Not everything is a two way street. Cancer doesn’t cause smoking.
At the risk of sounding nuts: We don't know that.
There are various infections (often parasites) that mind control their victims and get them to engage in bizarre behavior that serves the goal of the parasite to reproduce.
I think ants infected with a particular fungus or parasite crawl to the top of grass stalks, making it more likely they will get eaten by cows which serves the reproductive needs of the infection.
Rats infected with a particular parasite are more aggressive and less likely to avoid cats. Getting eaten by a cat kills the rat but serves the reproductive needs of the parasite.
If cancer is caused by some infective agent that alters the right things in the body, maybe that makes it more likely that you will smoke, thus promoting the kind of environment that serves the infective agent so it can pass some threshold and become "cancer" when it's not recognized as such below that threshold.
You’re, of course, right in one sense - I can’t prove a negative. Cancer might cause smoking but we haven’t found the link yet. But the lack of evidence is suspiciously large at this point.
But the lack of evidence is suspiciously large at this point.
Such evidence will not be found if we never look because we already assumed the conclusion and dismiss those thinking out loud as nutters engaging in a lot of mental gymnastics.
To find smoking causing cancer you’d have to find smoking increasing amongst people who get cancer. I don’t have studies to point to but i’m pretty sure that’s been looked at. By the tobacco companies if nobody else
And it is not smoking that causes cancer, but exposure to chemicals, that causes cancer. And only if that exposure is critical. For the same reason you are able to take x-rays, but not often. So if you are smoking peace pipe ceremonially once per occassion - this is not going to cause you a cancer.
No, I wouldn't. I would have to prove, for example, that someone started smoking after getting human papillomavirus and that there was a mechanism plausibly linking the infection with the craving for cigarettes.
I don't readily know how to make the linguistic distinctions I want to make here. Sure, if you want to say "They first have to have a diagnosis of cancer..." okay, I'm dead in the water.
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that we don't fully understand what causes cancer so it's possible that whatever living thing is a factor in causing cancer may also alter behavior such that it makes a diagnosis of cancer more likely.
This is probably not worth discussing further. "You cannot solve a problem using the same mental models that created it" but those "proven" mental models are a handy means to dismiss someone in conversation as getting off the rails.
Thar wouldn't prove cancer causes smoking (or prove anything), but it would suggest the potential of a common cause between cancer and smoking.
I think I'm done here.
But to be fair, I can't see sense of following other logic of yours, because I recently lost a relative to a cancer and there was absolutelly nothing to blame for, except that she got into toxic environment, which killed her.
Also, if we come to that - did you know, that in UK there were cases, that spouse was poisoned by chemicals, that causes cancer - are you aware that there are thousands of medical drugs, that has side effect that might cause cancer? How are you going to explain those with your logic? So, apparently person is developing a disease, and in process of treating that disease, person develops a cancer... good luck in explaining that with behavioral impact, like you are trying to do on fixating on HPV, which is only one of thousands viruses that can potentially damage cells and eventually damage cell programming and cause a cancer.
Give your kids a vaccine against herpes and HPV and stap worrying about something you can't affect and reading those articles is not going to help, knowing that (constant)stress also causes cancer. Not intended to be rude, but women are more affected by hormones and no sex also can cause cancer. You don't have to be smoker and can eat healthy to get cancer nowadays, but to prevent degradation of cell programming is responsibility of genes.
So I would agree that this could be out of the box thinking that could have some truth to it. But I also doubt that research will be done in that direction unless there is some proof that justifies the expenditure. So we're likely to not know for sure, and most will assume it's not true.