
Briefing: Cancer is not a disease of the modern world - swombat
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19591-briefing-cancer-is-not-a-disease-of-the-modern-world.html
======
_delirium
The article seems slightly different from its title. What the body seems to
conclude is: 1) the available evidence of ancient cancers is too sparse to
conclude anything, given that even "common" cancers would be fairly uncommon
in a population of only a few hundred mummies and few thousand skeletons, most
of whom died before age 50; and 2) if there is an increase in cancers, it's
probably due to preventable lifestyle things like smoking, rather than
pollution or other background causes more generally.

In particular, the second part seems to cut against their original point: they
first say cancer isn't a disease of the modern world, and then they say well,
maybe it is more common, but if so it's mostly because of lifestyle factors.

Both those points do seem likely to be correct, though.

~~~
cperciva
Headlines oversimplify.

A better synopsis would be "Cancer is not a disease of the modern
_environment_ ; it's a disease of the modern _lifestyle_ and _lifespan_ ".

~~~
joe_the_user
All headline simplify but this one seemed completely disingenuous.

99% of people would parse "cancer is a disease of the modern" as "cancer is a
disease of modern lifestyles" Certainly lifespan is less popularly understood.
But every point someone might raise here is merely _refining_ the fairly well
understood point that _cancer is a disease of the modern world_.

My summary of the article would "we'll make three or four fine, hair-splitting
distinctions to keep an unpleasant truth at bay"

~~~
hugh3
Wait, what's the unpleasant truth here?

If it turned out that cancer, that horrible disease that kills nearly half of
us, was almost entirely due [ _pollution/eating crabs/wearing
shoes/fluoridation of water sapping and impurifying our precious bodily
fluids_ ] then that would be an unpleasant truth. That's what the original
"research" on mummies seemed to be claiming.

If in fact it turns out that cancer is unavoidable if you live long enough,
that's a much less unpleasant truth.

~~~
brudgers
_"cancer, that horrible disease that kills nearly half of us"_

According to the WHO, cancer is responsible for about 2:17 of all disease
related deaths worldwide.

<http://apps.who.int/ghodata/?vid=720>

In the US, deaths from cancer lag behind those from CVD. Though they are
closer. <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm>

~~~
hugh3
Right, the worldwide cancer death rate is a lot lower than it is for those of
us in rich countries because poor people are too busy dying of other things
like malaria and malnutrition.

My "almost half" was an exaggeration, yes (and a totally unnecessary one,
nobody needs to be convinced that cancer is bad) though if you also take into
account the fact that heart disease disproportionately kills the overweight,
if you're not overweight and in a rich country your chances of dying of cancer
might well be approaching 50%.

~~~
brudgers
In 2005 cancer deaths were about 23% of all US deaths.
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstats/VitalStats_Mo...](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstats/VitalStats_Mortality.htm)

------
cancersucks
As someone currently battling cancer (stage IV nodular melanoma) i've been
reading a lot about it all lately, and i've seen multiple sources saying that
it was the Egyptians themselves who actually first documented cancer.

Eg:
[http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/09/03//30018...](http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/09/03//3001854.htm)

------
fnl
Sorry guys, whatever you are saying: cancer is a product of the cellular
replication system and the faint, yet existing possibilities of errors in that
system. To our best knowledge, the are mostly associated to DNA mutations and
certain other physio-chemical states (e.g., epigenetics) associated to it.
However, the longer you live, the more likely you will beceome prone to incur
these genetic state changes. This state change is mostly related to the fact
that we live longer than before. Obviously, there is hereditary cancer and all
its implications and we can trace that, but the increased occurrence of these
genetic issues leading to our cells to behave in discord in modern society is
undoubtedly linked to the greatly increased lifespans. No scientific study has
come up with other evidence - and if it would have, I can assure you it would
be on the headlines of Science, Nature, and other scientific journals.

~~~
Evgeny
How would you explain that there are (or were) cultures completely or almost
completely free of cancer - with it becoming more common when they adopted the
western lifestyle?

 _In Cancer, Disease of Civilization (1960), Wilhjalmur Stefansson mentions a
few cultures besides the Inuit in which large-scale searches never turned up
cancer. Dr. Albert Schweitzer examined over 10,000 traditionally-living
natives in Gabon (West Africa) in 1913 and did not find cancer. Later, it
became common in the same population as they began "living more and more after
the manner of the whites."

In Cancer, its Nature, Cause and Cure (1957), Dr. Alexander Berglas describes
the search for cancer among natives in Brazil and Ecuador by Dr. Eugene Payne.
He examined approximately 60,000 people over 25 years and found no evidence of
cancer._

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-in-
othe...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-in-other-non-
industrialized.html)

~~~
nickpp
Those cultures simply did not have the life expectancy necessary to reach
cancers. They died from other diseases before that.

~~~
Evgeny
Well, in the modern world even school kids may have cancer - my daughter has a
classmate who went through it, and that's primary school. I don't know the
details though about type of cancer etc.

But those cultures didn't have cancer, din't have obesity, diabetes, heart
disease ... I don't even know what diseases they died from.

I do not have the book "Cancer, Disease of Civilisation" and the blog post
does not tell about the age. Here's the compilation of two other blog entries
from the same blog:

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-
among-i...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-among-
inuit.html)

 _One of these physicians was captain George B. Leavitt. He actively searched
for cancer among the traditionally-living Inuit from 1885 to 1907. Along with
his staff, he performed 50,000 examinations a year for the first 15 years, and
25,000 a year thereafter. He did not find a single case of cancer. At the same
time, he was regularly diagnosing cancers among the crews of whaling ships and
other Westernized populations. It's important to note two relevant facts about
Inuit culture: first, their habit of going shirtless indoors. This would make
visual inspection for external cancers very easy. Second, the Inuit generally
had great faith in Western doctors and would consult them even for minor
problems. Therefore, doctors in the arctic had ample opportunity to inspect
them for cancer._

This entry does not mention lifespan, but the other one does:

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-
and-...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-
of-inuit.html)

 _Excluding infant mortality, about 25% of their population lived past 60.
Based on these data, the approximate life expectancy (excluding infant
mortality) of this Inuit population was 43.5 years. It's possible that life
expectancy would have been higher before contact with the Russians, since they
introduced a number of nasty diseases to which the Inuit were not resistant._

I do not have data at hand about cancer rates in the western world by age, but
my guess would be that it's not so uncommon at the age of 60+.

~~~
Evgeny
_I do not have data at hand about cancer rates in the western world by age,
but my guess would be that it's not so uncommon at the age of 60+._

Just talking to myself here:

[http://www.nia.nih.gov/ResearchInformation/ConferencesAndMee...](http://www.nia.nih.gov/ResearchInformation/ConferencesAndMeetings/WorkshopReport/Figure1.htm)

 _1,301.6 per 100,000 in the 60- to 64-year-old population;_

So, if that George B. Leavitt was indeed performing 50,000 examination per
year (looks a bit high, that's over 100 per day), and 25% of inuit population
lived past 60, he should have examined about 12,500 inuit aged 60+ per year.

By current western standards, he should have found about 160 cases each year
among those 60+ guys. The book claims he has not found any.

~~~
hugh3
Well then, I'd consider that to be one of those extraordinary claims that
demands extraordinary evidence. Something other than hearsay from a dodgy-
sounding source.

I'm trying to find out about this George B. Leavitt guy. I assume it was this
guy:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Baker_Leavitt,_Sr>.

but he wasn't a physician as claimed, he was a captain and it doesn't mention
him having any medical training. Wikipedia also fails to say anything about
him examining people for cancer -- if he were really doing so at the rate of
one hundred and thirty six per day on average, in between his many other
duties (like, say, captaining a whaling ship which would require quite a lot
of time spent at sea) then one would think it would have been quite time-
consuming.

Other googling for "George Leavitt Cancer" provides a few repetitions of the
same claim (including this thread -- hi there!) but nothing that looks
reputable. The original claim seems to come from a book called "Cancer:
Disease of Civilization?" written by one Vilhjalmur Stefansson who travelled
with Leavitt.

Also, your stats aren't quite right. Even if he were examining that many
people, he wouldn't expect to detect cancer at nearly the rates that modern
medicine would.

Also, that's the cancer incidence rate, not the rate at which you expect to
find living people with detectable cancers, since people who do have cancer
tend to die, especially in societies where they can't treat it. By the time a
cancer becomes big enough to detect via a cursory examination with 19th
century technology, it has probably already killed you.

~~~
Evgeny
These are all good points to think about. For this particular one, I agree:

 _Even if he were examining that many people, he wouldn't expect to detect
cancer at nearly the rates that modern medicine would._

But at the same time, as the book claims:

 _At the same time, he was regularly diagnosing cancers among the crews of
whaling ships and other Westernized populations._

So detectability, probably, was not that big of an issue itself.

~~~
hugh3
_So detectability, probably, was not that big of an issue itself._

Unless, of course, he got it into his head that Inuit didn't have cancers, and
then started making false diagnoses based on that.

Look, I don't know how much of this story is true and how much of it is made
up. Certainly the part where he's a trained physician seems to have been made
up. The part where he examined fifty thousand Inuit _plus_ a significant of
westerners per year in between his actual duties as a ship's captain appears
to be completely implausible. If this random anecdote is the best evidence we
have that living with a traditional Eskimo diet will signficantly lower your
chance of cancer, I think it's safe to say that the evidence for the
hypothesis is pretty darn pissweak.

~~~
fnl
Average inuit lifespan is about 45 years - however, that means they had a
higher life expectancy than we did before we surpassed them. So the extremely
cold environment does seem to help (although you just won't get me there :)

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-
and-...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-
of-inuit.html)

------
robchez
Full disclosure. I am one of those "crazy people" who think grains and complex
carbohydrates are killing us, and that a high fat diet, moderate protein, low
carbohydrate is ideal.

I really believe cancer IS a modern world disease, however my definition of
modern world goes beyond the Egyptians and back to the first people who ever
started eating wheat and grains. I would be surprised if the Egyptians DIDN'T
have a host of cancers due to there consumption of wheat and grain grown in
the Nile.

Cancer is a product of the small failures in the cellular replication system,
however, we are accelerating the amount of replication by putting ourselves
into modes of chronic hyper-insulinism through all the carbohydrate rich diets
we are eating. Add to the chronic inflammation we have put our bodies into,
causing our white bloodcells to attack healthy cells, then forcing again even
more cell replication, we are essentially giving cancer a better odd at
occurring. (This is a gross over-simplification as I am getting ready to
sleep, but I could go on about Insulin Like Growth Factors etc.)

Also, in regards to everyone discussing that we live a lot longer than our
ancestors. Again this is true to our ancestors going back to the agricultural
revolution, but there are studies shown[1] that our hunter-gatherer brethren
had lifespans not unlike hours.

[1]
[http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2...](http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf)

~~~
hugh3
Have you actually read that 46-page paper you posted? Because I'm only up to
page six, but it appears to directly contradict you:

 _"Among traditional hunter-gatherers, the average life expectancy at birth
varies from 21 to 37 years; the proportion surviving to age 45 varies between
26 percent and 43 percent"_

Reading onwards, this should give pause to anyone who wants to go on about the
awesomeness of hunter-gatherer diets:

 _Gastrointestinal illnesses account for 5-18 percent of deaths... Diarrhea
coupled with malnutrition remains one of the most significant causes of infant
and early child deaths among foragers and peasant populations..._

~~~
robchez
The way I understood it was that the average life expectancy was low, due to
the high rate of infant mortality. But the mode of the age data is up in the
60's-70's. I.e those who didn't die from infection, or being eaten alive
actually lived similar lives to us.

edit: Article quote

Page 29: _The data show that modal adult life span is 68–78 years, and that it
was not uncommon for individuals to reach these ages, suggesting that
inferences based on paleodemographic reconstruc-tion are unreliable._

------
eps
I happen to know a guy who's father was a prominent biologist and a cancer
researcher. He used to make a point that cancer is a result of a random
process that is present in all living things, and if humans managed to cure
all other deseases everyone would still get cancer sooner or later.

Point being, not many mummies had cancer probably because they simply lived
much shorter lives than modern humans. We have pills and defibrilators, they
did not.

~~~
alecco
That's too simplistic. Yes, there are many "random" processes affecting DNA,
including transposons and viruses. But there are also tumor suppression
mechanisms (genes), too.

What the article talks about is the case when a cancerous outbreak goes
unchecked in the human body.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer> (Sorry for the RTFWP)

------
gjm11
There is a delicious irony in _New Scientist_ , of all publications,
complaining about sloppy and sensationalized science reporting in the media.
Sloppy and sensationalized science reporting seems to be pretty much _New
Scientist_ 's reason for existing.

------
j_baker
It seems to me that without modern medicine, it only makes sense that fewer
people died of cancer. It's not that it's become more dangerous. It's that
there were simply more things to die of.

~~~
InclinedPlane
What's more, without modern medicine (and sanitation and nutrition) people
_with_ cancer would tend to die earlier, or perhaps of secondary factors. If
you're some occasionally malnourished farm hand (read: the vast majority of
all individuals who lived in pre-industrial times) and you get, say, leukemia
you are going to die of whatever the fuck disease happens to be going around,
and it's going to happen quick. The result is that there may be less evidence
of cancer in, say, ancient bones but not due to decreased incidence of cancer
per se.

~~~
fluidcruft
There is a line of reasoning (and evidence in mice) that the body seems to be
designed to operate in starvation mode (e.g. calorie restriction). One line of
thought behind this is that food abundance results in signalling along certain
metabolic pathways that have not experienced heavy evolutionary pressure.

------
Alex3917
"Smoking is the most significant of these, causing around a quarter of all
cancers globally."

Except for that the research shows that smoking doesn't cause cancer, except
_maybe_ for tobacco. And even the surgeon general now apparently admits that
most cancers that tobacco users suffer from probably aren't from tobacco.[1]

[1] <http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_health2.shtml>

~~~
j_baker
Bear in mind that I say this in the most respectful manner possible: Do you
believe everything you read on the Internet?

~~~
Alex3917
No, of course not, I only cited the UMASS pamphlet because it's the most well
written summary of the information. But every other source from the NY Times
to Wikipedia says basically the same thing, e.g.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html>

~~~
cromulent
I read that NYT link and it seems to say the opposite - that smoking does
cause cancer.

"What few experts will dispute is the magnitude of the hazard: the World
Health Organization estimates that 10 million people will be dying annually
from cigarettes by the year 2020 — a third of these in China. Cigarettes,
which claimed about 100 million lives in the 20th century, could claim close
to a billion in the present century."

~~~
Alex3917
Only a third of the people who die from smoking die from cancer. And again, it
doesn't seem to be the tobacco but rather the radioactive material and the
additives. Cigarette smokers in other countries have vastly lower rates of
cancer.

