Scientists suggest that cancer is purely man-made

Scientists suggest that cancer is purely man-made

Cancer is a modern, man-made disease caused by environmental factors such as pollution and diet, a study by University of Manchester scientists has strongly suggested.


The peer reviewed paper can be found here. My other source is here. The full text of the journal article requires membership or payment, but here is the abstract:

In industrialized societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. The history of this disorder has the potential to improve our understanding of disease prevention, aetiology, pathogenesis and treatment. A striking rarity of malignancies in ancient physical remains might indicate that cancer was rare in antiquity, and so poses questions about the role of carcinogenic environmental factors in modern societies. Although the rarity of cancer in antiquity remains undisputed, the first published histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy demonstrates that new evidence is still forthcoming.

The following are the key points from the second article linked above, which I recommend as an accessible review of the published paper which includes comments by the authors:

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.

Professor Rosalie David, at the Faculty of Life Sciences, said: “In industrialised societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare. There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.”

She added: “The important thing about our study is that it gives a historical perspective to this disease. We can make very clear statements on the cancer rates in societies because we have a full overview. We have looked at millennia, not one hundred years, and have masses of data.”

[...]

Professor Zimmerman said: “In an ancient society lacking surgical intervention, evidence of cancer should remain in all cases. The virtual absence of malignancies in mummies must be interpreted as indicating their rarity in antiquity, indicating that cancer causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialization”.

[...]

She concluded: “Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, 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.”

Yikes. It sounds like a pretty strong case is made here for the thesis that cancer is a result of man-made environmental factors, and that cancer rates were negligible in ancient times. The study accounts for things like life span differences in modern times, and is based on a significantly large data set. I think that their argument is compelling.

I know there that ATS is filled with unconventional ideas about cancer and how to cure it, and I thought you folks might be interested in this article. Keep in mind that if you live in the US today, you have a 1/3 chance of getting cancer.

All that being said, modernity has made humans healthier by almost any measure; we live longer and the infant mortality rate is drastically lower than it was even a couple hundred years ago. I don't think we should overreact to these findings and make a bee line for the stone age lifestyle, but I also don't think we should ignore the facts. At what point should we play it safe and delay apparent progress in order to find out its full implications? Are we already past that point? Did we construct the modern world so hastily that we forgot to check if we were making it out of poison?

Thoughts?

Star for yew!
Yea interesting, I have thought about the idea that it is to do with diet and our current environment. God knows what toxic/radiation/gases/debris were unearthing/creating that we wern't 200 years ago

This is a very interesting study, OP. It's funny you posted it because I've been wondering what kind of studies they've done on this very topic. Even though I think you might be right about us moving ahead of ourselves in industrialization without being more aware of the toxins we were putting out in the environment, I believe they probably know very well which toxins are causing the existence of cancer. But, if you think about it, doesn't it seem that there is very little that DOESN'T cause cancer anymore?

For instance, I believe a member posted on ATS not long ago that a study had shownsunscreen causes skin cancer! SUNSCREEN! If you think about it, isn't that a logical conclusion? Why on earth would the very thing that sustains our existence cause us cancer? See how twisted this world is? They develop a lotion to shield us from the sun (our lifeline) and this lotion winds up making us terminally ill in some cases...and we've pumped how many trillions of dollars into the industry that makes the stuff?

reply to post by OnceReturned

'Purely' may be going too far.

Cancer doesn't just affect humans. It occurs throughout the animal kingdom. Dinosaur fossils have shown fossil tumours and other forms of cancer. It was around before we arrived on the scene and will probably outlast us.

It is, however, quite credible that the incidence of cancer has risen sharply since the Industrial Revolution. All those carcinogens we've been spewing out of our factories...

This has actually been discussed in the scientific literature for quite awhile. Both authors are indeed scientists involved with Egyptology and their findings are valid for the Egyptian mummies. But here's the problem:

Cancer typically doesn't show up to any great degree until someone's over the age of 40, and people who lived beyond 45 back then were fairly unusual (not as unusual for the upper classes as for the lower classes.)

The only ones considered are mummies (which is logical -- no soft tissue preserves in other bodies)... however, most people could not afford mummification and many mummies were lost (burned, ground into medicine and so forth) when the French and Europeans invaded back in the 1600's and after. So we have a pretty random selection of the total population.

Mummies from only one area are considered. They're not looking at signs of cancer shown in bones.

I do agree that pollution is a cause of cancers and that it's an increasing problem in our world. However, I do not believe that it's manmade and originates with the founding of the first cities. Cancers have been discovered in dinosaurs (dating back to the Jurassic): www.sciencenews.org... and in other things far older than humans. That suggests it's not "man made" and is not directly related to pollution.

At least, I'm pretty sure dinosaurs weren't smoking cigarettes and driving cars.

Here's a good timeline, but it only goes back to the Edwin Smith medical papyrus of Egypt (where cancers are treated by cauterization... painful but effective for some.)
www.cancerquest.org...

So yes, peer reviewed but the conclusions shown in the news articles aren't supported by other evidence.

Kelly Brownell referred to it as a Toxic Environment. He was speaking of the Obesity epidemic; however, it has been extrapolated recently to include most of the diseases of civilization, including cancer.

The literature is pretty clear that cancer development is largely genetically driven. But the expression of cancer promoting genes is typically stimulated dietarily and environmentally, with the former being most influential.

On a side note, anthropologists have discovered that egyptian mummies were plagued with heart disease...much like modern man. So, diseases of civilization were present, supporting what Byrd has already mentioned. You kinda have to live long enough to develop cancer.

reply to post by OnceReturned

Similar to ADHD, cancer is a multi-factorial disease involving at least three factors: 1) inflammation, 2) toxicity and 3) magnetic fields.

According to Gerson (A Cancer Therapy), inflammation is a pre-cursor to all cancers; inflammation being defined as the loss of potassium from the cell with a corresponding increase in sodium and fluid. It was for this reason that he recommened very low sodium diets (even natural sodium diets) and very high potassium diets. Similarly, north magnetic fields, as I recall, can be used to drive sodium from inside the cell.

So, then, the question comes down to what is the source of inflammation. Sometimes toxins are the source of inflammation, as in those instances of chronic, asymptomatic prostatis that result in prostate cancer; sometimes oscillating magnetic fields are the source of inflammation, as in instances of breast cancer found in beauticians who use high emf blow dryers for hours each day in proximity to their breasts; and sometimes inflammation is caused by diet or nutrition; for example, those cases of stomach cancer that result from helicobacter pylori infections, which grow in an under-acid (sub-acute inflammation--Bernard Jensen, 1952) stomach. (Long term consumption of large amounts of coffee--which is an acid--is also implicated in the under-acid stomach; although 'wanding' with a zero point energy wand to reduce the acid in the coffee has also been found effective in resolving an under-acid stomach ring resulting from too much coffee consumption.)

In addition, toxic synthetic estrogens--especially estradiol--are implicated in breast cancer; whereas the long term use of anti-biotics [without the use of pro-biotics to re-colonize the colon (interesting) with beneficial bacteria] is also implicated in the chronic prostatis which morphs into prostate cancer.

Michael

its entirely possible.
but also wrong, cancer has been found in preindustrialized societys remains and itrs widespread in the animal kingdom as well.
id say a meat based diet is the most liekyl culprit in todays mess though.

reply to post by Astyanax


I think a healthy dose a skepticism is appropriate. "Purely" may indeed be going too far; consider skin cancer. We have strong evidence that some skin cancers are caused by solar radiation. These cancers, at least, cannot be blamed on industrialization or any man-made carcinogen.

As for the animals, I would suspect that the counterargument would be that they are exposed to much of what we put into the environment. Things like certain byproducts of combustion, and other airborn carcinogens, affect animals and humans alike. So, the fact that we see cancer in animals does not necessarily mean that it is not caused by human activity.

The article had this to say regarding non-human remains:

Evidence of cancer in animal fossils, non-human primates and early humans is scarce – a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal fossils, although a metastatic cancer of unknown primary origin has been reported in an Edmontosaurus fossil while another study lists a number of possible neoplasms in fossil remains. Various malignancies have been reported in non-human primates but do not include many of the cancers most commonly identified in modern adult humans.

They describe the evidence of cancer in pre-modern non-human remains as relatively weak. Not very much of it, and not the same kinds that we see now. I suspect that the position of the authors on this particular aspect of their theory is justifiable but not definitive. Maybe cancer isn't "purely" man made, but it sounds like we're to blame for the lion's share, even in animals.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by OnceReturned

Similar to ADHD, cancer is a multi-factorial disease involving at least three factors: 1) inflammation, 2) toxicity and 3) magnetic fields.

With regards to inflammation, I have read that wheat is a commonly over consumed inflammatory. I think the abundance of (processed) wheat in many industrialized peoples' diets is a contributing factor.

Originally posted by Byrd
This has actually been discussed in the scientific literature for quite awhile. Both authors are indeed scientists involved with Egyptology and their findings are valid for the Egyptian mummies.

Agreed. They reference the notion that cancer was rare in antiquity in the paper's abstract as an idea that is commonly accepted. I think their study of mummies is significant because it is a large amount of new data that supports the theory that cancer in humans is almost exclusively a modern affair. The more remains that are examined and found to be cancer-free, the more evidence we have that cancer was either extremely rare or nonexistant at that time, and these authors have examined a lot of remains.

But here's the problem:

Cancer typically doesn't show up to any great degree until someone's over the age of 40, and people who lived beyond 45 back then were fairly unusual (not as unusual for the upper classes as for the lower classes.)

The authors anticipate this argument. Here is their response (emphasis added):

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.

[...]

It has been suggested that the short life span of individuals in antiquity precluded the development of cancer. Although this statistical construct is true, individuals in ancient Egypt and Greece did live long enough to develop such diseases as atherosclerosis, Paget's disease of bone, and osteoporosis, and, in modern populations, bone tumours primarily affect the young.

Their explanation here seems convincing enough; in the only two cases where life span can be factored out - children and populations that live long enough - their theory appears to hold true.

The only ones considered are mummies (which is logical -- no soft tissue preserves in other bodies)... however, most people could not afford mummification and many mummies were lost (burned, ground into medicine and so forth) when the French and Europeans invaded back in the 1600's and after. So we have a pretty random selection of the total population.

Mummies from only one area are considered. They're not looking at signs of cancer shown in bones.

It's true that the only remains physically examined by the authors were mummies, but they looked at quite a bit more data than just that:

The team studied both mummified remains and literary evidence for ancient Egypt but only literary evidence for ancient Greece as there are no remains for this period, as well as medical studies of human and animal remains from earlier periods, going back to the age of the dinosaurs.

The "literary evidence" seems like the sort of thing that may or may not be reliable, at least it did to me, at first. However, in the 18th and 19th centuries the literary evidence did begin to describe cancers more and more frequently. So, I think the ancient texts probably are a decent source, even if it's not as good as examining preserved remains. The additional "medical studies" that the authors looked at are not described in detail outside of the journal article, so I don't know exactly what they're referring to but I have no reason to doubt their findings.

They're certainly not only looking at mummies from just one area. It sounds like the study is about as comprehensive as possible. How do you know they didn't look for signs of cancer in bones? It's not that I disagree on that point, it's just that I don't see what you're referring to.

I do agree that pollution is a cause of cancers and that it's an increasing problem in our world. However, I do not believe that it's manmade and originates with the founding of the first cities. Cancers have been discovered in dinosaurs (dating back to the Jurassic): www.sciencenews.org... and in other things far older than humans. That suggests it's not "man made" and is not directly related to pollution.

At least, I'm pretty sure dinosaurs weren't smoking cigarettes and driving cars.

Well, I think that this study is the most recent, and perhaps the most compelling, addition to a growing body of evidence that indicates pretty clearly that the rates of cancer across all age groups studied and across a wide range of geographical locations have literally exploded since ancient times, and that cancer was either absent or exceedingly rare beyond a certain point in the past. Dinosaurs and other non-human remains do appear to show signs of cancer, although rarely. The bottom line is that human beings were around for a long time with little or no cancer, and something has happened relatively recently that has caused a dramatic change: the rates of cancer in humans has increased by orders of magnitude. Clearly there's something causing it, and the leading candidate is man-made carcinogens that are associated with industrialization and modern development.

Here's a good timeline, but it only goes back to the Edwin Smith medical papyrus of Egypt (where cancers are treated by cauterization... painful but effective for some.)
www.cancerquest.org...

So yes, peer reviewed but the conclusions shown in the news articles aren't supported by other evidence.

I respectfully disagree. I think that their arguments are compelling, and they certainly collected a large body of evidence to support their conclusions. The arguments and associated evidence were published in a leading peer reviewed journal. I don't think we have any reason to think that their evidence is unsound, but I do agree that we should consider any proposed alternative explanations for the evidence. I think that you've made a good case that cancer at least existed in ancient times, but I think the question of whether or not it existed at all is secondary to the issue of why it's so many times more prevalent in modern times, even taking into account the life span differences. Industrialization and modernity appear to be responsible for the vast majority of cancer in humans, and I think that there is no basis for challenging that claim.

Nice find.

I think we all knew to some degree that certain cancers are man made but we choose to ignore it. And we are lied to by you know who.

Excellent topic, and a welcome respite from the ufo threads of late.

Thank you for posting information and links. I've often thought that how we live here is toxic to ourselves and maybe why their is a marked rise in cancer cases in our age. Although I do understand cancer has been around for a very long time, almost as if it is a natural process to keep the populations down

I also think that all people will end up with cancer, the only difference being the form of cancer each has. Hence why I already chose my version by smoking cigarettes against the better judgement of the medical world, lol.

And I am sure that our homes are toxic to us. The paint used inside, the carpets, the cleaning products, the toxins let-off by using our plastic bodied electrical appliances.. and maybe even their electromagnetic radiation, the highly processed foods we eat, the lack of activity compared to people even 100 years ago, etc. It all adds up to a toxic soup in my opinion.

I see higher numbers of lung-related illness out here in the country due to a number of things.. topsoil blow-off creating thick dust, the overuse of aerial spraying which the wind blows around into our homes, the highly toxic exhaust fumes from cars using Unleaded Fuel as they travel the main highway past the houses and towns. And in the towns I note too the dust is black.. something I began to notice after we were forced to use Unleaded Fuel.

All in all, I think we are bad for ourselves.

Thanks again follks for the information supplied here.

Is everyone forgetting that cervical cancer is caused by the HPV VIRUS and that virus has now been proven to cause oral -pharangeal cancer.


its a rediculous theory based on the flimsiest of evidence.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


This theory, like all theories, is a proposed explanation of observations/evidence. Do you have a less "rediculous" explanation?

Cervical cancer is obviously a special case. Most cancers aren't caused by virii. Skin cancer would be another exception. The existence of exceptions does not cancel out the abundance of evidence related to the general case. Nuclear radiation causes cancer too, but that would also not be particularily applicable to a theory that refers to the non-exception cases, which make up the overwhelming majority of what we're trying to explain. It's not that cervical cancer is uncommon, it's one of the most common types of cancer in women, it's that it clearly isn't common enough to explain the findings when cancer rates in ancient peoples are compared to cancer rates in the developed world.

If you could find cancer in a significant portion of ancient human remains, or if you could better explain why people back then were virtually unaffected by cancer whereas now a very large portion of the population of the developed world is affect by cancer, it would be worth your while to do so. You could contribute in a substantial way to our understanding of an issue that is important.

I suspect, though, that this unlikely. It's much easier to call an idea rediculous because you can find a special case which seems (only) at first glance to call the validity of the idea into question. I don't think that's very productive. All someone has to do is think about it and it immediately becomes clear that the exceptional case fails to address any of the central features of the theory, and brings us no closer to a better explanation for the evidence that has been presented.

We must also think about how many people where around back then compared to now. So to say there was less cancer than would not be correct. there are millions more people now. The numbers would rise accordingly.

Many people that live very healthy lives die from various cancers. So it may be we are all prone to get it. the poisons in the air , water food, etc... in my opinion would just accelerate the process faster for some people.

Now i did take interest in the magnetic theory. does anyone remember years back when there was a claim of a home built pyramid that you could put objects in like fruit or a dull razorblade, the claim was the blade if dull would be razor sharp after a certain amount of time and the fruit would not rot.

This is a subject worth researching due to the lack of progress we the world has made torwards a real cure.Its always gonna be about big money so treatments will subdue but not cure. There is no money in curing people.

And btw, hi all and im glad to be back on. Its been to long since ive logged in here. I truly did miss it.

The bull crap people spew about a sun being solely responsible for skin cancer is non sense.

The sun is our main provider of vitamin D and many, many people are lacking in this essential vitamin.

I agree the sun does give off radiation and it does effect our skin but the chemicals made out of petroleum products, with pieces of heavy metals we gob on our and our children's skin cannot be good for us.

I for one think the sun is our friend and while I do not think we should be spending hours in the equatorial sun, I think we should be in it to get our vitamins. We have evolved for millions of years with the same sun, so we should have some tolerance for it, no?

I was also reading a book where one of the world top astronomers said that the whole idea of staring at the sun makes you go blind is a myth as well, there has never been and proven accounts of this throughout history. I am just relaying the message so no yelling at me. He said that yes if we try and stare for like 20 minutes it would do some damage but it would not be irreparable.

As for cancer, I tend to agree that the majority of cancer is man made. We eat crap and drink crap what do we expect?

There will always be cancer in our bodies no matter what, but with the fuel we add and the air we breathe in our "advanced" culture, bad things are bound to happen.

People are not allowed to smoke anywhere anymore because of the cancer risks, but yet car exhaust will kill you if you go too tailpipe and take a huff. Weird world we are in.

Thanks for the great discussion Oncereturned.

Pred...

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Is everyone forgetting that cervical cancer is caused by the HPV VIRUS and that virus has now been proven to cause oral -pharangeal cancer.


its a rediculous theory based on the flimsiest of evidence.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Chronic prostatitis (often asymptomatic)--that is, inflammation of the prostate (whether as a result of a virus, a bacteria, or merely toxicity)--is a precursor to prostate cancer. (Oh, by the way, BPH--benign prostatic hyperplasia or hypertophy--shows up in the iris as an acute sign in the place on the Iridology chart representing the prostate; whereas chronic prostatitis shows up as a chronic sign, and prostate cancer shows up as a degenerative sign. Iridologists cannot diagnose disease on the basis of signs in the iris; but they are capable of seeing what signs in the iris are associated with people who have previously received a medical diagnosis from a medical doctor.)

Inflammation of the stomach, as a result of a chronic helicobacter pylori infection, is a pre-cursor to stomach cancer.

The issue here is inflammation and the cause of inflammation.

Oh, by the way, the use of micro-wave ovens, which destroy the very DNA structure of the proteins and vegetables which are cooked in them, are also implicated as a source of toxins.

In other words, broccoli, for example, may very well be put into a micro-wave oven; but I would not even so much as hazard a guess as to what, precisely, comes out of the micro-wave oven after that broccoli has been cooked.

Appearances can be deceiving.

Michael

reply to post by OnceReturned


All I can say to this is DUHHRRRR....

One common factor found in those that have cancer is that they have a severe case of acidosis. What it takes to alkalize the body is what people have been saying for years....eat your raw fruits and vegetables.

Thats interesting information but we could draw different conclusions with it. We could draw totally different valid conclusions like that maybe the Egyptians had a cure for cancer?

Cancer isn't man-made though, it's just a by-product of being exposed to carcinogens or radiation; at least that's how I understand it.

It's just faulty mutations in the DNA I think. That's a pretty natural thing.

It would be more accurate to say " Cancer rates increased 50-95% since Industrial Revolution due to increased risks of exposure to carcinogenic chemicals or radiation hazards." It would sound much better IMO

But then again he had to say it like that, to cause controversy, in order to get any of us to stop and read the article.

Cancer is 100% a natrual process though. It's just that you can get it easily by getting around hazardous materials.

I'll flag the thread however in hopes that other people review the information.

I just hope most people have the common sense to know that cancer is a natural product. It's just a cellular malfunction based on biochemistry and physics. The things that cause cancer, can be man-made though.