being done on me. And the hospital staff worked me through every conceivable test – one nurse told me I was getting all the tests possible. They were really taking care of me!

I am so grateful to the hospital staff for saving my life. Their efforts were amazing. As I was leaving the hospital in a wheelchair in the sun of Santa Rosa, I was – I confess – crying. Almost sobbing. I was alive. I could hardly move myself from the wheelchair and into our VW Golf TDI. I had to be helped by my wife and the medical assistant. So, I will say it once again: getting near to death is quite an experience. It was a valuable experience.

And I am here on Earth to tell this story, the story of what cancer is, what aging is, at least this is what I expect the answer to be if you are asked the question. I got the impression that this is basically correct. I have a pretty good degree of confidence that it is basically correct. Obviously, it was almost indispensable – probably indispensable – that I had the personal experience.

Cancer works to break down the function of homeostasis. And things start going into an uncontrolled trajectory, an uncontrollable trajectory. This is, as I said, an expression of mutational load, an expression of mutations. Genetic mistakes.

I have to admit that I have been thinking of what cancer might be since I was teenager. Several days ago I realized that my first thoughts about cancer, and what it might be, were way back in 1972 or so. I had a friend at Saratoga High School, and she had a friend who had a male friend, he was in our high school. I only knew of him through these young ladies. I will never forget first looking at him. He looked about 20 years older than he really was. He was our age, maybe 2 years older, so if I was 16 he was 18. He was balding, and he just looked old. I would not be exaggerating to say he looked a good 20 years older than his real age. I was shocked, and appalled. I did not say anything, of course.

But I remember thinking to myself, “what is this all about?” How could this be? His advance into the process of aging was accelerated, obviously. Really accelerated. I would not be surprised that he's now dead. I have no idea what happened to him, but I would guess he is probably dead. I was very slow to develop, I looked very young. Most of my classmates looked a good deal older than me. If I recall, the Class of 1976 had about 475 students, and I would say that the vast majority of them looked a good deal older than me.

This is genetic, of course. So cancer and aging are largely genetic. But I have identified ten variables that determine the course of aging and cancer. As I say in the title, they likely determine the course of aging and cancer. I am proposing this theory, I am not asserting that I have expertise on the problem/challenge of cancer and aging; these are my observations, based on my research and my experience.

By the way, after about 19 days or so, almost 3 weeks, nurses told me that I would be discharged from the hospital soon. I was in disbelief. The hospital was my new home, and I could not really imagine leaving it for my real home at that point. It is not that I wanted to stay, but I felt anxious about leaving. I could not really believe I was not going to die.

So, here are the 10 variables, and I would assert that the first is the foundational variable. You will see why this would be so after you read through this entire argument, and absorb its meaning. I would say that all ten are equally powerful, no one is more important than any other, they are all equal; however, the first, as I have argued, is the foundational one.

1+ cell turnover, cell recycling, the trajectory of this recycling process. All cells in the body and brain – with the exception of neurons, apparently – recycle and turnover, they die and then renew themselves. This gives life, of course. In fact, I can quote my oncologist, a graduate of a major medical school in the United States. He and I had a discussion about this in his office, during one of my visits with him. “It's amazing that more things don't go wrong with the recycling process, so it is genetic, they are 'mishaps' that happen in the genetically-driven cell recycling process." I had the impression that the recycling speeds up as you age, but this might not be true, it might be slowing down. This is not clear, the reality. It makes sense to me that, as you age, this cell turnover increases in speed. So, a liver is recycled every month or so. Every month you basically have a new liver. With the lungs it is up to 1.5 years or 2 years. You will have new lungs. Endothelial cells turnover as well, all cells do as I said, except neurons.

“Endothelial cells form a single-cell layer lining the inside of blood vessels, lymphatic vessels, and the heart. They act as a crucial barrier between the bloodstream and surrounding tissues, controlling the passage of substances, regulating blood flow, and playing a key role in immune responses. These cells are vital for cardiovascular health, with damage to them leading to conditions like hypertension and atherosclerosis.”

A “fatty liver” sometimes ends up as cancer in the liver. So, it is likely that atherosclerosis is not unlike a fatty liver. Getting cancer in the interior of the arteries is rare, but it does happen. In fact, the slower the turnover the cells, the more rare the cancer. Glioblastoma is a rare cancer, lymphoma is relatively rare, and endothelial cell cancer is rare as well. I am simply citing examples. There is a “process” and this process is pretty predictable, it seems.

To summarize, this process is essential to maintain homeostasis and to maintain life. Any breakdown of this process into something which is dysfunctional will result in cancer and death.

2+ genetic material quality, if there are problems with inferior genetic material, then there will be a higher chance of cancer and then death, early death. So, aging is pretty much a function of the genetic material, in my opinion. I would cite the differences in genetic quality of the races, but I will be accused of “racism” so I will just say that it is clear that some races live very much shorter lives than, for example, the Europeans. This is undoubtedly due to inferior genetic material. Children getting cancer does happen, but it is very rare. There is little doubt this is mostly due to inferior genetic material. Mishaps take place, very early in the life processes.

3+ sleep, sleep is where you have the establishment of homeostasis, when the “biological system” is maintained, where balance and stability is established and maintained. My father, a NASA research engineer, and I were once talking about this. He is 95 years old, and he asserted to me that he believed that a long life is possible if sleep is sufficient and functional. He basically said that he believed the more you sleep the longer you will live. Homeostasis. It is established and maintained during the sleep function.

4+ efficiency of the lungs, efficiency of the inhalation and transport of oxygen to all the organs and cells and especially to the brain. One way to illustrate the importance of the lungs is to describe what happens to you when you get infected with Covid-19. You do not die of Covid-19, you die of the inflammation in the lungs. When the lungs shut down their function, there is insufficient oxygen being transported to the brain and organs, and if this goes on at a serious level for some two weeks, then death is the result. Cancer patients who are younger and have good lung function will have a much better chance of surviving cancer and withstanding the ravages of chemotherapy. Old people with poor lung function will succumb to the cancer very quickly. You die from damage to the organs, the cells of the organs.

5+ cardiovascular efficiency, the transport of blood and nutrients to the organs and brain. It is obvious that if this efficiency is diminished to some degree, then cancer is much more likely. Homeostasis is thus more difficult to achieve and maintain. A narrowing of the arteries will of course mean less efficiency, and a higher chance of getting cancer and speeding up the aging process. This is obvious, isn't it?

6+ mutational load, which builds up as you age, and which, at some point, becomes so much a burden that cancer results. The older you are the more likely you will have an excessive build up of what I call mutational load.

7+ exogenous as well as endogenous assaults on the turnover of cells in the body and in the glial cells in the brain, of course I am referring to poisons [including alcohol] and toxins, smoke in the lungs, this is a fairly well understood exogenous cause of triggering cancer. Endogenous assaults would be hormones, so for example cancer in the female mammary glands would be largely a result of not using those mammary glands after giving birth. Then same would apply to a male's prostate gland, which makes semen. If a male does not ejaculate often enough, then the chances of developing prostate cancer later in life are higher. This is my estimate of the reality. I am citing two examples to illustrate the endogenous threat to cell turnover and maintaining homeostasis.

8+ nutrient absorption efficiency, this would be once again disrupted by the failure to maintain homeostasis, and that's because these critical nutrients are required in the brain and organs to keep the “biological system” going. Again, we are talking functionality. My father asserts that this nutrient absorption efficiency declines with age, and that by age 65 the body is much less capable of maintaining sufficient absorption rates. Thus, supplementing the body [and brain] with these nutrients and minerals and vitamins is critical. When I was in my 30s, I was skeptical – this is when he told me this – that his theory was correct, but I now concede that he was [likely] correct.

9+ immune system strength and efficiency, and this is perhaps not fully understood by medical scientists. This became apparent to medical doctors in San Francisco in the late 1970s. Homosexual men were getting kaposi sarcoma, which is a rare cancer. It was not appreciated at the time that these men were homosexuals, and that these men were infected with the HIV virus. The virus was attacking and disabling the immune system, and the result was this type of rare cancer.

“Kaposi sarcoma (KS) is a rare type of cancer that affects the blood vessels. It is caused by the human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8).”

The immune system is no doubt always attacking malignant cells, whenever they appear, and if the immune system is not fully functional, then cancer will get going and aging will accelerate. Older age means a weaker immune system, therefore cancer is much less often seen in men and women under 30 years of age. There is now a clear increase in what medical scientists are describing as “early onset cancer” – cancer which appears in the prime of life, in the 30s and 40s. Since the 1980s, this early onset cancer has been growing at a rate of about 2%/year. It is a dramatic increase in prevalence. I would argue that is mostly a function of genetic diversity and inferior genetic material. I very much doubt that it has anything to do with exogenous assaults on cells. If anything, exogenous assaults on the cells of the body and brain have greatly diminished in the past 60 years or so.

10+ stress, which exerts pressure on all the systems of the body and brain, and this of course means “stress hormones” are much more present than they normally should be. Homeostasis is therefore more difficult to achieve and maintain. It is undoubtedly true that if you are lower on the socioeconomic scale, you will be more likely to succumb to cancer and your aging will be at an accelerated pace. Again, this is likely due to “system integrity” – the functionality of the genetic material, the quality of the genetic material.

It should be obvious that the living body and brain of the human mammal is an extremely complex system. So complex it is truly astonishing. Actually, it is truly shocking how complex it is, and that it works as well as it does! These are the 10 variables that explain cancer and aging – and cancer and aging are, as I have argued, the same thing, the same phenomenon. Cancer is aging, and aging is cancer.

This is my thesis, and theory. It seems to me to be pretty good. After all, I have had the privilege of being a victim of malignancy. I have felt it firsthand. There's nothing like personal experience!

My conclusion, which is admittedly pretty startling: to prolong life, and stave off cancer, I will recommend that everyone undergo chemotherapy or radiation – starting at age 40-45 or so, and it would be repeated every ten years or so. This will “clean up” the mutational load, the bad cells. In fact, it will destroy them -- obliterate them -- thereby increasing your chances of living longer. This will prevent homeostasis from breaking down and failing.

Prophylactic chemotherapy and prophylactic radiation therapy, ionizing radiation. 

I would estimate that living to 150 is certainly possible, even likely. This would only apply to higher quality genetic material. I am referring to Europeans and East Asians. I saw that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping recently spoke of living to 150 years, I think this was when they were meeting recently in Beijing. I speculate that they were referring to my assertion that this will be possible. I published at bottleneckanimal.com a “15 Minutes WAM Media” on July 15, 2025:

How to Extend Life in the Human Mammal? Aging & Cancer...Their Relation to Each Other...Telephone Message Left for Mr Tony Wyss-Coray PhD stanford.edu

We will move medical science from quasi-science to real science. It is unfortunately true that “making money” and revenue and income is now largely dominant, much more dominant than it should be. Yes, remuneration is important, indeed it is critical, but it must not drive research and clinical practice. Extending life is our paramount concern, and goal. And I think it is perfectly feasible. Doubling our years on Earth, for the homo sapiens, is going to happen, I predict. And it could be pretty soon, within a decade or so. OK, let's say within 20 years. It's truly remarkable, isn't it?

By the way, I never thought I would get cancer. I knew I would age, I was accepting that, but I really never thought I would get cancer. I have presented what I think of cancer and aging. I hope this has been a useful and even powerful summary of what is going on in the human mammal body and brain. Good luck!