Oldest Human Tumor Found in Neanderthal Bone

The oldest human tumor ever found — by more than 100,000 years — has been discovered in the rib of a Neanderthal.

Regardless of the contradictory title of the article, this is still a very interesting find. Since the oldest known tumor was in an Egyptian human, this find being in a Neanderthal, is a first for this area of research. It seems that Neanderthal may have suffered from the same, or similar medical issues are we humans do today.

"We do see it in human patients today," Monge told LiveScience. "It's exactly the same kind of process and in the same place." Fibrous dysplasia is caused by a spontaneous genetic mutation in the cells that produce bone, according to the Mayo Clinic. In some cases, the tumors are small and asymptomatic. In other cases, they cause pain and weakness. Because the researchers have only an isolated rib from this particular Neanderthal, they can't say whether his or her other bones would have been affected.

Source Article

nice
second


Mod Note: Adding "second" to your post doesn't make it any less of a 1-liner. As a matter of fact it just makes it worse.

reply to post by Krakatoa

And what does this tell us?

"Living in a relatively unpolluted environment doesn't necessarily protect you against cancer, even if you were a Neanderthal living 120,000 years ago." Source

"See, cancer has been around long before industrialism. So go ahead and eat your industrial food, breathe the harmful chemicals in the air, and drink the pharmadrug-polluted water. If neanderthals can get cancer, so can you. Don't worry about the pillaging of our ecosystem and our own bodies to make a buck. There's nothing you can do about it."

...is the underlying theme here.

reply to post by NthOther

What kind of thinking is that? Do you believe that cancer is only caused by industrial pollutants and modern lifestyles? Dinosaurs used to get cancer – fossil bones with tumours in them have been found.

Giving up smoking, watching your diet, exercising, avoiding exposure to certain pollutants and unnecessary doses of radiation – all this will help reduce your chances of getting cancer. Avoiding certain food additives and keeping your stress levels low may help, too. How do we know this? Because governments and public-health authorities have been telling us for years.

Contrary to your supposition, health spending is a huge cost to governments, and one they are very keen to reduce. The greatest advance in the battle against cancer has been getting millions of people to stop smoking. It was largely government-led campaigns, often augmented by private initiative, that made it happen.

Still, all the precautions in the world can't wholly protect you against cancer; you could live the cleanest, most 'natural' life in the world and still end up dying of it.

The world is not a simple place, and the answers to its problems are not simple.

reply to post by Astyanax


I think you may find the myth that cancer is a modern human issue, and it is not a natural process. Quite widespread.

I find the "health" industry is now as corrupt as big pharma. Willing to scare monger people into buying the latest anti-cancer potion .

Life is carcinogenic.

Every morning, get out of bed and roll the dice.

The best you can do is stack the odds in your favor.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by NthOther

 

What kind of thinking is that? Do you believe that cancer is only caused by industrial pollutants and modern lifestyles?

No, I don't. I wasn't disputing the validity of the discovery. I'm just not really sure what you can do with it, other than use it to reinforce ideas of the necessity of modern medicine, etc. Science is not impartial, contrary to what it would have you believe.

Giving up smoking, watching your diet, exercising, avoiding exposure to certain pollutants and unnecessary doses of radiation – all this will help reduce your chances of getting cancer. Avoiding certain food additives and keeping your stress levels low may help, too. How do we know this? Because governments and public-health authorities have been telling us for years.

They also told us that blood letting was an effective treatment for headaches. While we can all agree these things are bad for us, just because the government says so is not a persuasive argument. Did you forget what website you're on?

Contrary to your supposition, health spending is a huge cost to governments, and one they are very keen to reduce. The greatest advance in the battle against cancer has been getting millions of people to stop smoking. It was largely government-led campaigns, often augmented by private initiative, that made it happen.

It was also a government-led campaign that got an entire generation of men addicted to cigarettes. It was that thing called World War II where they handed out free cigarettes like MREs. Curing a disease they themselves created isn't exactly a noble accomplishment. The state is interested in your health insofar as it sustains your existence as a "productive member of society", and that's it.

reply to post by NthOther

They also told us that blood letting was an effective treatment for headaches.

Who told you that? The rulers of Imperial Prussia?

While we can all agree these things are bad for us, just because the government says so is not a persuasive argument.

Nobody said that. You were the one who came along and started talking about governments.

It was also a government-led campaign that got an entire generation of men addicted to cigarettes. It was that thing called World War II where they handed out free cigarettes...

Cigarettes were also handed out to soldiers in the First World War. It wasn't done to get people hooked on tobacco; it was done as a welfare measure and to boost troop morale – free cigarettes were a small comfort for smokers in the trenches and in battle. It wasn't until after the Second World War that the link between smoking and lung cancer became known. The first work on the subject was done by German doctors in the 1940s, which didn't help its acceptance in the West. No-one knew about the harmful effects of cigarettes before that.

It may be that, for some years, tax revenues on cigarettes were a sufficient incentive for governments to wink at the growing evidence that smoking caused health problems. This may have gone on for about twenty years – long enough, admittedly – but when it was realised that the healthcare and productivity costs from smoking were actually higher than the tax revenues earned from it, the picture changed.

The motto of this site is 'deny ignorance'. Not 'Log on here on to spread lies and Chicken Little tall tales.'

Hmmm,
Ive got to wonder just whom actually funded this research,.
Monsanto? Dow? BP? any fracking company?

reply to post by Lil Drummerboy

Ive got to wonder just whom actually funded this research,.
Monsanto? Dow? BP? any fracking company?

Nobody.

From the original paper:

Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report.

Here's a little more information. The bone was dug out of the ground in Croatia at some time between 1899 and 1905. It found its way into a bone collection assembled by a couple of American archaeologists, where it was identified as a pathological specimen in 1986. Somebody finally got round to having a look at it. And running a couple of scans. I doubt it all cost more than a few thousand dollars.