Cancer is mostly man-made scientists suggest

[Xanikk999]

I'm under the impression that autopsies weren't permitted in Europe until at least the Renaissance, thus most cancers would go undetected in medical literature.

I dont think thats quite accurate. Maybe in some places but the renaissance was when Europe begun to discover more about the human anatomy. Maybe before then it was illegal.

 

[lutzj]

I dont think thats quite accurate. Maybe in some places but the renaissance was when Europe begun to discover more about the human anatomy. Maybe before then it was illegal.

It was still mostly illegal in the Renaissance; Leonardo da Vinci found many of his cadavers in the obituaries.

 

[Traitorfish]

Thanks for bringing this back up. I skimmed the pop-sci article, and was thinking about reading the Nature paper. I wonder if they controlled for cancer being a disease of aging. I expect they would, because it's the first objection I can think of. We have more cancer, because we have more people who're not dying for other reasons.

Yeah, I always figured that the reason cancer is so common these days was because there were less other things that were likely to take us down first. Same reason that disease only became a huge deal when we ran out of saber-toothed tigers*.

*Yes, this is utter nonsense, but shush.

It was still mostly illegal in the Renaissance; Leonardo da Vinci found many of his cadavers in the obituaries.

Although the increase in urbanisation did mean that it was easier to obtain bodies of condemned criminals, the one legal source of medical cadavers.

 

[Narz]

Interesting. Of course, even if does turn out that cancer is mostly a modern disease (which I doubt it will), that's an incentive for us to cure cancer, not retreat back to the stone age so we can die from heart conditions at the age of 60 instead of cancer at the age of 80.

Well I'd rather prevent it by minimizing cancer causing chemicals in the environment while we're waiting.

As for "retreating back to the stone age" I'm not sure who that strawman is aimed at.

Perhaps I'm an idealist but I do think most of the toxicity seemingly inherent in industrialized modern society can be eliminated or at least minimized. Simply waiting for "them" to find a cure for disease X when it's shown disease X is 80-90% preventable or at least delayable seems irresponsible & lazy.

Thanks for bringing this back up. I skimmed the pop-sci article, and was thinking about reading the Nature paper. I wonder if they controlled for cancer being a disease of aging. I expect they would, because it's the first objection I can think of. We have more cancer, because we have more people who're not dying for other reasons.

Plenty of people lived past 70 back in the day just that plenty of people also died at >1 and life was more dangerous. Also plenty of people today get cancer before 70.

Man-made, you say?

I say women are responsible for this one.

Well women do their part.

http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/cosmetics/cosmetics_personal_care.htm

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

About the mummies, the Egypts removed lots of tissue and organs during the mummification process (including the brain). That would have destroyed a lot evidence for cancer.

Adding to this, most of those who received elaborate ceremonial burials wouldn't have had a lot of stress on their body, seeing as they are of the higher classes. This study makes quite a leap of logic in saying that cancer is mostly manmade from said evidence.

Also, ever consider that increased rates of cancer are due to better detection? Many of our diagnostic biomolecular markers would be of recent discovery.

 

[Miles Teg]

Simply waiting for "them" to find a cure for disease X when it's shown disease X is 80-90%

Wait, wait, wait, hold the train. How in the name of all that is good and holy did we get from one study pointing out that the author could find many occurences of cancer in the ancient world to "modern life causes 80-90% of cancer occurences?"

It's the Science News Cycle, only hyper-accelerated!

 

[emzie]

I dont think thats quite accurate. Maybe in some places but the renaissance was when Europe begun to discover more about the human anatomy. Maybe before then it was illegal.

Yes, until the Renaissance, as in, illegal before then. I was thinking of

It was still mostly illegal in the Renaissance; Leonardo da Vinci found many of his cadavers in the obituaries.

da Vinci's dissections, yes.

 

[Zelig]

Adding to this, most of those who received elaborate ceremonial burials wouldn't have had a lot of stress on their body, seeing as they are of the higher classes. This study makes quite a leap of logic in saying that cancer is mostly manmade from said evidence.

Also, ever consider that increased rates of cancer are due to better detection? Many of our diagnostic biomolecular markers would be of recent discovery.

You know, from the study, it really looks like they already accounted for this.

 

[emzie]

Adding to this, most of those who received elaborate ceremonial burials wouldn't have had a lot of stress on their body, seeing as they are of the higher classes. This study makes quite a leap of logic in saying that cancer is mostly manmade from said evidence.

Also, ever consider that increased rates of cancer are due to better detection? Many of our diagnostic biomolecular markers would be of recent discovery.

In Egypt, everyone was mummified. You saved up your whole life for it. Not to mention, even if you weren't intentionally mummified, there was still a really good chance being in such an arid climate would result in your body being preserved anyway.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Yet the article still doesn't mention what I said about better detection due to modern technology. Or what J-man mentioned too.

 

[Miles Teg]

Yet the article still doesn't mention what I said about better detection due to modern technology. Or J-man mentioned too.

As far as the Egyptian stuff goes, it appears that the team tested actual mummies for cancers. I'm not sure how they can reliably detect the tumors in the midst of all the shriveled up flesh, but they seem fairly confident they can do it.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Finding only one case of the disease in the investigation of hundreds of Egyptian mummies, with few references to cancer in literary evidence, proves that cancer was extremely rare in antiquity. The disease rate has risen massively since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer – proving that the rise is not simply due to people living longer.

So they lack more evidence since the availability of mummies is limited from a measly sum of hundreds?

Well that says a lot that they're only suggesting that with the lack of a sufficient number of data indicate some probability of truth, but do not entail it.

 

[Berzerker]

if this is true, "primitive" societies today that aint plagued by pollution etc should show reduced cancer rates. Many people are thinking we've seen a spike in breast cancer because docs and parents were pumping young females full of high estrogen birth control pills the last few decades. And what about some forms of cancer resulting from viruses? Are there geographical variations in cancer rates? I've heard vita D is good for fighting cancer, and even though sunlight can result in skin cancers (dont know about for darker skinned people) it also produces large amounts of vita D.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

if this is true, "primitive" societies today that aint plagued by pollution etc should show reduced cancer rates. Many people are thinking we've seen a spike in breast cancer because docs and parents were pumping young females full of high estrogen birth control pills the last few decades. And what about some forms of cancer resulting from viruses? Are there geographical variations in cancer rates? I've heard vita D is good for fighting cancer, and even though sunlight can result in skin cancers (dont know about for darker skinned people) it also produces large amounts of vita D.

We have more tools, and research access that are already available to take on a global research than the time when the gyppos was burying the dead. But comparing with today's findings on cancer with findings on cancer over hundred of years ago, will only bring about a weak inductive generalization.

 

[Zelig]

Yet the article still doesn't mention what I said about better detection due to modern technology. Or what J-man mentioned too.

So check the actualy. Come on, this is published in Nature, the authors of the study aren't going to miss blindingly obvious answers to the question they're trying to answer.

 

[El_Machinae]

Plenty of people lived past 70 back in the day just that plenty of people also died at >1 and life was more dangerous. Also plenty of people today get cancer before 70.

I've no doubt that there are multiple factors. My objections are entirely merely 'for interest sake'. What I mean is that I'm interested to see how they handled the issue. It's an obvious issue, so I'm pretty sure they addressed it. I was in interested to see how


It's obvious toxins are an issue. I mean, for goodness sake, we recommend pregnant women not eat certain types of fish. Fish!

 

[Berzerker]

We have more tools, and research access that are already available to take on a global research than the time when the gyppos was burying the dead. But comparing with today's findings on cancer with findings on cancer over hundred of years ago, will only bring about a weak inductive generalization.

agreed, much less trying to bring 3,000 year old mummies into the comparison... I'm more interested in current rates from racial (skin color to be exact) and geographical variations.

 

[Bootstoots]

Hey, I don't know about you, but I'll take an increased cancer rate in exchange for modern technology. I've never really understood why people bemoan the relatively minor costs of living when we do. I mean, we still managed to increase the life expectancy by a factor of ~3.

 

[Tee Kay]

Hey, I don't know about you, but I'll take an increased cancer rate in exchange for modern technology. I've never really understood why people bemoan the relatively minor costs of living when we do. I mean, we still managed to increase the life expectancy by a factor of ~3.

But when that cost can be reduced, it'd make sense to do so, wouldn't it?

 

[Japanrocks12]

Cancer isn't manmade anymore than leprosy or chicken pox is.