The somatic mutation theory of cancer is incorrect - DNA mutations cannot account for the 10 Hanahan and Weinberg Hallmarks of Cancer

[Mark78L]

The somatic mutation theory (SMT) is being called into question. After 60 years it has failed to elucidate the specific mutations allegedly required to induce tumour development and cancer progression and fails to explain the vast majority of hallmarks as defined by Hanahan and Weinberg in their 'next generation' update:

'...despite 65 years of research on the mutation theory, there is
still no proof for even one set of mutations that is able to
convert a normal cell to a cancer cell.'  
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6115917/

'‘...mutations are increasingly being questioned as the causal
event in the origin of the vast majority of cancers as clinical data
show little support for this theory.’
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27160408/

Is cancer caused by something other than the DNA mutations stipulated by the SMT? Have we misunderstood cancer and is it time to consider different theories?
 

[KYRANI]

In fact cancer stem cells were discovered back in the late 1990s by Dr. John Dick M.D. and colleagues and then in early 2000s it was shown with breast cancer stem cells taken from a patient and transplanted into immunodeficient mice, that the cancer stem cells give rise to the very same tumor. That was done by Dr. Wicha M.D. and Dr. Michael Clarke PhD . 

Cancer stem cells and not mutations give rise to cancer. So what is the stimulus? That is the question.

[swansont]

That shows that cancer stem cells cause cancer. It does not show that mutations don’t.

[TheVat]

The role of mutagens (toxins, heavy metals, radiation, even viruses like Epstein Barr) in oncogenesis is pretty well established.

Mutagens can cause mutation in the BP sequence, either by interacting with proteins that bind to the DNA or by halting the repair machinery of DNA. 

Either interaction can up the level of mutations and prompt tumorogenesis.