Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Cancer Is a Man-Made Disease,

cancer man-made disease

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:46 PM

Cancer Is a Man-Made Disease, Controversial Study Claims:
Is the common nature of cancer worldwide purely a man-made phenomenon? That is what some researchers now suggest.

The rarity of cancer in mummies suggests it was scarce in antiquity, and "that cancer-causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialization," ... Read more


#2    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:06 PM

I didnt read article yet but I can already assume it is sam as with Osteoporosis. Ancient people didnt suffer from it. Because they didnt live long?
Doubtly. In Catal Huyuk we can found people died in age 60.
Its modern disease.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#3    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:06 PM

Quote

"Cancer is very rare in modern societies in humans under age 30," oncologist Dr. John Glaspy at UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center told LiveScience. "In ancient times, people rarely lived to be much older than that. So cancer was rare. The 'sin' of modern societies is having people live to be much older."

This quote is rubbish.


Too many children have cancer....


Loads of things in our lives give us cancer, a lot of things we don't need. The things is though, nobody in authority truly cares, cause it keeps the numbers down.

Cancer is like our own natural predator now. I think it's half nature and half the nasty stuff we eat and surround ourselves with.

Can you imagine our population without cancer?! It's why I doubt we will have a proper cure recognized by Doctors, pharmaceutical companies and other authorities.


There is ways to prevent and even sometimes cure cancer if you research it. It's all about what you put into your body etc.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#4    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,167 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:29 PM

View Postthe L, on 05 November 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

I didnt read article yet but I can already assume it is sam as with Osteoporosis. Ancient people didnt suffer from it. Because they didnt live long?
Doubtly. In Catal Huyuk we can found people died in age 60.
Its modern disease.
Read the link, they did suffer from cancer, it was just less common.


#5    DKO

DKO

    Ω is Futile.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Australia

  • When you hear hoofbeats behind you, don't expect to see a zebra - Unless you're in Africa...

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:30 PM

Posted Image

The average age of an Ancient Egyptian was 30. If they tested hundreds on random people that died before 30 nowadays then surely they would get roughly the same results.


http://www.cancerres.../incidence/age/
http://wiki.answers....ncient_Egyptian

Edited by DKO, 05 November 2012 - 01:35 PM.

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe it. - Neil DeGrasse Tyson


Confucius Says:

Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.

Man who wants pretty nurse must be patient.


#6    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,380 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:32 PM

View PostKarlis, on 05 November 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

Cancer Is a Man-Made Disease, Controversial Study Claims:
Is the common nature of cancer worldwide purely a man-made phenomenon? That is what some researchers now suggest.

The rarity of cancer in mummies suggests it was scarce in antiquity, and "that cancer-causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialization," ... Read more

This is really a problem with understanding the biological factors that lead to a malignant cell and understanding stastics.  Granted there are more things now that cause cancer because at one time no one even burned anything for heat.


#7    Cybele

Cybele

    Married to the Void

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • Prick your finger it is done
    The moon has now eclipsed the sun
    The angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:44 PM

This just seems like not the most well-designed study. I mean, you don't know the social class of the people mummified; the article says nothing about their age range, the fragility of the mummies, not to mention the difficulties that might insue from trying to diagnose cancer through anything but visual identification of large tumors--after significant disease progression.

There are, I think, a number of errors in this article.

1. "Cancer is very rare in modern societies in humans under age 30," oncologist Dr. John Glaspy at UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center told LiveScience. "In ancient times, people rarely lived to be much older than that. So cancer was rare. The 'sin' of modern societies is having people live to be much older."

First of all, I explained this briefly in another thread. It's a misinterpretation of life expectancy values to claim that people were dropping dead at 30, 40, whatever the average life expectancy was in ancient times. Life expectancies were low because of high infant mortality rates. So if you have 2 out of 3 babies not living to their second year of life, your overall life expectancy is going to drop significantly. In the ancient world, we have records of near-modern or modern lifespans in Greek philosophers and Egyptian pharoahs. I believe one of the Ramses lived into their 90's, Plato lived to 80, Aristotle 62, Socrates 71 (all according to wiki).

2. The rarity of cancer in mummies suggests it was scarce in antiquity, and "that cancer-causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialization," ...

I agree with what FurthurBB said above. Today, certain viruses such as HPV are known to increase the risk for cancer. A highly contagious cancer that is parasitic in origin is threatening the existence of the Tasmanian devil as a species. Were there no viruses or parasites in the ancient world? None of the high fat-intake and lack of exercise that are now said to increase your risk of cancers?

Cancer is not just caused by "man-made chemicals"; cancer etiology is usually very complex and multi-factorial, taking decades to develop. You can't tell an individual that "this" caused your cancer, you can only talk about increasing and decreasing risks on a population level. I don't have an in-depth understanding of oncology, but this article strikes me as very naive and simplistic.

Edited by Cybele, 05 November 2012 - 05:50 PM.

My sig: "Cryptorchid", Marilyn Manson

#8    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:02 AM

This is old:


http://www.unexplain...opic=192340&hl=


#9    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:05 AM

And having the advantage of 2 years of hindsight it was pretty easy to see this was a crap study. Dr. Novella from the period even;

Quote

File this one under – massive and unjustified speculation based upon limited data.
There are multiple news reportsof a recent study looking at mummies to see if there is any evidence of cancer. The results:


Professor Rosalie David, a biomedical Egyptologist at the University of Manchester, and a colleague, Professor Michael Zimmerman, searched for evidence of cancer in hundreds of mummies, fossils, and ancient medical texts. One might say that the silence was deafening.

This was an interesting study in medical forensics, but I do not think it is so obvious how to interpret it. The spin in the media is this:


The mummies don’t lie. David concluded that their findings, “along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message—cancer is man made and something that we can and should address.”

Slow down – let’s back up a bit. The assumption here is that if cancer occurred in ancient times there would be evidence for it in mummies. The authors are quick to dismiss the obvious factor that people live longer today, and age is the primary risk factor for cancer. The age range of the mummies they examined was 25-50. That’s young. The risk for most cancers really takes off after age 50, and continues to rise with age.
They also mention childhood cancers, but many of those are not solid tumors, but blood-based cancers like leukemia. There would be no tumors to find in a mummy. In any case, there does not appear to be any child mummies in their study.
So I don’t think the age factor can be so easily dismissed. This is not to say that there are not other factors that have increased the risk of certain cancers. Smoking is now common in the world, and is a major risk factor for lung cancer and some other cancers. Industrial exposure (from coal mining, for example) is also a factor.
Diet is often raised as a factor, and there is evidence that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables may be associated with a lower risk of some cancers. But the data is mixed, probably because the effect size is small. The data certainly does not justify blaming the modern diet for a significant increase in cancers. Also, we should not assume that the diet of ancient cultures was superior to the modern diet. It was much more restricted, and relied on a few staples, mostly grains. Today we have access to fresh fruits and vegetable from around the world year round. There are also some negatives to the modern diet, mainly in terms of excess, but it is not obvious how this all shakes out in relation to cancer risk.
Further it should be noted that this study is showing a lack of evidence, which is an inherently weak form of evidence on which to base conclusions. It is evidence, and as I said it may be saying something interesting, but much more thought and research will be needed to figure out exactly what.
Given all this, extrapolating from this mummy study to the conclusion that cancer is a result of modern society is scientifically absurd. But of course that is the dramatic conclusion that the media is going with in their endless effort (or so it seems) to confuse the public on all matters scientific.


http://theness.com/n...ies-get-cancer/


#10    JGirl

JGirl

    Pajama Goddess

  • Member
  • 9,016 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:British Columbia Canada

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:23 AM

i think it's in all of us. some people have the right set of circumstances, lifestyle, etc. for it to manifest itself.
i used to look with astonishment at those old ladies chain smoking their unfiltered cigarettes in the bingo hall, and they've probably been at it for decades. they're still here...

Edited by JGirl, 06 November 2012 - 03:23 AM.


#11    Simbi Laveau

Simbi Laveau

    Overlord A. Snuffleupagus

  • Member
  • 8,266 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2012
  • Location:Rim of hell

  • ~So what's all this then ?!

Posted 06 November 2012 - 06:35 AM

I read this a few days ago. Thank you for posting it karlis. I stopped posting items like this,because they are bashed ,as am I,because of my alleged biases .
I would say cancers existed before they were discovered by medical overviews in the 17th century,but given the causal connections made to things like smoking ,radiation and asbestos ,cancers of many kinds,have come into being.
If anyone has ever seen untreated breast cancer,you have to wonder why it was not documented somewhere by ancient man .
A woman breast turning into what looks like charred gristle,would have caught many a person's eye,especially in cultures that have women topless.
You don't hear of a lot of cases of women in these cultures ,with breast cancers .

I could be wrong . If anyone can show me cases of documented breast cancer ,from say ancient Rome,Egypt ,or even medieval times ,please do .

I picked breast cancer,as women get it ,at all ages ,not just old age.
There is also childhood cancers .
Can anyone say for sure children that died before the 17 th century ,died of a cancer ? Or was it malnutrition .

Edited by Simbi Laveau, 06 November 2012 - 06:39 AM.

Miss me?

#12    pallidin

pallidin

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,322 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:19 AM

There are many types of cancer.
Some cancers are totally benign and essentially stay where they are, grow to a certain size and stop; others metastisize into a potentially deady outcome, as they spread within and to various vital locations of the human body, continue to grow, and choke-off vital areas.

Curiously, malignant forms of cancer have sometimes been referred to as "immortal" cells, as they continue to reproduce themselves.
Some scientists are very interested in this, as many of "normal" human cells throughout our body can only reproduce themselves so many times. In natural death, cell non-reproduction/repair is what causes us to live only so long.

Edit: I am not a doctor, so I only speak from my experience of my mother having had two different cancers. The second one killed her. So my info might not be exactly correct, but I think essentially it is.

Edited by pallidin, 06 November 2012 - 07:28 AM.


#13    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 November 2012 - 08:54 AM

..Osteoporosis is modern disease.


On topic:
Maybe cancer is caused by magnetic disturbance of earth magnetic field and in our bodies.
Scientists suspect that cancer could be cure by magnetic force.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#14    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,833 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:03 AM

View PostSimbi Laveau, on 06 November 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:


I could be wrong . If anyone can show me cases of documented breast cancer ,from say ancient Rome,Egypt ,or even medieval times ,please do .

\

Quote

The world's oldest documented case of cancer hails from ancient Egypt, in 1500 b.c. The details were recorded on a papyrus, documenting 8 cases of tumors occurring on the breast. It was treated by cauterization, a method to destroy tissue with a hot instrument called "the fire drill." It was also recorded that there was no treatment for the disease, only palliative treatment.

There is evidence that the ancient Egyptians were able to tell the difference between malignant and benign tumors. According to inscriptions, surface tumors were surgically removed in a similar manner as they are removed today.http://cancer.about....ncerhistory.htm

Quote

Ancient Egyptians were the first to note the disease more than 3,500 years ago. Both the Edwin Smith and George Ebers papyri contain descriptions of conditions that are consistent with modern descriptions of breast cancer. For example, one nameless ancient Egyptian surgeon describes “bulging tumors” in the breast and states that “there is no cure.” In 460 B.C., Hippocrates, the father of Western Medicine, described breast cancer as a humoral disease. In other words, for Hippocrates, the body consisted of four “humors” (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile), which mirrored the building blocks of nature (air, fire, earth, and water)--and any imbalance of the system of humors caused sickness or even death. For Hippocrates, cancer was caused by the excess of black bile, or “melonchole.” This logic made sense to Hippocrates because the appearance of an untreated breast tumor would be black and hard, eventually erupting through the skin with black fluids. He named the cancerkarkinos, a Greek word for “crab,” because the tumors seemed to have tentacles, like the legs of a crab. Hippocrates considered surgery dangerous because those who had the tumor excised “perish quickly; while those who are not excised lived longer (Olsen 2002).
In A.D. 200, Galen, Hippocrates successor, also describes cancer as excessive “black bile” but, unlike Hippocrates, Galen also realized that some tumors were more dangerous than others. Galen also discusses a wide range of pharmaceutical agents to treat breast cancer, such as opium, castor oil, licorice, sulpher, and a variety of salves, as well as incantations to the gods. For humoral physicians, surgery to remove the tumor or entire breast was not even considered to be an option for a cure since they assumed the cancer would just reappear near the surgical site or somewhere else in the body. For Galen and physicians succeeding him over the next 2,000 years, breast cancer was a systemic disease, which meant it was a disease of the entire body, not just one localized part. The dark bile was believed to course throughout the entire body--so even if a tumor were removed, the bile would still remain in the body, ready to create more tumors.

Until the seventeenth century, physicians assumed that Galen had the final word on breast cancer and that there was nothing left to discover. However, in 1680, French physician Francois de la Boe Sylvius began to challenge the humoral theory of cancer by arguing that cancer did not come from an excess of black bile but from a chemical process that transformed lymphatic fluids from acidic to acrid. In the 1730s, Paris physician Claude-Deshais Gendron also rejected the humors theory and insisted that cancer developed when nerve and glandular tissue mixed with lymph vessels (Olson 1999).http://www.randomhis.../029cancer.html


"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#15    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:26 PM

View PostSimbi Laveau, on 06 November 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

There is also childhood cancers .
Can anyone say for sure children that died before the 17 th century ,died of a cancer ? Or was it malnutrition .

Most childhood cancers are cancers of connective tissues or soft tissues: Leukemias, lymphomas  and neuroblastomas. These are conditions that probably wouldn't have been recognized for what they are in antiquity with the knowledge of what cells even were. However that isn't to say it didn't exist or that they didn't recognize it as 'tumors' if it created large metastases that were visible to gross inspection.

For example there have been Homo erectus skeletons found with jaw tumors consistent with Burkitt's lymphoma, a cancer endemic to parts of Africa caused by epstein-barr virus. See A history of Leukemia





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users