I'm not your mate. What you are describing is what Hoyle posited in the 1940s. Observations in the 1950s showed that Hoyle's steady-state universe could not be correct.Mate. Hoyles initial theory was that through gradational or if you like, gradual gathering of additional matter or accretion of nucleons was the process. He found that the beryllium and Helium fusion would only take place if a higher state of the carbon atom existed. That blew a lot of previous ideas in his face. But that was the initial finding of his.
You seem to have a lot of faith in something and you make theories into facts in your belief system. Then you are speaking of fusion being a cause and pressure and heat mass and stars having lots of it etc etc for which I dont understand why. Not necessary.
One of the great things about learning is that you can keep doing it! And if you do, you will also find that you may very well have to modify what you thought you learned before. And that is never going to stop -- except for religion, of course, because religions hold that their dogma is already perfect and complete. Religions don't like learning that changes what they thought they knew before.
And I most certainly did not state that fusion is a cause - I very clearly said that it was a process, the result (not cause) of heat and pressure, and that even heat and pressure are not in themselves causes, but effects of a concentration of mass due to the force of gravity, which tends to draw mass together, in a relationship directly proportional to those masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.