We know for a fact that lung cancer was once a rare disease, and it was a rare disease not that long ago. In the late 1800’s/early 1900’s it was still unusual for a doctor to even personally see a case of lung cancer. The recent increase in lung cancer is just 1 observable example of how a once rare disease can quickly become commonplace.
It is no stretch to think (all kinds of) pollution is a big factor in causing (all kinds of)cancer, and overpopulating/overcrowding causes pollution.
Cervical cancer is directly linked to the human papilloma virus as a bonus it also causes some oral cancers as well. 75% of all liver cancer is caused by Hepatitis infections. As already noted many skin cancers are due to too much sun.
I honestly wonder why people like this aren’t laughed out of the building. It’s one thing to say ‘We expose ourselves to more carcinogens in more potent forms in the modern age’ and another to say that there’s nothing in nature the causes cancer when that is flat out wrong and many well known cancers are directly caused by things in nature.
Well, Professor Rosalie David is easily googleable and she’s got professional contact info up. Maybe someone should ask her if she really said that, in that context. She might stop by here and pay us a visit.
It appeared in Nature reviews which is a highly respected journal, so its not likely to be junk science. I skimmed over the original paper, and as is often the case, the conclusions reached in there quite as firm as those presented in the more mainstream Manchester article. Even their title, “Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between?” suggests that cancer isn’t purely man made. Basically the authors looked at a number of mummies, at other studies of ancient tissue and ancient records of cancer. And observed that there weren’t as much evidence of cancer as they thought there should have been. Their final conclusion was
That said, the next issue of Nature methods contained a rebuttal letter by Bishoy Faltas, a Clinical Senior Instructor at University of Rochester Medical Center, titled “Cancer is an ancient disease: the case for better palaeoepidemiological and molecular studies”
So long story short, it appears to be an open question; science at its best fought out in the journal pages.
Well, if she was really legit, she’d have hired staff or internet bots scouring the web for references to her on message boards. Or good friend, Dr. Grisanti, over on the Functional Medicine thread, is a prime example.
I missed that Rosalie David quote about how “There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer.” We can only hope she was misquoted because the comment is way off base.
While Rosalie David is listed in the linked article from the OP as being “at the Faculty of Life Sciences” at the U. of Manchester, she’s not an oncologist or an epidemiologist. She’s apparently a well-known Egyptologist who’s done work examining mummies. According to this source:
“Prof David was the former Keeper of Egyptology at the Manchester Museum, and is Director of the International Mummy Database and Director of the Schistosomiasis Investigation Project.”
There’s a bit of irony relating to that last endeavor, considering her quoted claim that nothing in the natural environment causes cancer. Schistosomiasis, disease caused by several species of bladder parasites, has long been known to cause bladder cancer.
“Schistosomiasis has been recognized since the time of the Egyptian pharaohs…In (modern) Egypt, schistosomiasis linked with cancer is the primary cause of death among men aged between 20 and 44 years. In the industrialized countries, cancer of the bladder without schistosomiasis is usually prevalent among workers aged around 65. In some regions of Africa where Schistosoma haematobium is prevalent, the incidence of cancer of the bladder linked to schistosomiasis is 32 times higher than the incidence of cancer of the bladder in the USA.”
I wpuldn’t even make the assumption that we are more at risk of cancer today. Modern refrigeration has made food safer and stomach cancers less likely, we don’t burn oil lamps in our homes any more, and the environment is cleaner than its ever been. If cancer incidence is higher now, It would almost certainly be because we’re living longer and not because we’re exposed to more carcinogens.
WTH does he have to think anything? He brought up an interesting article and a discussion has started around it. Perhaps he knows nothing of the subject and is just interested in hearing what others have to say? Would you prefer he invent some bullshit “debate” just to satisfy an idiotic rule?
Asimov has a nifty essay called “The Enemy Within”, the gist being:
[ul][li]Our DNA is made up of lengthy molecules of common elements, including carbon[/li][li]Although most of the carbon on earth is the stable carbon-12 isotope, some percentage is unstable carbon-14[/li][li]Therefore, some random but predictable amount of carbon in our bodies is undergoing decay, and if the carbon happens to be in a DNA molecule, that DNA is breaking apart[/li][li]Most of the time, the resulting broken DNA is quickly destroyed. Sometimes, however, it has the potential to remain viable and form a cancer nucleus[/ul][/li]
Arguably, nuclear testing and whatnot has increased the number of radioactive isotopes in our environment, but it has always been a threat.
And now I am going to ask you to provide a reference for your claim that “50-70% of cancer is due to poor dietary habits, lack of exercise and smoking”.
I’m a little surprised that “mummy experts” would apparently assert that mummies are representative of the general population. Wasn’t mummification performed mostly on heads of state and the priestly class?
Take a second look at your cite there. I think you might have missed a word. What it says is that percentage of cancer deaths is caused by those things, not that percentage of cancer.
