valerie wrote:

rajukurup wrote:

valerie wrote: Not true.

All that you mentioned has always existed. Cancer, Diabetes, etc. It's always existed.

it is true that these diseases existed I meant that the number was comparatively less than that of today .in old times these diseases were rare but now these diseases are spreading like fire if we take a particular family any where in the world at least one would have it which is an impact of modernization

No they were not rare. They were very rampant.

In addition, much research has been done in cancer and many lives have been saved today
due to new research and meds.

It has also been stated and many researchers agree, that cancer is mostly hereditary.

yes you said what I meant cancer is common now compared to olden times which indicates that now our enviornment is horribly polluted and we are becoming more unhealthy regarding hereditary studies have shown that only a few cancers are hereditary and the others are triggered by enviornmental factors and the rising toll in developing and developed nation show that modernisation has a great role in spreading cancer

That's not true.

it is true and confirmed at least here where I am living

rajukurup wrote: it is true and confirmed at least here where I am living

And exactly how many centuries has your area had a specialist oncology department that has been able to accurately diagnose & record the myriad of cancers that afflict the human species?

More cancer is being diagnosed because modern medicine is better able to detect & diagnose it. Also, because people are living for much longer these days the likelihood of cell mutation increases as they age. Many men in the olden days died of other diseases before they even had a chance to develop prostate cancer. So, of course prostate cancer was less common. Not because men were healthier, but because they did not live long enough to get it.

If someone asked me if I would prefer to live now, where my life expectancy is close to 80 years, or a few hundred years ago where my life expectancy would be mid-40s, of course I would choose to live now. Who wouldn't?

seaeagle wrote:

rajukurup wrote: it is true and confirmed at least here where I am living

And exactly how many centuries has your area had a specialist oncology department that has been able to accurately diagnose & record the myriad of cancers that afflict the human species?

More cancer is being diagnosed because modern medicine is better able to detect & diagnose it. Also, because people are living for much longer these days the likelihood of cell mutation increases as they age. Many men in the olden days died of other diseases before they even had a chance to develop prostate cancer. So, of course prostate cancer was less common. Not because men were healthier, but because they did not live long enough to get it.

If someone asked me if I would prefer to live now, where my life expectancy is close to 80 years, or a few hundred years ago where my life expectancy would be mid-40s, of course I would choose to live now. Who wouldn't?

I n which planet are you living history has much importance in this world medicinal developments did n't come suddenly a day even days back there were many efficient doctors and cancer was identified before christ here in India by afamous saint and the field of medicine is called ayurveda cancer was named mahodara and this disease is depicted as a rare disease few people died of it most deaths were due to viral and bacterial infections as time passed and industralisation began pace this disease became common that too from about 17 century AD genetics has significant role in this disease which is triggered by external factors Even though medicinal field did not advance during that period few deaths occured due to cancer that is what history says

Cancer has always been with humans. Always.

There are some forms of cancer that may be more prevalent today that a long time ago.

There is little record of health conditions from hundreds to thousands of years ago.

It is very well known and documented that people in some parts of the world appear to be more
susceptible to some forms of cancer vs another. Even better documented is the facts that people
in some parts of the world are less susceptible to cancer vs another part of the world.

According to what little they have found and studied, such as mummies, people even in Egyptian
times were known to have cancer.

Anything 'un natural' that we do to ourselves and/or put into our bodies, could trigger cancer.

As people age, they become weaker and more susceptible to disease. Unfortunate for people
of yesteryear, they did not live as long as we do today. Therefore it is impossible to say what
cancers they may have become afflicted with since they did not live long enough.

There is no way that you or anyone can prove that cancer is more prevalent today than years
ago.

I worked in health care all my life. I have seen many people with various forms of cancer and
no 'modernization' proof of their cancer.

also no one can prove that what is said in history is fake

people have generally lost the value and sentiment of simplicity as to speak,its a more isolated society today where tech has a foothold and old habits of surviving even with the basic of things is slowly dying out.
cars have replaced donkeys and horse driven carts, supermarkets have replaced proper organically grown food from your own farm or back garden, infact so many new things have replaced the old,its too many to list.

ideally i would love to live in an environment where old and new can be used together so we have the best of both worlds.
our forefathers survived,no reason as to why we shouldn't either.
ok fairplay its an easier lifestyle today becuase thats what we have been bought up with or have been conditioned through society into having and depending on.

sometimes i wonder how long this will all last? how far man will go to reach the impossible? scarey thought that is,infact one day i am sure everything will be wiped out and we will return to how we originally lived thousands of years ago.

Because of improved matters of communication we now hear much
more about diseases then even only 100 years ago. I consider
myself lucky that the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables
can reach the store shelves so much faster due to today's transportations.
Give it a few more years and SKYWAY will improve that a thousand fold.

dutch1898 wrote: Because of improved matters of communication we now hear much
more about diseases then even only 100 years ago. I consider
myself lucky that the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables
can reach the store shelves so much faster due to today's transportations.
Give it a few more years and SKYWAY will improve that a thousand fold.

That is extremely true and a point I made in regards to living in areas in which only certain crops grow
if any at all. People relied on what they had.

I always envy those people that live in tropical areas that have a large variety of fruits year round.

Living according to the rules of nature will definitely make one healthy bcoz all living beings are a part of nature and they did not evolve a day from the sky whatever problems we create on the nature more miserable will be its impact that is what happened with modernization and only because of medical advancement that we live longer otherwise we would lose our life in the late 30s itself l

i agree with you raju,alot of modern day ........what would you class it as? hmm i guess lets call it modern living with all your modern gear/tech/bustling society etc has its impact on our health one way or another,doesn't necessarily mean it will destroy us or cause cancer....
for example alot of them are man-made like nuclear power,radiation ,which if you lot remember caused an outbreak in Chernobyl,giving cancer to many......this isn't hereditary by no means

this article that i found just proves raju's point....ok dont believe everything you read but its worth considering the facts and research that has been done.


(NaturalNews) It may be hard to believe, but a recent study shows that cancer is 100 percent a man-made disease, and that it is caused by modern-day phenomena like pollution and dietary intake.

Researchers at the University of Manchester's KNH Centre for Biomedical Egyptology in England, reached that conclusion in 2010, after reviewing remains and literature from ancient Egypt and Greece, as well as earlier periods, a study that also included the first historical diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy.

The study, published at the time in the journal Nature Reviews Cancer, noted that researchers found only one occurrence of cancer while investigating hundreds of Egyptian mummies. In addition, they found very few references to the disease in period literature, which indicates that cancer cases were extremely rare during the period.

However, after the Industrial Revolution, cancer rates exploded, and in particular among children, which proves that the rise in cases is not exclusively tied to longer life.

"In industrialized societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare," said Prof. Rosalie David, of the Faculty of Life Sciences. "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," she continued. "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."

Modern industrialization

The research includes the first-ever histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy, which was made by Prof. Michael Zimmerman, a visiting scholar at the KNH Center, who is based at Villanova University near Philadelphia. He managed to diagnose rectal cancer in an unidentified mummy, an "ordinary" person who lived in the Dakhleh Oasis during the Ptolemaic period (200-400 AD).

"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.

The research team examined mummified remains as well as literary documentation and evidence for ancient Egypt, but only literary evidence from ancient Greece, because there are no known human remains from this period. The team also looked at medical studies of animal and human remains from earlier periods, extending all the way back to the age of dinosaurs.

Short lifespans not a factor

Overall, evidence of cancer in early humans and animal fossils, as well as non-human primates, is extremely rare. There are only a few dozen examples in animal fossils, though these are mostly disputed. However, there has been a metastatic cancer discovery of unknown primary origin in an Edmontosaurus fossil, while a separate study lists several possible neoplasms – new and abnormal growths of tissue in some part of the body, especially as a characteristic of cancer – in fossil remains.

Some scientists and medical researchers have suggested that the rare incidence of cancer in antiquity was due in large part to short lifespans. While this statistical construct is accurate, humans in ancient Egypt did not develop other conditions that primarily affect young persons.

Another explanation for the lack of cancerous tumors in ancient times is that tumors possibly are not well-preserved. Zimmerman has performed some experimental studies indicating that mummification actually preserves the features of a malignancy and thus, tumors should actually be more well-preserved than normal tissues.

Still, though hundreds of mummies from around the world have been examined, there are still only two publications showing microscopic confirmation of cancer. Radiological exams of mummies from the Cairo Museum have also failed to show evidence of cancer.

Sources:

Manchester.ac.uk

NaturalBlaze.com

Science.NaturalNews.com
287K
VIEWS

Not true....

that cancer is 100 percent a man-made disease

That is absolutely not true unless you are talking in terms of a three year old.

In other words, most anything can be attributed to our surroundings and therefore given the 100% claim.
I do have a difficult time believing any health professional or scientist would make such a statement.

Cancer has always been with us. If you have the faintest idea of what cancer IS, you would know it is true.

val,,i agree with you to a certain extent,ok let me put it this way............radiation ,nuclear power ,atomic energy are all man-made,right? when that chernobyl disaster happened it affected everyone around it,that wasn't natural was it?
those people eventually died or got very ill or deformed in one way or another through no fault of their own.


yes cancer has been with us for along time ,only recent research has actually diagnosed it,found cures for it etc...what raju and i am trying to clarify is that there are alot of factors that can contribute to getting cancer,,,ie,lung cancer from cigarettes,could be other reasons too,but cigarettes are man-made,liver cancer,due to excessive alcohol,other reasons too.
i know what cancer is,its a flippin stubborn git and no one wants it.

bottom line is some forms can be prevented ,others just a case of bad luck,theres environmental factors,the way we live,how we abuse our bodies with substances,diets etc,,the list goes on and on.

there would be more chance for someone to get effected by radiation by living next to an atomic plant than for a person living out in the countryside,clear from everything.

Exactly.....as in Cancer has ALWAYS as far as we know, been with us. Long BEFORE 'modernization'.

That is what this topic claims, which is unfounded.....that cancer is due to modernization and I say NO
it is NOT.

If you know what cancer is, you know it is abnormal cell growth. So simple yet so destructive and
difficult to stop.

You said 'Radiation'. Would you call the SUN modernization? Skin melanoma's is at the top of
cancers and people die every year. Is that some sort of modern thing? Well absolutely not unless
you are a fair skin person that has spent hours daily in a 'modern' tanning bed.

If the topic started wanted to get technical about it, I can say simply the opposite... MODERNIZATION
has led to the REDUCTION of Cancer.

This is mostly an oxymoron topic. The TRUTH and FACTS of the matter is that cancer always has been
and not just in human animals but in other animals too.

Did you know more Africans die of cancer than any other population? Hmmmm is that due to modernization?
Are they prone to more modernization that other races?

no you are right, too much sun exposure causes cancer also,that's been round since beginning of time and is a natural element,,,,,yep modern treatments have drastically or eradicated most cancerous diseases which no one can deny.

i think what raju was trying to say is that alot of things we have now and didn't have in the olden days have contributed to many illnesses and diseases,maybe he was getting a good point across but it might have been kinda muffled.

anywayz good health to all and lets pray for a long and happy life!

pindokhan123 wrote: no you are right, too much sun exposure causes cancer also,that's been round since beginning of time and is a natural element,,,,,yep modern treatments have drastically or eradicated most cancerous diseases which no one can deny.

i think what raju was trying to say is that alot of things we have now and didn't have in the olden days have contributed to many illnesses and diseases,maybe he was getting a good point across but it might have been kinda muffled.

anywayz good health to all and lets pray for a long and happy life!

Yes pindho you are right and extremely happy that you are wise and understands the points very well

A recent article published by Finnish website Ink Tank explores the evolution of mankind and the changes in our dietary habits over the millennia. The basic premise is that in very recent times we have begun to adopt unhealthy eating habits that are making us fatter and more prone to diabetes, heart disease and other illnesses related to poor diet.

It may come as a surprise to many that our hunter-gatherer ancestors enjoyed better health and longer lifespans compared to many of us today. And it appears that one of the main reasons we are now seeing a rise in obesity and diabetes, etc. is that we've been duped by the food industry


and it is not just diabetes
but we take a ton of tablets daily so it can look better

Avg Lifespan.................most folks here not understand how it is calculated and think we live longer
We do not live longer but less of us are dying
Humans today can live maximum as long as human 1000 or 5000 years ago , not more or less

example

For example, in a hypothetical stationary population in which half the population dies before the age of five but everybody else dies at exactly 70 years old, LEB will be about 36, but about 25% of the population will be between the ages of 50 and 70

Let see a data for England from year 1200


1200–1300: to age 64
1300–1400: to age 45 (because of the bubonic plague)
1400–1500: to age 69
1500–1550: to age 71
today , not much more


or place where folks live avg 80 years... they start war and next they their life avg can go to 50 , or less, depending how many younger people will die in war

tasman1 wrote:
1200–1300: to age 64
1300–1400: to age 45 (because of the bubonic plague)
1400–1500: to age 69
1500–1550: to age 71
today , not much more

Those figures are only for those who survived past the age of five. They do not include those who died before the age of five.

If you focus on life expectancy at birth, including all of those who die from common childhood diseases, you can reduce those figures by roughly 25-35 years. So an amended table might look something like this:

1200–1300: to age 35
1300–1400: to age 20 (because of the bubonic plague)
1400–1500: to age 40
1500–1550: to age 45

If you survived childhood, you could live a life of 60 or 70 years. But you probably only had a 50% or so chance of surviving childhood.