Posted on 10/15/2010 5:08:41 AM PDT by facedodge
Cancer is a man-made disease fuelled by the excesses of modern life, a study of ancient remains has found. Tumours were rare until recent times when pollution and poor diet became issues, the review of mummies, fossils and classical literature found. A greater understanding of its origins could lead to treatments for the disease, which claims more than 150,000 lives a year in the UK.
Michael Zimmerman, a visiting professor at Manchester University, 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 industrialisation.' To trace cancer's roots, Professor Zimmerman and colleague Rosalie David analysed possible references to the disease in classical literature and scrutinised signs in the fossil record and in mummified bodies. Despite slivers of tissue from hundreds of Egyptian mummies being rehydrated and placed under the microscope, only one case of cancer has been confirmed. This is despite experiments showing that tumours should be even better preserved by mummification than healthy tissues. Dismissing the argument that the ancient Egyptians didn't live long enough to develop cancer, the researchers pointed out that other age-related disease such as hardening of the arteries and brittle bones died occur. Fossil evidence of cancer is also sparse, with scientific literature providing a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal fossil, the journal Nature Reviews Cancer reports. Even the study of thousands of Neanderthal bones has provided only one example of a possible cancer.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1320507/Cancer-purely-man-say-scientists-finding-trace-disease-Egyptian-mummies.html#ixzz12QZ5XXiq
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Considering how they cooked and provided light in darkness, I’d guess they were exposed to plenty of pollution.
it’s as if they think that because they use 20 thousand dollar microscopes and other expensive scientific equipment, they need less science.
“I mean after all, dancing with the stars is on. Cancer is man-made. Our expensive equipments said so. Let’s go home.”
And what was their lifespan..........30s is they were lucky
As stated in my post above, I’ve been told by oncologists that breast cancer is a disease of developed countries and is not seen in the true 3d world. It and colon cancer probably are related to electrification and artificial lighting.
There are lots of things about cancer we never hear clearly discussed.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
This is a very interesting article about the causes of lung cancer. Scroll down when you get to the page linked. More articles are published below this one.
Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?
Introduction
So far, most of the money given to the cancer industry has been spent looking for a cure for cancer. But it seems that cancer is a disease which has no cure. Traditionally, with solid tumours, cut it out has been the only real option - and it still is. Given that, wouldn’t it be better to concentrate more on preventing it?
Oxford’s cancer expert, Sir Richard Doll, writing in The American Journal of Public Health , said that increasing cancer mortality “can be accounted for in all industrialized countries by the spread of cigarette smoking.” Unfortunately, this statement tends to be believed, despite the evidence against it.
If smoking were a cause of any cancer, lung cancer is the most likely one. It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 - despite his own published data from that study which showed that people who inhaled cigarette smoke had less lung cancer than those who didn’t!
The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:
tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;
that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;
that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;
and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.
Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little says:
“Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself”.
So I guess our system of political and economic freedoms not only causes ‘global warming’ it’s now responsible for cancer?!! Give me a break.
Breast, colon, and prostate cancer are all encouraged by obesity, which is now epidemic in the developed world. Also, the prosperity in advanced nations enables people to eat lots of red meat, which is associated with increased colon cancer risk.
Guessing isn't a particularly accurate way of getting at the truth.
Lots of wall art in the various high-caste Egyptian burial sites. I'm not aware of ANY that has ever shown "chadora-like wraps". All of it I have seen shows the Egyptians clad more-or-less (mostly less) as they are depicted in movies. Personal note....when I was young, I was "very" interested in ancient Middle East early civilizations, and spent a lot of time reading about their archaeology and history. Of course, that was years ago. Maybe other evidence has turned up.
Ancient Egyptians had far lower cancer rates because they had a single payer universal health care system.
Peasants died of working 18 hr’s per day while eating about one bowl of gruel per day, then there's the beatings, dangerous nature of work. Big stones rolling over you, etc. The warrior class died of spears, sword play, various other implements. Royalty; died of battle wounds at times, but also a favorite was the asp, poison. Bottom line; not many people, whether peasant or royalty, made it to forty. There were a few exceptions but not many. Being that the frequency rate of cancer increases dramatically with advancement of age, it's understandable that these anthropologists are finding much of it in mummies.
so they take the example of a king and say that applied to the whole nation...so they all eat the same— like kings? jeeze do these people have a freaking brain.
and lets ignore the tripling of the life expectancy, the saving of mothers and babies...yep lets ignore all those things and focus on this issue for a representative sample i could count on my hand...thats the spirit, nothing i like more then good statistical samplings...looks like the same crowd have given up on global warming and moved to this field...one tree in siberia, one mummy — the discussion is over it must be cars...
Fits closer to my theory of genetic degradation.
Noah lived to 900. Methuselah much longer.
Most people in ancient Egypt were poor and the poor are subjected to many more diseases...and that drags down the averages in terms of life expectancy.
“cancer is a disease of aging”
That’s what I was taught as well. I heard a lecture by a professor who made a strong case about breast cancer (and other modern female problems) being an artifact of birth control. That’s why you don’t see the same incidence in undeveloped countries where women are either pregnant or lactating the majority of their lives.
average lifespan was under 50 back then
http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/dont-blame-fast-food-mummies-had-heart-disease
Just imagine the effect Noah and Methuselah would have had on Social Security.;-)
They also used arsenical minerals in pigments.
So, publication-whoring, funding pimp Professor Pushbottom, I'll help you.
Cancer is rare in populations with a life expectancy of FORTY YEARS. Wanking Fool.
(This means people did not live long enough for it to develop or present.)
"Life expectancy for one year old children was less than forty years. Water-borne diseases, tuberculosis and other infectious illnesses against which the best physicians of antiquity were mostly powerless, were endemic [1]. Periodically various kinds of plague broke out, often in the wake of wars. The sick, the very young and the elderly were especially prone to succumb."
I think they’ve found that life expectancy was about 35 years. The real truth is that the “mummy” sample largely consists of people who didn’t live long enough to develop cancer...
Of course, that doesn’t fit the “narrative.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.