Researchers from the University Of Manchester, United Kingdom, have concluded that cancer is a purely modern, man-made disease.
In the United Kingdom alone, Cancer claims more than 150,000 lives each year. Statistics also show that about one in three people in the United Kingdom is likely to get cancer.
The researchers spent a great deal of time studying mummies, fossils and classical literature before arriving at their conclusion.
The researchers said the disease is a man-made disease fuelled by the excesses of modern life. This is because tumors were rare until recent times, when pollution and poor diet became an issue.
In the study of Egyptian mummies, for example, the researchers found no signs of cancer in many of them—with the exception of one isolated case. Slivers of tissue from hundreds of Egyptian mummies were rehydrated and placed under the microscope. The researchers found only one case of cancer in the mummies examined.
In the past, some researchers have argued that the ancient Egyptians did not live long enough to develop cancer. To dismiss this weak argument, the researchers pointed out that other age-related disease, such as hardening of the arteries and brittle bones, occurred during this time.
The journal Nature Reviews Cancer reports that fossil evidence of cancer is not solid, with scientific literature providing a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal fossils. Even the study of thousands of Neanderthal bones has provided only one example of a possible cancer.
Evidence of cancer in ancient Egyptian texts is also tenuous, with cancer-like problems more likely being caused by leprosy or even varicose veins. It is said the ancient Greeks were probably the first to define cancer as a specific disease, and to distinguish between benign and malignant tumors.
The 17th century provides the first descriptions of operations for breast and other cancers. However, the first reports in scientific literature of distinctive tumors only occurred in the past 200 years. Nasal cancer in snuff users appeared in 1761. Scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps was also discovered in 1775.
Lead researcher of this current study, Michael Zimmerman said there should have been plenty of cancer-related evidence available in ancient societies because they lacked effective healthcare.
“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,” Zimmerman said.
Professor Rosalie David, who also played a key role in the analysis of the possible reference to the disease in classical literature, fossil records and mummified bodies, said:
“In industrialized 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. 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. 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.”
The researchers recommended a healthy diet, regular physical activity and maintenance of a healthy weight. These three lifestyle choices are believed to be able to prevent about a third of the most common cancers known to researchers.
You want to support Anonymous Independent & Investigative News? Please, follow us on Twitter: Follow @AnonymousNewsHQ
This Article (Disturbing: Researchers Finally Confirm That Cancer Is A Purely Man-Made Disease) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.com
This is not a new story. It’s 6 years old and frankly you have reported it just like a tabloid would have. Secondly, the study has flaws as follow up studies have shown. When writing for science/health you should put the story in context, as in, what do the majority of researchers think of this finding and maybe add a comment by another independent researcher.They can help pick out the flaws of a study. For example, how did the original research not find cancers caused by things that are not man-made like the sun, natural radon, bacteria and viruses? Their methods could not pick out blood cancers either. The study had limitations and flaws, clearly.
This is the second article you guys have printed that would make a cancer patient feel responsible for getting sick. That just causes stigmatization which surely is not your intention.
This article is a lie, I know of atleast one archaelogical finding of a 3200 year old Egyptian male found to have a metastatic cancer; this is the oldest recorded case of cancer in humany beings, which renders the title completely false, I can only imagine whose arse the pulled the research.
The article clearly mentions an isolated case of cancer amongst this specific study of Egyptian mummies, fossils etc – thus one case, out of all those tested in THIS study. That means no claim has been made that all mummies in existence have been tested, but from this study, a RATIO of occurrence (this being one out of hundreds or thousands) can be formed as a basis. So the article isn’t claiming cancer didn’t exist amongst the Egyptians at all, more like the ratio of its occurrence was very, very low at that time, compared to 1 in 4 who now develop cancer.
The only issue I have of using mummies as a general representation of the population at the time, is that mummies represented only a small proportion of the population of Egypt – mummification was an expensive process and a privilege largely reserved for those with wealth and royalty, thus the poorest wouldn’t have been able to afford it. There were obviously more common folks than wealthy ones, and it could be that cancer had a higher incidence amongst the poor, who were exposed to harsher environments, poorer diets etc.
But as a starting point goes, studies of cancer amongst mummies is still relevant and enlightening, after all, wealthy people these days do develop cancer, and wealth has nothing to do with it per se, as just as many of the wealthy are exposed to harsher environments, ie pollution, chemicals, additives in food etc etc
took me to school a bit..nice breakdown
The article doesn’t claim that no cases of cancer were ever found! Furthermore, it describes that the Manchester study found one case of cancer amid hundreds of mummies they examined. It also doesn’t discredit any other similar studies or findings, because it’s focussing on the Manchester study. Just because you misunderstand the research, doesn’t mean it’s rubbish. On the contrary, while it isn’t a finite conclusion (which I will explain shortly) it provides *some* enlightenment about incidences of cancer at that time compared to the last 200 years, which is far better than none at all.
Firstly, the bones. Examining bones will not show all forms of cancer especially some that were present elsewhere in the body.
Secondly, mummification was an expensive process reserved for the wealthy and royalty – the poorest of the population couldn’t afford it. While some slaves were buried with mummies (usually alive, so were subject to natural decomposition until only the skeleton is left) other ‘lower orders’ may have been subject to much harsher environmental conditions, poorer diets, etc and therefore cancer may have had higher incidences amongst those.
So while not an absolute conclusion, the study does shed light (and may support similar earlier studies you mentioned) on the prevalence of cancer some 2000+ years ago. Without such studies, things would remain ‘unknown’, and there would be no reference point to start with and provide a basic insight. The ratio of cancer back then was 1 in hundreds, compared to 1 in 4 now. Whether the historic ratio be 1 in 100, or 1 in 1900 to account for a larger population, it’s still a wide margin of difference compared to today’s ratio.
well, im a medical student and this article seems to me to have some truth in it because cancer does result from chemical substances.
While it is possible the research or the article are misleading or partially erroneous, the conclusion is not wrong. True, there are limitations with such a retrospective study, yet cancer is mostly a problem of modern civilization, largely because of life style and pollution.
Exposure to sun shine does not cause cancer. As a matter of fact, there are large amounts of data that a higher Vitamin D level is associated with a significantly lower risk of cancer. Even common sense teaches this clearly; Humans have fair skin simply because they need more sun shine to be healthy and fertile. Even in the rare cases where an association between exposure to sun shine and skin cancer was found, the cancer almost never appears in those parts of the body that were actually exposed to sun shine.
Now, while for about 1/5th of all kinds of cancer pathogenic participation has been observed (and it is likely at least half of them will show evidence of such activity), that should not lead us to draw oversimplified conclusions. First off, the pathogen might sometimes act opportunistically, i.e. move in after cancer begun. But then you have all the other factors that are usually ignored.
It can easily be postulated humans back then were not as susceptible to these potentially cancer causing pathogens because their immune system was not as overstrained with all the pollution, and not as challenged due to the poor nutrition in their food (due to industrial agriculture) and constant societal stress, as ours are today. Simply put, if you’re doing really bad, it’s easier for some nasty pathogen to set up shop. If you get a healthy diet, are not stressed by everybody, and have no exposure to all kinds of harmful substances, your chances of developing cancer are automatically lower.
Cancer patients should feel no more responsible for getting sick than any other sick person, but all humans collectively should feel responsible for the detrimental environment they have allowed to come to be on this planet. We all have blood on our hands, the best course of action is to accept that and then work on improving things for everybody.
“Exposure to sun shine does not cause cancer.”
Are you drunk?!
Exposure to the sun doesn’t cause cancer? How did you get so smart. I’ll let my doctor know that YOU said the sun isn’t the culprit for my skin cancers. Thanks man for being the only smart one in the entire world.
It’s true. Sunlight is not the actual cause of skin cancer.
“Cancer” is a symptom of an unhealthy immune system.
The cause of all cancers is a weak immune system, and immune system that has been weakened by many factors such as a variety of toxins and unhealthy diet.
Approximately 80% of the human immune system is located in the gut, if they gut is unhealthy, usually due to bad diet, then the immune system is unhealthy.
We have “cancer” cells in our bodies everyday, as long as our immune system is healthy it can get rid of these damaged cells which is part of its job.
So, NO, sunlight is NOT the cause of skin cancer.
The immune system has almost nothing to do with cancer. Cancer is caused by a breakdown in cellular DNA, which causes the cell to replicate out of control – the immune system does not regulate cell growth, or DNA. Many things can damage DNA, such as age, pollution, diet, and *excessive UV radiation (sunlight)*. It is important to understand that while it is ‘technically’ correct to say that sunlight doesn’t cause cancer, it would also be technically correct to say that smoking doesn’t either – when clearly it does. The fact is, anything which causes cellular damage can increase your risk of cancer.
This study is stupid and flawed, and this article is reporting it in the most sesationalist tabloid style possible, while managing to get everything wrong.
Spot on Graeme… I’ve been “tumor free” for 10 years now. Laymen call me a ‘survivor’ and my doctor says “tumor free.” It can come back whenever it decides to. Or I may live the rest of my life tumor free. It’s a crap shoot folks! Some will get it, some won’t. 2 changes I made in my life that I believe KEEP me tumor free. My oncologist told me to remove anything white from the kitchen. Sugar/Flour/Pasta, white is not good. I use unbleached flour, Stevia instead of sugar… the less processing done to the food the better it is for you. Second, he said to get the stress out of my life. Called it a ‘direct feed’ for cancer cells. Said I needed to have a plan. Well he was right. It’s one thing to think about not being stressed, which I think actually caused more stress! What I did was identify the ‘triggers’ and then made individual ‘plans’ to avoid/manage those triggers. Finally, I had the best surgeon, he is a miracle worker. Cut out the tumor, had to take top third of my bladder and nope, I didn’t get ‘the bag.’ I am blessed, lucky and I don’t think ‘they’ were quite ready for me yet. I’m sure Beelzebub said NO to my arrival as well! I prefer being identified as ‘tumor free.’ ‘Survivor’ is just not rational/logical (?) to me. Gives a false impression that it won’t be back. But, there’s ya a little secret outta Anschutz Cancer Center here in the ‘Mile High’ City.
Try a new start: we are not equal, everyone is unique with a unique body an chemistry. We are all alike, but we dont do all the same things, we dont have the same habits either eat or drink or smoke the same things, or even live and think the same way. We dont have the same way of felling adversaties. If so, what on hell are you tallking about, serching a way that shows eachone knows better? Judging the truth by the presentation of an idea or a situation? All this is simply the result of what is happening, making everyone think that we are all the same, and soon we will be ”living/surviving” like in military village. Wake up! Try to learn, you are not kids anymore. I know a few cases of people very close to me with cancer that didn’t follow the convencional therapies and adapt the treatment to their unique body sistem, one got free from it, the other is almost free. Both with different treatments. This matter does NOT need people that behave like talking parrots. Sorry for my writting, I dont ususally write freely in english.
If you pull your head out of your ass, you’ll notice that cancer is all around you. So what do we do? Keep polluting the environment and feeding people poison because you can dismiss this article in just a paragraph? Have you ever lost someone to cancer? Ever had to struggle with cancer in any way? I’m just curious.
Total rubbish article. Many animals get cancer, and there are Aboriginal cave paintings thousands of years old in the Northern Territory of Australia showing people with large lumps in their limbs, believed to be from cancer caused by living in caves with uranium deposits. Maybe who ever wrote this should look up the facts first.
Cancer is caused directly or indirectly by the ingestion, inhalation, and/or absorption of synthetic and inorganic molecules. The same is true for disease and obesity. For obvious reasons $$$ the pharmaceutical and food industries have their nay-saying trolls out in large numbers.
I wrote a thesis on cancer many moons ago. Cancer is effectively an immune system problem caused by cell mutation. Ordinarily an efficient immune system can attack and destroy mutated cells and thus prevent them from becoming cancerous. When the immune system is compromised, or not optimal, it is more vulnerable. The world we now live in, is full of environmental ‘triggers’ that compromise our immune systems and in some cases predisposes us to cancers – vulnerabilities can also be passed down genetically. This article although succinct and simplified is spot on, it makes no outrageous claims, but yet we see people going off at a tangent about it, when no such things have been mentioned. Read what it actually says, not what it doesn’t, and do some deeper research if you wish to discredit the study or the article.
Spot on about the pharmaceutical and food industries that are led by profit, not safety, and certainly not cures. Cures for some cancers have long been found (even sourced from creators) and suppressed for years because if they are ever released, then the profits made from drugs that temporarily prolong life would be diminished, along with government funding and subsidies for drug studies and corporate taxes etc
I am reminded about the unsafe cars of the 70’s, and 4 models were from one large US car manufacturer – who preferred to pay out for injuries and deaths rather than go to the greater expense of safety modifications for a particular model. It’s folly to think any industry puts public safety and health before its ruthless search for more profitable consumerism. Without some level of standards imposed, we’d be entirely at their disposal – just guinea pigs. After the likes of MK Ultra et al of the 50’s and 60’s, human life has become more disposable than ever, only now legally and purportedly ‘ethically’, and entirely for profit.
Very true, the mutation and the change in the DNA at several sites are caused by the increased acidity. We need regulated pH (power of acidity, in simple sense), if this regulation is disturbed, then it causes cancers. And improper diets are the main cause
They didn’t have radioactive debris from
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Fukashima,
Nuclear weapons testing by America, France, China,
Russia, India and others. Or the former USSR Navy, Atomflot who would
regularly dump spent reactors into the ocean.
With all that shit in our biosphere, frankly I’m surprised we don’t all have Cancer.
Just kill yourself. Life isn’t worth living under these conditions.
This article is a bit more objective:
No it is not
You think, just maybe, the ancients were of the knowledge to encourage the body to pass the cancer, which is what cancer actually is, the body’s last attempt to remove a pathogen, naturally. Today it is one of the most lucrative, at least for the cancer industry, diagnosis modern medicine can give….
Just a thought folks
As stupid thought made by an idiot. Nevertheless a thought.
Cancer is a replication error. When a cell divides it should cease division, if it does not it is now cancerous: i.e. it divides and divides and divides, resulting in a tumor. Cancer can be caused by lots of things: radiation, chemicals, disease, bacteria, and also just randomly. Since DNA is not perfectly copied every time, sometimes it contains an error in the portion of the Gene that controls replication. Errors in replication are what enables evolution to occur. Get an education already.
Cancer generally occurs in elder people. Life expectancy was much lower at the time.. How many mummies of 50+ of age have been examined?
Really…..I had it when I was 6
this article simply tell us that cancer is man made.. this is true.. and those thousand year old bodies found with cancer disease are also true. the main thing is ratio. one out of 1000 old mummies were able to get same excessive poison what all of us getting these days.
Are you seriously kidding me?
How could dead cells evolve into cancer ._.?
Do you even know what cancer is at least?
cancer is a man made disease and has only existed since the adoption of production and use of sugar during the past 200 years which has also fueled slavery globally whilst sedating the population too so despot unaccountable governments can rule..
If you have a vasectomy your get cancer and you will not live as long
Total bull: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/10/14/claims-that-cancer-is-only-a-%E2%80%98modern-man-made-disease%E2%80%99-are-false-and-misleading/
Why spread silly lies?
You know what else is man made? Living for 75 years, not dying from polyo, and being able to keep your teeth on for more than 30 years. Absence of cancer in mummies and fossilised humans doesn’t mean the disease is man made. It just means that peole didn’t live long enough to develop it. Yeah poor diet and carcinogens in our water and air lead to increased death rates from cancer, but so does old age and sun. Stop trying to create a fuss about everything.
i can see the cancer charities/racke
teers have their stooges out in droves on articles like this…gotta keep that old bandwagon rolling!
Only royalty were mummified. If a lower-class civilian in ancient Egypt died of cancer, he or she would have simply been buried without anybody really knowing the cause. If the cancer was caused by the environment, the royalty lived in a generally safe and protected one.
We are living longer, cancer could not exist in 35 years, but 62 it can.There is a issue with the cancer industry, but this is a red herring.
I would expect better from this page. I have generations in my family who have lived relatively cancer free. We smoke, eat fatty fried foods, processed foods and I myself have a shit diet. Always have. We live too long IMO. My Grandma used to say “we come from good breeding stock”. I think there is something to it. Genetics play a huge factor. Two people can be exposed to the exact same things and it doesn’t mean they will both get cancer. Babies develop cancer, They haven’t even had time to be exposed to anything yet. Scientists need to do more studies to find out why some DNA combinations are less susceptible to cancer than others. Could it be that mixing of DNA has caused the weakness? Perhaps those Neanderthal genes that some of us carry are weaker? who knows?
Akhenaton il faraone Alieno: http://ufoalieni.it/akhenaton-il-faraone-alieno/