Cancer- A Man Made Disease

[mommysboy]

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/205472/Cancer-is-a-man-made-disease-say-scientists

That's what the white coats are saying.

Personally, I think there is truth in it, but the main point is:

It's a disease of longevity IMHO.

Thought could benefit us all to air views.

[Ulysses G.]

The team investigated ancient Egyptian remains, looking for signs of the disease. They diagnosed cancer in an Egyptian mummy for the first time – but they say finding just one case after examining hundreds of mummies proves the disease was then extremely rare.

Average life expectancy back then was about 30 years old. There are not a great number of 30 year olds with cancer.

[ktamp]

There probably is some truth to environmental factors contributing to cancer. But it's not a man made disease.

I have a rare syndrome that caused my cancer. It is a hereditary syndrome that runs in my family. My cancer was caused by a genetic inherited error.

[richard_smith237]

I was always under the impression that cancer is the by product of evolution. Not in the sense of evolution by design but rather natural selection, whereby 'bad' cancers would cause life threatening illnesses, but some of the cancers could benefit a species and generate advantages which may be carried forwards. Over millions of years this combined with natural selection is evolution.....

I also believe that through the substances we have created mankind has been a catalyst for cancer. We have not created anything, however we may well have destroyed as well as sped up some natural processes.

Also - Once we have cracked cancer, heart disease and many other illnesses associated with death, more will come along, we might live to 150 years old in the future but instead of cancer something else will be the main cause of death......

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

UG makes a solid point about shorter lifespans. Also human genetics are quite different as are viruses that are adapting to exploit mammals like humans.

Quite a few cancers are caused by viral damage.

I thought the headline was really stretching and what do you expect? Researchers etc need attention for funding, book sales and notoriety.

I don't think anybody in their right mind would want to time travel to the distant past. Or even the recent past. Screw that.. I want to travel to the future.

[tim armstrong]

I was always under the impression that cancer is the by product of evolution. Not in the sense of evolution by design but rather natural selection, whereby 'bad' cancers would cause life threatening illnesses, but some of the cancers could benefit a species and generate advantages which may be carried forwards. Over millions of years this combined with natural selection is evolution.....

I also believe that through the substances we have created mankind has been a catalyst for cancer. We have not created anything, however we may well have destroyed as well as sped up some natural processes.

Also - Once we have cracked cancer, heart disease and many other illnesses associated with death, more will come along, we might live to 150 years old in the future but instead of cancer something else will be the main cause of death......

It seems fairly clear by now that both genetics and environmental factors cause cancer, as some cancers are more common in some parts of the world than others. But somewhere along the way we seem to have lost the plot. Rather than forever be treating disease, there needs to be much more input into how to remain healthy, ie. prevention. Its paid comparatively little attention by governments, and of course no attention at all by the remaining 5 or 6 big pharmas in the world. When you look at what diseases cost the most, causes more days off, and reduces the quality of life, its a very different picture.(see Harvard study on the Burden of Disease).

That's not to say we shouldn't treat disease, but for sure there is a lot more the world can do to promote health. But being cynical, that's not in evryone's interests. On a world scale, cancer is small by comparison to mosquito borne diseases, many of which are preventable.

[H2oDunc]

Has any body else thought of just what the last thing the big Pharmacy companies / doctors ever cured ? Polio probably and that was decades ago. These companies are not there for the betterment of people they are there to make money. PERIOD. They discovered years ago that there was very little profit in a cure but billions on a treatment. Think about it for a moment. Hence the lack of cures for anything in the last 20 - 30 years. We have come on in leaps and bounds in other scientific fields but are still back in the 19th century as far as cures go.

[sbk]

The team investigated ancient Egyptian remains, looking for signs of the disease. They diagnosed cancer in an Egyptian mummy for the first time – but they say finding just one case after examining hundreds of mummies proves the disease was then extremely rare.

Average life expectancy back then was about 30 years old. There are not a great number of 30 year olds with cancer.

Yes, i thought that seemed rather obvious as well, UG, but apparently not to everyone. Or maybe "Cancer is more prevalent in longer lived people" is just a less sensationalistic headline.

[H2oDunc]

Saying we live longer now is just a cop out in my opinion. There are thousands of young people who die of cancer every year so the argument doesn't hold water.

I have always wanted to know why Government scientists are not tasked to seek cures for diseases ? If it was all about the betterment of mankind that kind of thing would happen. It doesn't. In the same way that Governments could if they wished perform the actions of our banks but without them making billions out of the customer but once again they choose not to. There is too much money involved for it to be taken away from the big players.

Sad but true.

[sbk]

Ok, so tell me then, what kind of cancer diagnosis was going on in the past centuries?

I moved to Koh Phangan before the hospital opened, before there was a doctor and went to countless funerals where the person died from "pen lom". Literally to pass out and die. Well, that can cover a multitude of things can't it? But of course, there was no diagnosis, no doctor so a person just died. Now, with doctors and hospitals people know what they are dying of, but they are still dying in pretty much the same way they were when I got there years ago (ok more accidents but we aren't talking about that) or when my husband grew up or when his father grew up.

[mommysboy]

The team investigated ancient Egyptian remains, looking for signs of the disease. They diagnosed cancer in an Egyptian mummy for the first time – but they say finding just one case after examining hundreds of mummies proves the disease was then extremely rare.

Average life expectancy back then was about 30 years old. There are not a great number of 30 year olds with cancer.

Yes, i thought that seemed rather obvious as well, UG, but apparently not to everyone. Or maybe "Cancer is more prevalent in longer lived people" is just a less sensationalistic headline.

sbk writes "I thought that seemed rather obvious as well". Indeed and that was why it was in the original posting sbk and referred to by other posters too!!!!!. It seems amazing that this wasn't mentioned in the article though.

The question seems to me: is it the only explanation ?.

It strikes me that while we have been very good at improving all sorts of things in our lives, such as sanitation, food supply (in calorific terms anyway), and primary health care especially, we nevertheless have created an environment that is rather toxic in all sorts of ways and I wonder what percentage of the equation this accounts for. Personally, at the very least I think environmental triggers increase the chance of people getting cancer where genetics has already predisposed them to a particular problem, I suppose the obvious example would be a person with a weakish chest being subjected to smoke pollution of all sorts and then succumbing to lung cancer. But it may go beyond that.

There's been some very good points about the motives of drug companies, what we can say is that they simply have not kept apace for quite a while now. And yes, there is a point where large solely money making organisations, seek to manipulate the market in a way that maximises profit without necessarily benefiting the consumer. I guess that is straying in to other areas though!

One other side of the equation is personal consumption. In all honesty modern economies rely on people consuming, consuming and consuming more, there really is no money in wise health advice sorry to say. Thus, I guess quite a few of us bring problems upon ourselves in the shape of excess, I can certainly speak from experience on this one.

[billzant]

I have no formal medical training.

I believe that poor lifestyle can create the conditions for the development of cancerous growth such as acidity in the body. I have some testimony from people who believe they have cured cancer from lifestyle changes alone:-

Farrah fawcett and comment

Other clips

(If the links do not appear please PM.)

I also understand that stress contributes to those same conditions so working towards a stress-free lifestyle can help - including meditation.

In one of the referred movies it refers to the efforts of the cancer industry in the US to prevent people from learning about such alternative approaches. Whilst with my lack of training I am not prepared to be definitive, I do not understand why the first medical advice with cancer is not changing lifestyle and diet. Surely chemotherapy cannot be a good way to die - see Farrah Fawcett video.

Hope you are keeping well,

All the Best,

Bill Z

[artvandalay]

The team investigated ancient Egyptian remains, looking for signs of the disease. They diagnosed cancer in an Egyptian mummy for the first time – but they say finding just one case after examining hundreds of mummies proves the disease was then extremely rare.

Average life expectancy back then was about 30 years old. There are not a great number of 30 year olds with cancer.

That is actually a misleading statistic. 200 or even 1000 years ago almost 30% of babies would die at birth. When you add in those 0's, then the average age is lowered dramatically. Disease and wars contributed to a lower life expectancy. Generally, if you made it past childhood, then the odds were pretty good that you could live 70 or 80 years, or more.

In truth, the peak age has not increased that much, but the modal age has been increasing as more children survive longer, less disease, and fewer wars.

Edited October 17, 2010 by artvandalay