Cancer, Conspiracies, and the Comfort of Certainty

Nashita
13 hours ago
5 min read

When you think of conspiracy, you think Aliens, Area 51, UFOS. Why stop at extraterrestrials? Conspiracies that shape our world are human and happen right under our noses. Guest Writer Nashita explores the world of medical conspiracies at the Conspiracy Society (CONSOC)'s Cancer Conspiracy Forum.

Have you believed in outlandish tales?

“Sugar feeds cancer.” “Vaping is safer than smoking.” “Doctors hide cures because someone, somewhere is making money.”

Is it misinformation or malintent? These ideas were unraveled and discussed in detail at the Cancer Conspiracy Forum, held by the Conspiracy Society (CONSOC) at UNM.

Organized as part of a student-led public education initiative, this forum gathered students to examine cancer not as a disease alone, but as a cultural object, shaped by fear, media, and belief systems.

Leading the discussion were Tiong Yih Xin and Elaïa, Year 3 Biotechnology students. Tiong Yih Xin, whose research centers on triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and the molecular pathways shaping personalized therapy, brought a grounded scientific perspective to the conversation. Rather than presenting hard data, both speakers drew on personal experiences and highlighted how certain individuals see cancer and science as mutually exclusive, two worlds that simply don't overlap. The discussion was followed by a Rapid-Fire presentation led by Addie, a Nottingham Foundation Programme student, who emphasized the importance of how cancer is portrayed on screen, offering a unique perspective drawn from her extensive self-directed research.

What do we mean by “Cancer Conspiracy?”

When we hear the word “conspiracy”, we are quick to imagine shadow corporations and secret laboratories, but the forum quickly showed that cancer conspiracies are often much closer to home.

Whether taking the form of misinformation or myth, such beliefs reveal how wide the knowledge gap around these illnesses remains, giving the opportunity for lies to be embedded as seeds in truth’s soil.

One of the most common myths Elaïa encountered while working as an intern for the National Cancer Society Malaysia was the belief that sugar directly causes cancer.

“Sugar is NOT carcinogenic,” they explained. “The misconception comes from how sugar contributes to fat, and excess fat leads to inflammation alongside other comorbidities, which can ultimately increase the risk of cancer,” information which can be found from Cleveland Clinic among other health organization websites.

It’s a small difference, but an important one.

Cancer doesn’t come from just one food or habit. It comes from layers of biology, environment, and chance. Yet its causes are easier to swallow than complex truths. Diseases caused primarily through food thrive due to a sense of control. If an illness is blamed on diet, then health feels like something easy to manage.

Doctors and Devils alike?

“Misinformation doesn’t usually come from bad intentions,” said Elaïa. “People just want security.”

According to Elaïa, interns are often approached by patients asking for medical advice during cancer screenings. They usually trust whoever is the closest, even if that person is not qualified to diagnose or treat them. Interns are trained to redirect such questions to doctors.

However, there is an emotional gap that remains. In government settings, doctors are incredibly busy. Appointments are short. Patients leave with fear still in their bodies and questions still lurking their thoughts.

Where do these patients turn to? Folklore. Home remedies. Online videos posted on social media platforms.

When lab results feel cold, stories feel warm, and with stories lie misinformation and myths.

Vapes and Policy

Smoking was a vast topic discussed throughout the forum. Elaïa described instances where smokers rejected breath tests results linked to lung damage amidst cancer screenings, a consequence of smoking. Even when hit in the face with facts, some refused to accept their smoking as a cause of cancer.

The resistance, they declare, is partly cultural. Smoking is associated with stress relief, social bonding, and addiction. Due to the cultural significance of smoking, the conversations between the panelists expanded beyond medicine and included public health policies, touching on Malaysia’s plan to ban vapes by 2026.

Both Yih Xin and Elaïa questioned whether prohibition is an effective strategy. They raised concerns that outright bans risk creating underground markets rather than minimizing harm. It could become a potential gateway towards the use of illegal substances.

Elaïa argued the importance of including today’s youth in the conversation, rather than being treated as targets of regulation. Policies without youth participation will fail to resonate with the groups that policy makers aim to protect.

During the discussion, an audience member asked a posing question: “Why ban vapes and allow cigarettes to remain legal?”. In response, the panel explained that cigarettes are historically and economically significant, while vapes are newer products and are easier to regulate.

Elaïa also suggested a perspective that corporate interests could influence policy decisions. Although not proven, profit can shape health policies, allowing for conspiracies to blossom where transparency is lacking.

A cure for wellness.

A central theme of the discussion was the public belief that cancer has or should have one single solution.

Cancer is not a linear disease; different cancers behave differently at the cellular level. Yih Xin explained that treatments depend on mutations, receptors and how damaged cells repair DNA. Some cancers respond well to chemotherapy. Others respond better to surgery or immunotherapy.

For example, triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) lacks common receptors used in targeted therapy and has a higher chance of recurrence if not completely removed. These biological differences complicate treatment strategies.

However, many with limited knowledge of the topic assume chemotherapy is the only available treatment. When it fails, suspicion fills the gap: if medicine cannot cure, something must be concealed. The forum challenged this logic directly. It is not secrecy that prevents universal cures, but the variation in human biology itself.

“Cancer is not a one size fits all situation!” — Elaïa

To believe or not to believe? Cancer’s portrayal in Film.

A rapid-fire presentation shifted focus to media representation. The presenter, Addie, emphasized that cancer is a nuanced topic in Malaysia, with the media having tight control over the concept of this disease. The portrayal of cancer falls under two categories:

Cancer as a narrative device:
Cancer is often used in media to move a storyline forward. It is often seen as a stigma with themes of caretaking and death rather than resilience and fight. Characters with cancer are framed as fragile or delicate, reinforcing idea that the disease is inevitably fatal. This allows misconceptions to be reinforced. It manipulates viewers to not see patients as people but see them as an idea of what cancer patients are or could be.

Circulation of medical information and misinformation:
Such claims are frequently shared by seemingly credible sources, including health professionals on social media platforms or through official government information websites or brochures. In Malaysia, where superstitious beliefs remain widespread, there is a strong cultural tendency to trust home remedies as effective cures for conditions like cancer.

Addie compared Malaysia with Serbia regarding this topic. This vast comparison was shared due to their reliance on folk remedies despite scientific evidence against their effectiveness. The comparison suggested that belief systems are sustained by culture rather than geographical similarity.

But here is the problem. When professional healthcare is inaccessible and impersonal, traditional practices feel familiar and trustworthy.

Reflection

The forum challenged the assumption that misinformation can be solved by providing more facts. What was really revealed was a communication gap between professionals, patients, institutions, individuals, data, and emotion.

The forum did not attempt to simply “debunk” conspiracies. Instead, it asked why people believe in them.

Addressing cancer conspiracies requires listening, trust building, and full attention on how information regarding cancer is passed around.

Science that only speaks in technical language leaves room for stories to take hold. And stories, even false ones, carry enormous power.