Cancer man-made or junk science?

[Pengwuino]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39687039/ns/health-cancer/

Is the common nature of cancer worldwide purely a man-made phenomenon? That is what some researchers now suggest.

Still, other specialists in cancer and in human fossils have strong doubts about this notion.

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for roughly one in eight of all deaths in 2004, according to the World Health Organization. However, scientists have only found one case of the disease in investigations of hundreds of Egyptian mummies, researcher Rosalie David at the University of Manchester in England said in a statement. (The researchers did not reply to repeated queries made via phone and e-mail.)

Considering how short of a life expectancy humans had back then and all the other arguments against this study brought up, can this be considered anything except junk science?

 

[Evo]

The first error that strikes me is that mummies had all of their internal organs removed before mummification. Most cancers would be found in these organs.

 

[Andy Resnick]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39687039/ns/health-cancer/

Considering how short of a life expectancy humans had back then and all the other arguments against this study brought up, can this be considered anything except junk science?

Referring to cancer as a single disease is another clue that it's junk. "Cancer" (AFAIK) is more properly considered as a large family of disease states, similar to ciliopathies.

 

[lisab]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39687039/ns/health-cancer/



Considering how short of a life expectancy humans had back then and all the other arguments against this study brought up, can this be considered anything except junk science?

Yes I thought that too, when I saw that article the other day. For eons, human life span was ~20 years...life was nasty, brutish, and short. People generally didn't live long enough to develop diseases that are common today.

You can make a long list of these so-called 'man-made diseases': Alzheimer's, heart disease, arthritis, strokes...all diseases that increase in frequency with age.

 

[Evo]

I especially loved this part

As they analyzed ancient literature, they did not find descriptions of operations for breast and other cancers until the 17th century, and the first reports in the scientific literature of distinctive tumors have only occurred in the past 200 years, such as scrotal cancer in chimney sweepers in 1775, nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761 and Hodgkin's disease in 1832.

Gee, you think? Considering that they didn't have x-rays or blood tests, no microscopes, the inability to do any extensive surgery, how would they even know to consider something like cancer, back then most ailments were blamed on evil spirits, demons, curses, they had no clue, and cutting open a dead body was taboo.

 

[Evo]

Yes I thought that too, when I saw that article the other day. For eons, human life span was ~20 years...life was nasty, brutish, and short. People generally didn't live long enough to develop diseases that are common today.

You can make a long list of these so-called 'man-made diseases': Alzheimer's, heart disease, arthritis, strokes...all diseases that increase in frequency with age.

Another issue is that a lot more women are carrying babies to term that otherwise would have never lived, and in some cases never even been conceived. Children that would have died from a genetic disease are living and procreating. If you start peeing in the gene pool... We know that if close relatives had some types of cancer that you are a more likely candidate, and you then pass that increased chance on to your children. Sure we know smoking causes cancer, but in older times due to the need for fire, many people developed tuberculosis and other lung diseases from inhaling the smoke from fire used for heating, lighting, and cooking.

 

[hamster143]

Yes I thought that too, when I saw that article the other day. For eons, human life span was ~20 years...life was nasty, brutish, and short.

Average life expectancy was on the order of 20-25 years, because of child mortality in double digit percentages (approaching 50% in some particularly nasty places, like medieval Paris and London). Among those who made it to the sixteenth birthday, many survived past 60. Most well-known ancient Greek mathematicians died aged 70 or older.

 

[lisab]

Average life expectancy was on the order of 20-25 years, because of child mortality in double digit percentages (approaching 50% in some particularly nasty places, like medieval Paris and London). Among those who made it to the sixteenth birthday, many survived past 60. Most well-known ancient Greek mathematicians died aged 70 or older.

You're thinking fairly recently; I was thinking of long before that...say, 100,000 years ago.

 

[bobze]

Average life expectancy was on the order of 20-25 years, because of child mortality in double digit percentages (approaching 50% in some particularly nasty places, like medieval Paris and London). Among those who made it to the sixteenth birthday, many survived past 60. Most well-known ancient Greek mathematicians died aged 70 or older.

In ancient Egypt, if you weren't from a privileged social class you didn't likely have a chance of reaching the ripe old age of 40, let alone 60.

I agree with what you said, but you need to consider the age distribution of the population. Not just the outliers. Of course, the royalty, who were better educated, better fed and better cared for were more likely to live longer, healthier lives.

This is a post I made on another form regarding the same topic;

First and foremost, as has been alluded too, cancer is a disease of age. Why?

When your cells replicate, the protein machinery which copies the DNA can make errors. The rate of error is very low, maybe like 10-8 per base pair, per gene. We see a couple of things which refute what some posters have said on this topic. Firstly, cancers are more common in tissues which continuously divide throughout the life of the organism, like epithelia tissues. Secondly, as others have pointed out, cancer is normally a disease that is associated with "older folks". Hmmmmmm...A clue?

Yes in deed. It was incorrectly pointed out that cancers were an "old adaptation to cell growth". This is incorrect. When a cell is going to replicate, it has various checks and balances which occur during interphase of the cell cycle. These checks say things like "DNA for such and such gene is too damaged, therefore you should not replicate and instead die". Cells do a heroic little then, called apoptosis--In which they choose termination over potentially dangerous growth.

The problems occur, because over the course of a lifetime, you accumulate (despite the low error rate) errors to this system of checks and balances. And a cell will be more likely to "break away on his own" than follow the colony rules. That cell's progeny (he keeps dividing) also inherit his selfish approach to colony live and thus a tumor is born.

This in itself wouldn't be that big of a problem, because your body has specialized white blood cells which can still induce apoptosis in these "breakaway" cell lines, dubbed natural killer (NK) cells. These NK cells work by affecting a "death receptor" on the surface cancerous cells activating a signal transduction pathway that ends with a special type of protease (think of them as little pac-mans for proteins) destroying the cell from the inside out. If you are over the age of 20ish, this is a process which happens in your body every day. Problem solved, back to life as usual. But is it?

Remember we said that cancerous cells require an accumulation of errors to become "cancerous". They also acquire more errors which do a funny thing, they begin to excrete soluble copies of these death receptors so that when NK cells come around, their surface ligands (the thing which binds to the death receptors) get blocked and are ineffective.

Never fear, there is yet more checks and balances which can stop the cancerous colonies. Because these cells are quickly proliferating they require an increased supply of oxygen and nutrients. A cancerous colony will quickly burn itself out and die without the proper nutritional requirements met (for anyone who's ever taken a gross anatomy course and dissected a human, you'll note the many tumors and "pre-cancerous" growths found in the older cadavers, which did not kill them).

So again, cancerous cells must "get lucky" with more errors. They have to have certain genes turned on which are expressed during regenerative healing or embryological development that stimulate the growth of vasculature (blood vessels) to the tumor, otherwise starvation will ensue (in deed a great many chemotheraputic agents target this ability for cancerous to acquire vasculature and work by "starving" the tumor).

We are yet still faced with another problem for cancerous cells. As a tumor grows and gets crowded the cells, despite improved vasculature, will burn up nutrients and the tumor size will be self-limiting. This is why you could have a tumor in your leg or another "non vital place" for years and years with no problems.

We come again to an accumulation of errors (see the repeating theme?). Some of the offspring in that tumor may happen upon another group of "lucky" errors which allow them to "pick up and move shop". This is of course, really bad for the over all health of the organism and is often the point of "terminal no return"-Or what we say in medicine, metastasis.

Cancer is literally "a series of unfortunate events" (Great book by the way!), that take (in most cases a life time to accumulate).

**This of course is a simplified description, the number of genes (oncogenes) and factors which lead to errors and cancer number in their hundreds, if not thousands.

There are of course, more rare cancers which can manifest earlier in life and the genetic basis of these (with your new education now, I'm sure you could hazard a correct guess) is inherited mutations to these cell control cycles. For instance, a rather famous one(s) (really a group) comes from xeroderma pigmentosum. Mutations to the "repair machinery" which allows us to repair DNA damage caused by UV light (thymine-thymine dimerizations for any of you biology savvy people).

In the case of these inherited dispositions to cancers, by damaging the repair or "checks and balances" machinery, cancerous growth is expedited and manifested at a much earlier age.




So is cancer a "outcome of the modern world"? Inadvertently yes. Because people in the west don't die at the age of 30 from things like small pox, scarlet fever or diphtheria because of modern technology and medicine, your more likely to live a longer healthier life which gives your cell lines a chance to accumulate errors to the "point of no return". Of course, people argue about returning to a "healthier life-style" like that of the "ancients" and if living fast and dying young (<30 years of age) is your cup of tea then I'd encourage you to forgo the perks of "modern life-styles".

The up note is that modern medicine is becoming exceedingly good at treating, preventing and stopping cancers before they become a problem.

Patients often ask, why cancer? We get trained at the hospital to explain to patients, their families and loved ones, any number of causes and reasons for various types of cancer. From "just plain unlucky" to "maybe you shouldn't have smoked for 40 years" (of course we don't say it like that).

But the real answer is in our old friend the American public loves to hate: evolution. Because, we are (as someone remarked above I think) vessels for our genes, our bodies only need to serve the purpose of replicating those genes. How long we live, is a function of the age needed to successfully replicate those genes. Because once you've won at the game of evolution (pass on your genes) anything that happens to you afterwords cannot be impacted by natural selection.

From an evolutionary standpoint then, it makes little sense to evolve "better" replication machinery less prone to error. Because doing so would cost the organism in some areas that may require sacrifices which hurt the individual's chances of reproductive success-A very bad thing as far as your genes are concerned. They are much happier to take the approach that you live long enough to reproduce, then are free to die any kind of messy death you may or may not deserve. From their standpoint, your "job" is complete once you've replicated and from natural selection's standpoint replicating ensures no penalty against your genes.

If you study reproductive biology, you'll see a wonderful correlation in the lifespan of an organism and its reproductive strategy.

 

[NobodySpecial]

As they analyzed ancient literature, they did not find descriptions of operations for breast and other cancers until the 17th century

Short-sightedness is also a modern disease - nobody wore spectacles in ancient Rome.

 

[hamster143]

You're thinking fairly recently; I was thinking of long before that...say, 100,000 years ago.

Obviously, back before the age of tools, a significant percentage of people ended up getting killed and eaten by wild animals, and that tended to depress the life expectancy. On the other hand, at that time people did not have plague, cholera, tuberculosis, or smallpox, so it's a wash. And the article in question specifically discusses the recent period (starting with ancient Egypt).

In ancient Egypt, if you weren't from a privileged social class you didn't likely have a chance of reaching the ripe old age of 40, let alone 60.

We don't really know much about chances of people reaching a certain age in ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptians simply didn't bother keeping such records, even for their pharaohs. That gives rise to all sorts of outlandish claims, such as "average age of death was 25". In places where we do have data, such as post-Caesar Rome, life expectancy at age 20 was around 30 for lower classes and 40 for higher classes (in other words, about half of all lower class Romans could expect to live past 50). There were some culture-specific variations. For example, life expectancies of Roman emperors were low: only three out of the first ten emperors managed to die from natural causes, the rest were murdered or committed suicide. (The three who did die from natural causes, did so at ages 77, 70, and 50). On the other hand, as we've seen with Greek mathematicians, if you tried to keep your temper down and your nose out of politics, you had a much better chance of a long life.

 

[bobze]

We don't really know much about chances of people reaching a certain age in ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptians simply didn't bother keeping such records, even for their pharaohs. That gives rise to all sorts of outlandish claims, such as "average age of death was 25". In places where we do have data, such as post-Caesar Rome, life expectancy at age 20 was around 30 for lower classes and 40 for higher classes (in other words, about half of all lower class Romans could expect to live past 50). There were some culture-specific variations. For example, life expectancies of Roman emperors were low: only three out of the first ten emperors managed to die from natural causes, the rest were murdered or committed suicide. (The three who did die from natural causes, did so at ages 77, 70, and 50). On the other hand, as we've seen with Greek mathematicians, if you tried to keep your temper down and your nose out of politics, you had a much better chance of a long life.

The ancient Pre-dynastic and Dynastic Egyptians were not very different, with regards to the main demographic characteristics, from other roughly contemporary populations. Nevertheless, from our detailed study, some data appeared to be peculiar. Like many other ancient populations the Egyptians had a short average life span. This resulted
chiefly in a small number of aged people. Unlike many ancient populations, there are
168 M. MASALI AND B. CHIAFcELLI some indications that Egyptian women, especially the Dynastic ones, had a low fertility rate. The population was mainly formed of young adults. This means that the ancient Egyptians, although they can be classified from a demographic point of view as a young active population were not an expanding one.

Masali M, Chiarelli B. Demographic data on the remains of ancient egyptians. J Hum Evol 1972;1(2).

We have described a relatively low rate of life expectancy in the Theban population [36], which is confirmed by the Theban MK population (Graefe et al., unpublished results) and the Abydos material [37]. This reduced life expectancy may have come from a fairly considerable level of chronic infection by various pathogenic organisms, such as tuberculosis
and parasitosis. Both conditions have been previously documented to be present in ancient Egypt [38, 39]. Although this study provides evidence that tuberculosis may have contributed considerably to this poor life expectancy,

A. R. ZINK, W. GRABNER, U. REISCHL, H. WOLF and A. G. NERLICH (2003). Molecular study on human tuberculosis in three geographically distinct and time delineated populations from ancient Egypt. Epidemiology and Infection, 130, pp 239-249 doi:10.1017/S0950268802008257


That's two that took me literally 30 seconds, we know quite bit about life expectancy of ancient Egypt, whether they wrote it down or not (interestingly when they did write about how old Pharaohs where, they often put their age in the hundreds!), because of forensic medicine, archaeology etc.

If you want to get an idea about what life is like in such conditions visit a refugee camp in Africa sometime, then imagine your days are spent in servitude to the the "better caste" citizens--And you'll not be far from the truth for the life of the common Joe.

The point wasn't to argue about the exact life expectancy of ancient Egyptians (I agree with you, 20 is a little bit of a wild number, apparently those who study such things reckon its between 30-40 based on the skeletal remains we've found), the point was that life expectancy has increased in the modern world and this will inevitably increase the "frequency" we see and treat cancers.

Again, cancer is a disease of age--An accumulation of gene maladies because the process of replicating biological information is not and cannot be perfect (of course, as I pointed out above, there are exceptions to the "rule")

Anyway, for an fyi type of thing;

As the man says "disease of age"

Interestingly we can look at the rate of cancer over a span of time;

[PLAIN]http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/4818/acsdata2009uscancerdeat.jpg


And at first glance would appear to support the "cancer on the rise", but nicely overlaid by a change in life expectancy over a similar period of time;

[PLAIN]http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/life%20expectancy.JPG

 

[hamster143]

the point was that life expectancy has increased in the modern world and this will inevitably increase the "frequency" we see and treat cancers.

It did. And it does increase the frequency we see cancers. 80% of the increase of life expectancy is due to the fact that we got child mortality almost all the way to zero, 10% is because we have a remarkably safe society where people are rarely murdered by their neighbors over a piece of bread or a woman or die in wars. However, the remaining 10% reflect the fact that we managed to eradicate tuberculosis and smallpox, and many 70-year-olds who would've died from one of those in ancient Egypt, die from cancer at 75 instead.

The question is whether, once all the other confounding factors are properly accounted for, the rise in life expectancy (particularly among upper class, such as pharaohs) + smoking are sufficient to explain the difference in cancer rates.

Here's another graph:

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=doctorgrasshopper.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdoctorgrasshopper.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F01%2Fcancer-deaths-male1.jpg&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fdoctorgrasshopper.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F06%2F30%2Ftools-for-the-toolbox-cancer%2F

The lung & bronchus bulge is obviously 90% due to smoking. I'm not sure what the story is with the stomach. I wish we had that kind of chart going back to 1500. But we don't. That's where the studies like the one in OP come in.

 

[Evo]

I think evidence is increasingly suggesting that an explosion of sugar, HFCS and refined carb consumption has led to the huge increase in incidence of cancer in the past few decades.

You will need to supply a study from a peer reviewed accepted mainstream scientific journal for this claim. Medical or scientific claims of this nature need documentation. Thanks.

 

[Evo]

bobze & hamster, it would also seem logical that the apparent increase in the diagnosis of cancer would be due to our increased ability to diagnose it, no?

 

[ViewsofMars]

First off, there is no such thing as "junk" science as far as I am concerned. Science isn't about junk.(1) So the title of this thread "Cancer man-made or junk science?" is not to my satisfaction. Ah well...I will share nonetheless to the this thread. (lol to myself)

We have the following information about Hepatocellular Carcinoma/Primary Liver Cancer: "Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is fifth in cancer incidence worldwide and the third leading cause of cancer death. It is also the fastest growing, in incidence, in the United States with a 5-year survival rate of less than 5%. The high mortality associated with HCC is primarily due to the advanced stage of disease at initial diagnosis when therapy is not successful. Infection with hepatitis B or hepatitis C virus (HBV and HCV) is responsible for at least 80% of all HCC. Since patients with cirrhosis (with or without HBV or HCV infection) are at significantly increased risk of developing HCC, surveillance of a clinically identifiable population is realistic and logical. Thus, screening for HCC focuses on patients with cirrhosis. By analyzing existing biomarker candidates as well as through its own proteomic program, EDRN identified three new leading biomarker candidates, two of which are the focus of a large multi-site validation trial." (National Cancer Institute, NIH Publication No. 07-6135, January 2008 p.41 http://edrn.nci.nih.gov/docs/progress-reports/edrn_4th-report_200801.pdf)

1. Definitions of Evolutionary Terms from the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine:

Science:
The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Definitions.html

 

[Evo]

Hey Mars, the "junk science" the OP was referring to was an article by a couple of people claiming that looking at some egyptian mummies and not finding much cancer meant that cancer must be a new man made illness. Well, we know that all of the organs, stomach, liver, lungs, intestines, brains, etc... were all removed before mummification, so there was little of the body left to examine, even if they examined every inch of what was left.

 

[bobze]

bobze & hamster, it would also seem logical that the apparent increase in the diagnosis of cancer would be due to our increased ability to diagnose it, no?

And that is another great point Evo.

Cancer is about the most complex medical subject one can delve into and making definitive claims about such a complex and variable disease is teasing the bulldog in my opinion.

For instance, Hodgkin's lymphoma was first described in the early-mid 19th century and we didn't really start understanding the disease from a diagnostic standpoint till the 20th century. Are we too believe that Hodgkin's lymphoma didn't kill people prior to that? Certainly not, it was however attributed to bad blood, bad spirits or any of the other maladies of the time.

Thanks Siv! That's more than I can read right now!

This goes back to just how complex cancer is. If users aren't familiar with cancer, they can go back and read my post on how it all "starts" on the first page. But the point is, cancer isn't attributable to anyone factor. There are many things which "need to go wrong". We're just starting to understand also how things like corticoids affect NK cell activity and other stressors as well.

I think when its all said an done, we need to be mindful that anything excessive is bad for our bodies-Even water. Staying active, trying to eat healthy and trying to keep a general positive outlook on life seems the best advice one can give.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Hey Mars, the "junk science" the OP was referring to was an article by a couple of people claiming that looking at some egyptian mummies and not finding much cancer meant that cancer must be a new man made illness. Well, we know that all of the organs, stomach, liver, lungs, intestines, brains, etc... were all removed before mummification, so there was little of the body left to examine, even if they examined every inch of what was left.

Hi Evo, the link (url) that the OP presented was to an article entitled, "Cancer is a man-made disease, controversial study claims- Rarity of cancer in Egyptian mummies suggests modern environmental factors." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39687039/ns/health-cancer/) David and Zimmerman are a 'couple of people' mentioned within the MSN article. Also, MSN isn't a scientific journal. Here is what Nature REVIEWS has to offer pertaining to the MSN article:

Nature Reviews Cancer 10, 728-733 (October 2010) | doi:10.1038/nrc2914

Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between?
A. Rosalie David & Michael R. Zimmerman

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.
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v10/n10/full/nrc2914.html

Here is Professor Rosalie David (OBE, BA, PhD, FRSA) - research.
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/Rosalie.david/research

And this might be helpful too:

Science 20 April 1973:
Vol. 180. no. 4083, pp. 303 - 304
DOI: 10.1126/science.180.4083.303

Blood Cells Preserved in a Mummy 2000 Years Old
Michael R. Zimmerman 1
1 Departments of Pathology and Anthropology, University, of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104

Structures resembling red blood cells have been seen in mummies, but have been considered by some to be artifacts or molds. The finding of these structures, admixed with white blood cells, in the blood vessels of a mummified American Indian, confirms the original interpretation of preserved red blood cells.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/4083/303

I still hold onto what I presented in my previous post, especially about the usage of the word "science" and my previous presentation of an example. Also, Nature and Science are peer-reviewed journals.

 

[Evo]

I intentionally referred to them as a "couple of people" because I can't imagine a professional scientist making this kind of claim with so little to go by.

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.”

 

[hamster143]

For instance, Hodgkin's lymphoma was first described in the early-mid 19th century and we didn't really start understanding the disease from a diagnostic standpoint till the 20th century. Are we too believe that Hodgkin's lymphoma didn't kill people prior to that? Certainly not, it was however attributed to bad blood, bad spirits or any of the other maladies of the time.

Of course, it was not diagnosed as Hodgkin's lymphoma. But that just sidesteps the important question.

Can we be sure that it is not triggered or enhanced by an environmental/lifestyle factor? Like you said, there are hundreds of factors that can lead to errors and cancer. But, for example, in case of lung cancer, we now know that the "natural" incidence of the disease is quite low. Three pollution/lifestyle factors (smoking and radon exposure, and, in the past, asbestos) explain nearly all occurrences. Cervical cancer is essentially a promiscuity disease, in 99% of cases preceded by an infection by a certain STD. Maybe something similar is going on with other major types.

With Hodgkin's lymphoma, it's hard to say, but, for example, why does the pancreatic cancer seem to be at least twice as common as non-lifestyle lung cancer? Pancreas is only about 1/8'ths of the weight of the lungs. Brain is a massive organ by comparison, averaging 1.5 kg against pancreases 100 g, but it's fairly well insulated and brain tumors too occur less commonly. We don't know everything yet, but there are indications that, once again, most cases of pancreatic cancer are triggered by lifestyle factors (diet, obesity, smoking) rather than genetics or random errors, and these lifestyle factors are much more common among post-Industrial Revolution humans than among ancient Egyptians.

If we take numbers for the brain and the lung minus smoking/radon/asbestos, and use them to project "expected" non-lifestyle cancer rates for all internal organs, assuming that all cells of all internal organs are equally likely to break up, we should be seeing 30-60 cases per 100,000 people per year (not including skin, lymphomas and leukemias). In reality, we see closer to 500.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I intentionally referred to them as a "couple of people" because I can't imagine a professional scientist making this kind of claim with so little to go by.

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.”

Ah yes, the University of Manchester has a news article, which by the way Professor Rosalie David resides during working hours at the University of Manchester: I'll highlight in red what you have quoted Evo. This will hopefully give a fuller comprehension that I find appeasing and it appears as stated there is a lot of data:

Scientists suggest that cancer is purely man-made14 Oct 2010

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 study of remains and literature from ancient Egypt and Greece and earlier periods – carried out at Manchester’s KNH Centre for Biomedical Egyptology and published in Nature – includes the first histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy.
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.”

The data includes the first ever histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy by Professor Michael Zimmerman, a visiting Professor at the KNH Centre, who is based at the Villanova University in the US. He diagnosed rectal cancer in an unnamed mummy, an ‘ordinary’ person who had lived in the Dakhleh Oasis during the Ptolemaic period (200-400 CE).

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”.

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.

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.

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.

Another explanation for the lack of tumours in ancient remains is that tumours might not be well preserved. Dr. Zimmerman has performed experimental studies indicating that mummification preserves the features of malignancy and that tumours should actually be better preserved than normal tissues. In spite of this finding, hundreds of mummies from all areas of the world have been examined and there are still only two publications showing microscopic confirmation of cancer. Radiological surveys of mummies from the Cairo Museum and museums in Europe have also failed to reveal evidence of cancer.

As the team moved through the ages, it was not until the 17th century that they found descriptions of operations for breast and other cancers and the first reports in scientific literature of distinctive tumours have only occurred in the past 200 years, such as scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps in 1775, nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761 and Hodgkin’s disease in 1832.

Professor David – who was invited to present her paper to UK Cancer Czar Professor Mike Richards and other oncologists at this year’s UK Association of Cancer Registries and National Cancer Intelligence Network conference – said: “Where there are cases of cancer in ancient Egyptian remains, we are not sure what caused them. They did heat their homes with fires, which gave off smoke, and temples burned incense, but sometimes illnesses are just thrown up.”

She added: “The ancient Egyptian data offers both physical and literary evidence, giving a unique opportunity to look at the diseases they had and the treatments they tried. They were the fathers of pharmacology so some treatments did work

“They were very inventive and some treatments thought of as magical were genuine therapeutic remedies. For example, celery was used to treat rheumatism back then and is being investigated today. Their surgery and the binding of fractures were excellent because they knew their anatomy: there was no taboo on working with human bodies because of mummification. They were very hands on and it gave them a different mindset to working with bodies than the Greeks, who had to come to Alexandria to study medicine.”

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.”
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=6243

 

[mugaliens]

bobze & hamster, it would also seem logical that the apparent increase in the diagnosis of cancer would be due to our increased ability to diagnose it, no?

Bingo. Many cancers prior to our modern era simply went undiagnosed. In fact, prior to our modern era, many people never saw a doctor or dentist.

I saw a few life expectancy charts earlier, which are very misleading when talking about cancer, as cancer is but one of many causes of death, and many of those causes have dramatically shifted over the last 100 years, including infant mortality rates, poverty levels, malnutrition, as well as causes of death profiles in various age groups. It's not that we were incapable of living past 50 years of age in 1900. Wyatt Earp died shortly before his 81st birthday, in 1929, and Mark Twain passed away in 1910 at the ripe old age of 75.

Twain, however, outlived three of his four children.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Today a person can go online to the United States National Institutes of Health - National Cancer Institute -Cancer Causes and Risk Factors to further explore the following topics :

Chemicals/Environment
Cancer and the Environment
Asbestos Exposure and Cancer Risk
Agricultural Health Study
Benzene Causes Lowered Blood Cell Counts in Workers Exposed at Low Levels
Formaldehyde and Cancer Risk
Hair Dyes and Cancer Risk
Cancer Clusters

Food
Acrylamide in Food and Cancer Risk
Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer
Fluoridated Water: Questions and Answers
Chemicals in Meat Cooked at High Temperatures and Cancer Risk

Genetics
BRCA1 and BRCA2: Cancer Risk and Genetic Testing

Hormones
Women & Cancer: Pregnancy, Contraceptives, and Post-menopausal Hormone Use
DES (Diethylstilbestrol)

Infectious Agents
HIV Infection and Cancer Risk
Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers
H. pylori and Cancer: Fact Sheet

Radiation
Cell Phones and Cancer Risk
Magnetic Field Exposure and Cancer: Questions and Answers
No Excess Mortality Risk Found in Counties with Nuclear Facilities
Radioactive I-131 from Fallout
Radon and Cancer: Questions and Answers
Radiation Risks and Pediatric Computed Tomography (CT): A Guide for Health Care roviders
Interventional Fluoroscopy: Reducing Radiation Risks for Patients and Staff

Risk Assessment Tools
Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool
Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool
Melanoma Risk Assessment Tool

Tobacco
Smoking Home Page
Smokeless Tobacco

Weight and Physical Activity
Energy Balance: Weight and Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Obesity and Cancer: Questions and Answers
Physical Activity and Cancer

Other Topics
Psychological Stress and Cancer: Questions and Answers
Antiperspirants/Deodorants and Breast Cancer: Questions and Answers
Vasectomy and Cancer Risk
Simian Virus 40 and Human Cancer

Research on Cancer Causes and Risk Factors
Please read on . . .
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/prevention-genetics-causes/causes

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/speeches/galen1989.html

Galen on Cancer

Galen's discussion of cancer per se is quite short. It takes up a total of only one page out of twenty-eight in the text. Nevertheless, this is the first book we know of to deal with tumors, including cancer, in a systematic way and the last one until Giovanni Ingrassia's 1553 book of the same name.17

Cancer (karkinos) is mentioned six times in the text. It was Hippocrates who named cancer "karkinos" 18 after the crab. According to legend, it was so called because this disease "has the veins stretched on all sides as the animal the crab has its feet, whence it derives its name." 19

Galen adopted Hippocrates' basic theory of cancer as an excess of black bile (melancholia or atra bilis). But in expanding this concept, he writes:

Black bile without boiling causes cancers and, if it happens to be rather acrid, cancers with a sore. For this reason they are blacker in color than inflammations and are not at all hot. The veins on them are fuller and more extended than in inflammations, because the humor that causes cancer does not run out as much from the vessels to the surrounding flesh because of its thickness.20

 

[Siv]

Bingo. Many cancers prior to our modern era simply went undiagnosed. In fact, prior to our modern era, many people never saw a doctor or dentist.

I am not so sure. Anthropologists who studied tribes untouched by the modern Western fast and processed food disease often did not find evidence for these.

Speaking of dentists, anyone read Weston Price's work ? I don't mean the current WAPF, but the original works of Weston Price. Interesting stuff indeed.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

In their Nature Cancer Reviews article, David and Zimmerman examine ancient societies to determine the prevalence of cancer in ancient societies. They find that cancer is rare in the ancient societies that they studied and, after considering various possible explanations for the relative lack of ancient tumors, suggest that their findings provide evidence that cancers are caused primarily by factors of modern society such as smoking and pollution.

The authors focus on two ancient societies for which there is a relative wealth of knowledge: ancient Greece and ancient Egypt. They chose these societies because ancient Greek life is well documented through the art, literature, and other writings they left behind, and the practice of mummification in ancient Egypt provides many samples for paleopathological study. Their examination of ancient art and literature suggests that Egyptians may have documented cases of cancer in some ancient medical texts (although they could be describing many other possible diseases) and Greek medical texts almost certainly document ancient cases of cancer. However, these texts do not give any indication of the prevalence of cancer in these societies.

The main evidence for the authors' claims that cancer was rare in ancient society comes from their examination of skeletal remains and mummies. Although the authors cite a few examples of remains that show evidence of cancer, they state that these cases are rare. The authors then consider two possible reasons why cancers might be rarely found in remains. First, they consider the reduced life expectancy in antiquity. Cancer is generally associated with old age, so an overall younger population would be expected to show a decreased incidence of cancer. Here, the authors argue that many individuals would have lived to an old enough age to develop cancer, citing inscriptions in tombs and paleopathological evdience that individuals in the wealthier classes lived on average 40 to 50 years and showed signs of other age-related diseases. Furthermore, they state that bone cancers, which should be considerably easier to find in ancient remains, primarily affect the young in modern society, so the incidence of bone cancer would not be as sensitive to the lifespan of the population. To address the argument that cancers might would not be well preserved in the remains, the authors cite Zimmerman's study demonstrating it is possible for mummification to preserve the features of malignant tumors. Having considered these two possible explanations for the scarcity of cancer in ancient remains, the authors conclude that the rate of cancer was lower in ancient societies than in modern societies and suggest that the difference may be due to the prevalence of carcinogens in modern society.

While the authors ask an interesting and important question, the question is also extremely difficult to answer due to the low quality of evidence available and relative lack of knowledge about these societies. Thus, it is not surprising that the authors arguments are fairly weak and lack scientific rigor. For example, they state that cancer is rare in ancient society. Well, how rare is rare? Bone cancer is also rare. The authors' case would have been greatly strengthened had they provided some quantitative analysis. A case study of the incidence of bone cancer in skeletal remains could have been a nice area to study. The authors state that "tens of thousands of skeletons have been examined but only a few diagnoses of possible and/or probable malignancies — based on gross appearance and occasional X-ray scans showing defects in or masses on bones — have been made." Here, it would have been nice to compare the number of possible/probable cases of cancer with the number of cases expected if the rate of cancer in these ancient societies were the same as in modern societies. If the rate of cancer in ancient societies is drastically lower than the rate of cancer in modern society, then a crude calculation like this would have been illuminating. Furthermore, excluding the effects of the lower life expectancy of ancient societies is another argument that requires some quantification to gauge the magnitude of the effect versus the observed decreased incidence in the rate of cancer. Unfortunately such quantitative analyses are difficult due to the lack of knowledge about these societies.

In a broader context, the authors' conclusion does make sense. We know that many cancers are caused by lifestyle choices that would be less prevalent in ancient societies (for example, some estimate that tobacco use causes 30% of cancers and obesity causes 20% of cancers, two factors unlikely to be present in ancient Greece and Egypt). However, just because the conclusion make sense does not mean it is well supported by the available evidence.

 

[Gaius Baltar]

I'm a firm believer cancer is definatly man made. I don't have evidence, I don't have anything, its my personal opinion. The amount of crap in foods, drinks, cigarettes, air pollution, the way we are... It does not take a genious to work out...

P.S - Remember that's just my opinion.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

Yeah, white hairless people (like me) cause skin cancer, I wonder how that happens.

 

[ViewsofMars]

"Younger adults and men of any age are less likely to protect themselves from the sun. However, females seek shade far less than males. Adults with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level are less likely to use sunscreen. Young adult women are most likely to get too much exposure to artificial light through indoor tanning." (The National Cancer Institute, Cancer Trends Progress Report 2009-10, Sun Protection - Groups at High Risk for Getting Too Much Sun. http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=71&coid=711&mid=#target )

Well, I enjoyed reading the entire progress report. I think I will leave this topic now since I have contributed on page 2 and 3.

Brief mention, I have lived my entire life in areas where the sun shines most of the year. I love the beach and always put on my sunscreen. Even on an overcast day you can still get burned. Matter of fact, I always use everyday my Neutrogena, Ultra Sheer (Dry-Touch) Sunblock (SPF 70) on my face and on the top of my hands. OK, call me vain! I'm a woman, and I want to look pretty forever! No wrinkles yet or brown spots. And I'm over 50 but people tell me I look like I'm in my late 30's.

 

[Siv]

"Younger adults and men of any age are less likely to protect themselves from the sun. However, females seek shade far less than males. Adults with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty level are less likely to use sunscreen. Young adult women are most likely to get too much exposure to artificial light through indoor tanning." (The National Cancer Institute, Cancer Trends Progress Report 2009-10, Sun Protection - Groups at High Risk for Getting Too Much Sun. http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=71&coid=711&mid=#target )

Well, I enjoyed reading the entire progress report. I think I will leave this topic now since I have contributed on page 2 and 3.

Brief mention, I have lived my entire life in areas where the sun shines most of the year. I love the beach and always put on my sunscreen. Even on an overcast day you can still get burned. Matter of fact, I always use everyday my Neutrogena, Ultra Sheer (Dry-Touch) Sunblock (SPF 70) on my face and on the top of my hands. OK, call me vain! I'm a woman, and I want to look pretty forever! No wrinkles yet or brown spots. And I'm over 50 but people tell me I look like I'm in my late 30's.

This sun avoidance mania has, apart from benefitting sunscreen manufacturers, only served to cause a worldwide epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency.

If your Vitamin D status is corrected, you don't burn as easily. If your Vitamin D status is very low, you do.

The skin cancer and sun link is also being questioned now.

 

[ViewsofMars]

This sun avoidance mania has, apart from benefitting sunscreen manufacturers, only served to cause a worldwide epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency.

I doubt that. From the Office of Dietary Supplements - National Institutes of Health:

Despite the importance of the sun to vitamin D synthesis, it is prudent to limit exposure of skin to sunlight [36] and UV radiation from tanning beds [37]. UV radiation is a carcinogen responsible for most of the estimated 1.5 million skin cancers and the 8,000 deaths due to metastatic melanoma that occur annually in the United States [36]. Lifetime cumulative UV damage to skin is also largely responsible for some age-associated dryness and other cosmetic changes. It is not known whether a desirable level of regular sun exposure exists that imposes no (or minimal) risk of skin cancer over time. The American Academy of Dermatology advises that photoprotective measures be taken, including the use of sunscreen, whenever one is exposed to the sun.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp#h3

If your Vitamin D status is corrected, you don't burn as easily. If your Vitamin D status is very low, you do.

When your skin is exposed for a length of time, you burn in the sun if you don't wear sunscreen . I take a daily multi-vitamin and adhere to the dietary Guidelines from the Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D :

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans describes a healthy diet as one that
Emphasizes a variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products.

Milk is fortified with vitamin D, as are many ready-to-eat cereals and a few brands of yogurt and orange juice. Cheese naturally contains small amounts of vitamin D. [I love milk, yogurt, and orange juice. I had Oat Bran Muesli mixed with yogurt and a sliced fresh peach. Yummy!]

Includes lean meats, poultry, fish, beans, eggs, and nuts.

Fish such as salmon, tuna, and mackerel are very good sources of vitamin D. Small amounts of vitamin D are also found in beef liver and egg yolks.

Is low in saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, salt (sodium), and added sugars.

Vitamin D is added to some margarines.
Stays within your daily calorie needs.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp#h3

The skin cancer and sun link is also being questioned now.

How so? Give me a quote and the link (url) that supports your claim.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I'm a firm believer cancer is definatly man made. I don't have evidence, I don't have anything, its my personal opinion. The amount of crap in foods, drinks, cigarettes, air pollution, the way we are... It does not take a genious to work out...

P.S - Remember that's just my opinion.

There are definitely things in the natural environment that cause cancer, however. UV radiation causes skin cancer. Human papiloma virus causes almost all forms of cervical cancer. Aflatoxin, one of the most carcinogenic substances known, is naturally produced by a species of fungus. Naturally occurring radon gas from the soil can cause lung cancer. The list goes on and on. None of these sources of cancer are man made (although one could argue that human depletion of ozone has contributed to skin cancer).

The real question is what fraction of cancers in our society are attributable to "man-made" causes (modern lifestyle choices and pollution) and what fraction are attributable to "natural" causes (aging, natural sources, etc.). While much research has been done on this subject, I do not think the analysis done by David and Zimmerman adds much of substance to the debate.

 

[ViewsofMars]

There are definitely things in the natural environment that cause cancer, however. UV radiation causes skin cancer. Human papiloma virus causes almost all forms of cervical cancer. Aflatoxin, one of the most carcinogenic substances known, is naturally produced by a species of fungus. Naturally occurring radon gas from the soil can cause lung cancer. The list goes on and on. None of these sources of cancer are man made (although one could argue that human depletion of ozone has contributed to skin cancer).

The real question is what fraction of cancers in our society are attributable to "man-made" causes (modern lifestyle choices and pollution) and what fraction are attributable to "natural" causes (aging, natural sources, etc.). While much research has been done on this subject, I do not think the analysis done by David and Zimmerman adds much of substance to the debate.

The problem that I have noticed is people don't READ! The OP presented an MSN article that had a lot of media hype, whereas I previously presented peer-viewed journals. You can also review my post #28 and take note of what is considered to be "man-made" causes. I hope you can figure it out. Also, lead paint can cause cancer. Very old homes have it. People invented (made) that paint.

A good example of a "man-made" cause of cancer are people who ignore what professionals have warned them about cancer and how he/she could avoid it. Smoking cigerates can cause cancer. People still smoke and die because of it. People make cigerates and people choose to smoke, knowing they could die from it. Basically, sad to say, a person kills him or her self.

 

[Evo]

While the authors ask an interesting and important question, the question is also extremely difficult to answer due to the low quality of evidence available and relative lack of knowledge about these societies. Thus, it is not surprising that the authors arguments are fairly weak and lack scientific rigor. For example, they state that cancer is rare in ancient society. Well, how rare is rare? Bone cancer is also rare. The authors' case would have been greatly strengthened had they provided some quantitative analysis. A case study of the incidence of bone cancer in skeletal remains could have been a nice area to study. The authors state that "tens of thousands of skeletons have been examined but only a few diagnoses of possible and/or probable malignancies — based on gross appearance and occasional X-ray scans showing defects in or masses on bones — have been made." Here, it would have been nice to compare the number of possible/probable cases of cancer with the number of cases expected if the rate of cancer in these ancient societies were the same as in modern societies. If the rate of cancer in ancient societies is drastically lower than the rate of cancer in modern society, then a crude calculation like this would have been illuminating. Furthermore, excluding the effects of the lower life expectancy of ancient societies is another argument that requires some quantification to gauge the magnitude of the effect versus the observed decreased incidence in the rate of cancer. Unfortunately such quantitative analyses are difficult due to the lack of knowledge about these societies.

In a broader context, the authors' conclusion does make sense. We know that many cancers are caused by lifestyle choices that would be less prevalent in ancient societies (for example, some estimate that tobacco use causes 30% of cancers and obesity causes 20% of cancers, two factors unlikely to be present in ancient Greece and Egypt). However, just because the conclusion make sense does not mean it is well supported by the available evidence.

Thanks for finding this. Her statement that "there is nothing in nature that can cause cancer." is so wrong. They've lost all credibility for me.