• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cancer is "purely man-made"

Josie

Josie

Come alive
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
53,930
Reaction score
27,744
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Cancer 'is purely man-made' say scientists after finding almost no trace of disease in Egyptian mummies | Mail Online

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.
 
Look for this correlation:

Green Revolution to Cancer Rates.

A disturbing trend ensues.
 
I'm a bit sceptical, I can understand that modern vices can exacerbate the rates, but to say it is purely man made is bull****, skin cancer is caused by radiation from the sun, and I have read of cases of increased cancer rates in villages in rural area due to water being near uranium, or other radioactive material deposits.
 
This is absolutely ludicrous. There are any number of factors that lead to cancer and yeas a few have to do with exposure to chemicals, or substances that were not around 2000 years ago.

But such things as diet and exposure to naturally appearing elements that could cause or prevent cancer.

Mostly my problem id the sample size, and genetic predisposition to either get or not get cancer. We know it runs in some families and not in others.

Scientists are quick to come up with theories but they are just theories, not proof or fact.

By using all my knowledge, experience, and observations of life I present the following theory.

Since I was a teenager a long time ago I have heard consistently that Marijuana is a gate way drug and all Junkies got started by smoking pot.

Therefore anyone who smokes pot will eventually become a Junkie or so their logic says.

To that I say bolder dash.

My theory which is every bit as sound and much more correct because it cannot be denied as anything but fact based, is that every single Junkie regardless of sex or age when they first become addicted to hard drugs all and I mean every last Junkie started on this very same substance as a child before ever partaking in pot, smack, uppers, downers, hallucinogens, natural or man made.

That substance which is, by use of the same logic about pot being a gate way drug should immediately band and anyone caught using it should do time to prevent the inevitable addiction on hard drugs.

This dangerous substances use by one and all can also be tracked back to all criminals. Rapists, armed robbers, murderers, petty thieves, all of them every got their start on Milk.

That ubiquitous white liquid found in the stomachs of not only ever human child but every mammal on earth and the seas and water ways every where.

And that my friends is science logic and theory at work.

That concludes our broadcast F L I M at 11:00.
 
Last edited:
medical science was non-existant until "modern times". people just got sick and died and no one knew why. to assume that you can make such a broad generalization about cancer from looking at a couple hundred mummies is ridiculous. think about it...who got mummified? rich people and royalty. in those societies who was the most healthy? rich people and royalty. the "commoners" were the ones most likely to have disease issues and the least likely to have been mummified.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I can't wait until someone draws a correlation between the rise of a particular political movement / party and a sharp increase in cancer rates. :lol:
Click to expand...

Cancer rates have been increasing since the Republicans formed, same with the rates of STD's and bestiality. :mrgreen:
 
Sharks are the only animals that don't develop cancer cells.
 
Mellie said:
Cancer 'is purely man-made' say scientists after finding almost no trace of disease in Egyptian mummies | Mail Online

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.
Click to expand...


Um... people didn't live long enough to get cancer.
 
Cancer is a disease of age. I have studied cancer extensively in my undergrad work and I'm in a senior level class right now that specifically focuses on cancer biology. Carcinogens have always existed. Cancer develops when the right mutations happen at the right spots on DNA. They accumulate over time, and it only takes 1 cell mutated in all the right (or wrong i should say) places in order for it to become cancerous. Even then the tumor must acquire more in order to become malignant. Cancer is very complex, but it isn't man-made. It's a disease of age, environment, and lifestyle.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I can't wait until someone draws a correlation between the rise of a particular political movement / party and a sharp increase in cancer rates. :lol:
Click to expand...

:doh There goes my argument. :tongue4:
 
Mellie said:
Cancer 'is purely man-made' say scientists after finding almost no trace of disease in Egyptian mummies | Mail Online

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.
Click to expand...

Not that rare.
There is a lot of historical evidence of breast cancer, for instance, before the industrial revolution.
It's written about in classical literature and in medical writings from five or six centuries ago.
It was certainly well-known and well-documented by the 1500s; Robert Dudley (1st Earl of Leicester)'s wife Amy Dudley had it- history indicates that she was dying, after a long illness, of a "chancor in her breast", at the time she either fell or was pushed down stairs to her death.
Dudley was suspected of being the lover of Queen Elizabeth I, and he was a prime suspect in the death of his terminally ill wife.

My reading and research on the history of breast cancer indicates that in fact the ancient egyptians were the first to identify it and record its existence... approximately 3600 years ago.
Apparently, they wrote that there was no cure for it, but that cauterization with hot instruments was the treatment of choice.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Cancer is very complex, but it isn't man-made. It's a disease of age, environment, and lifestyle.
Click to expand...

You really don't believe man has an effect on the environment?
 
Cancer has always existed, but the rates seen today are far, far higher than any other time in all of human history. It has little to do with human lifespan, by the way. I don't know why IT got thanked by so many people for that, the statement is not correct. Age in of itself does not typically pre-dispose you to cancer.

The modern lifestyle and environment are definitely to blame.
 
Last edited:
Orion said:
Cancer has always existed, but the rates seen today are far, far higher than any other time in all of human history. It has little to do with human lifespan, by the way. I don't know why IT got thanked by so many people for that, the statement is not correct. Age in of itself does not typically pre-dispose you to cancer.

The modern lifestyle and environment are definitely to blame.
Click to expand...

The older you are, the longer you have been exposed to carcinogens and the longer the chance for cells to become cancerous.
 
If it's a disease that has to do with age, what about toddlers that get cancer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom