Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world? • Hacker News Board

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#31

Post by watwut » Sat, May 15, 2021, 2:02 PM UTC

linspace wrote: post #27

hanniabu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common misconception. Life expectancy hasn't changed much. It's children dying that bright down the average in earlier years. If you lived to your 20s your life expectancy was pretty much the same as it is now.

I have heard this multiple times and I would love some citations because although most of the reduction in life expectancy may come from death at child birth, for obvious mathematical reasons, I cannot believe wars, famine and disease don't account for anything

And lack of antibiotics.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#32

Post by nemo44x » Sat, May 15, 2021, 2:04 PM UTC

strken wrote: post #26

Sebb767 wrote: post #12

One thing which I always thought of, but which the article doesn't mention, is age. Especially older people seem more prone to cancer, so in my mind a lower life expectancy will naturally lead to a lower cancer rate, as people die before cancer "is able to get them". Or am I missing something?

Perhaps they control for age? A lot of the lower life expectancy was sky-high infant mortality, and if you made it to 10 in 1850 (hardly preindustrial, but preindustrial stats are harder to find) you could expect to live to 60 or so. Presumably you'd compare the cancer rates of your study's skeletons with the cancer rates of today's 60 year olds.

It’s amazing how precarious being born is. I think I read that about 200 years ago around 40% of people didn’t make it past 5 years old or something like that. Antibiotics have helped a lot in modern times, especially for mothers giving birth.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#33

Post by cmiller1 » Sat, May 15, 2021, 2:04 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #21

XorNot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chiropractors are charlatans so it was the same as any other healing elixir scam that was being run (which are notable and commonplace throughout history).

My brother is a chiropractor who mostly agrees with you. He thinks that most chiropractors do about as much harm as good, or more. Of course, he believes otherwise about his own particular school of chiropractic, the Gonstead Technique. As a long time beneficiary of that method I've come to agree with him. It has helped me quite a bit, and the long list of his vastly improved patients (many or most who are refugees f…

I've done some research on this and it seems there is some evidence that what chiropractors do, Spinal Manipulation Therapy, is effective when combined with traditional medicine and physical therapy at reducing chronic back pain (and can help some people manage it with reduced pain management medication which is a plus!) However if a chiropractor tells you they can fix your stomach or headaches or anxiety by cracking your back they're a quack.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#34

Post by refactor_master » Sat, May 15, 2021, 2:04 PM UTC

arnejenssen wrote: post #23

The modern age has possibly removed some carcinogens like inhaling smoke from (bon)fires, mycotoxins from spoilt food, nutritional illiteracy and unsanitary conditions. But the modern age has introduced a lot of new ones like tobacco, food additives, sugar, gluten, radiation, asbestos, industrial processing of food, pesticides, sedentary lifestyle.

You lost me at gluten though.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#35

Post by cm2012 » Sat, May 15, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #25

Sebb767 wrote: post #12

One thing which I always thought of, but which the article doesn't mention, is age. Especially older people seem more prone to cancer, so in my mind a lower life expectancy will naturally lead to a lower cancer rate, as people die before cancer "is able to get them". Or am I missing something?

This is a common misconception. Life expectancy hasn't changed much. It's children dying that bright down the average in earlier years. If you lived to your 20s your life expectancy was pretty much the same as it is now.

No

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#36

Post by magneticnorth » Sat, May 15, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #29

arnejenssen wrote: post #23

The modern age has possibly removed some carcinogens like inhaling smoke from (bon)fires, mycotoxins from spoilt food, nutritional illiteracy and unsanitary conditions. But the modern age has introduced a lot of new ones like tobacco, food additives, sugar, gluten, radiation, asbestos, industrial processing of food, pesticides, sedentary lifestyle.

Is tobacco use higher today vs pre-industrial eras? I don’t think of it as a particularly modern introduction to humanity.

Tobacco was unknown in Europe until Europeans were introduced to it by native Americans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#37

Post by jeffbee » Sat, May 15, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #25

Sebb767 wrote: post #12

One thing which I always thought of, but which the article doesn't mention, is age. Especially older people seem more prone to cancer, so in my mind a lower life expectancy will naturally lead to a lower cancer rate, as people die before cancer "is able to get them". Or am I missing something?

This is a common misconception. Life expectancy hasn't changed much. It's children dying that bright down the average in earlier years. If you lived to your 20s your life expectancy was pretty much the same as it is now.

According the the US Social Security Administration actuarial tables, the life expectancy of male Americans aged 65 years has gone from 12 to 21 years in the last century. This has massive demographic implications.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#38

Post by titzer » Sat, May 15, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #11

sharklazer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The age of glyphosate, an antibiotic that has been sprayed so much that it’s testable in the rain and in sources of groundwater at this point. The effects of long-term antibiotic exposure are up still being learned. But it clear means a gut biome disruption. Thanks Monsanto. Err... Bayer (same people who sold Heroin over the counter 100 years ago)

Last time I reviewed the glyphosate literature it wasn’t that impressive of a link between Roundup and cancer. Has anything changed? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705608/ I agree Monsanto is a horrible company, but for other reasons.

Did you actually read the article you linked? It is actually arguing that logic doesn't work.

> Overall, a scrutiny of the method used in these commentaries by Samsel and Seneff reveals a major flaw. These authors employ a deductive reasoning approach based on syllogism, which is formed by two or more propositions used to generate a conclusion. The first proposition is generally related to glyphosate’s properties (e.g., glyphosate is a chelator of Mn) and the second proposition is related to human physiology (e.g., sperm motility depends on Mn). From each of these pairs of propositions, Samsel and Seneff conclude a causative link of glyphosate with the etiology of different diseases. For instance, since glyphosate is a metal chelator (proposition 1), and since sperm motility depends on Mn (proposition 2), they conclude that glyphosate may partially explain increased rates of infertility and birth defects (13). They extend this reasoning to multiple body functions to propose that the dysregulation of Mn utilization in the body due to glyphosate’s metal chelating properties explains autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, anxiety disorder, osteoporosis, inflammatory bowel disease, renal lithiasis, osteomalacia, cholestasis, thyroid dysfunction, and infertility. More recently, Beecham and Seneff have used the same reasoning to conclude on a causative link between glyphosate chelation of Mn and the large rise in the incidence of autism spectrum disorders in children within the US (35). However, there are no scientific studies establishing a causative link between glyphosate and the described chronic diseases.

They are literally saying that syllogism cannot possibly work because there aren't "scientific studies". What is syllogism? It's literally logic. If you then read the actual article they are criticizing, there is literally graph after graph establishing a strong correlation between disease and glysophate use. Not only do they find correlations, they reason through several causative mechanisms, in extremely detail, based on chemistry, and then somehow that doesn't count? That paper is absolutely choc full of evidence. What more are they holding out for? It's like their brain doesn't work.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#39

Post by sokoloff » Sat, May 15, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

magneticnorth wrote: post #36

sokoloff wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is tobacco use higher today vs pre-industrial eras? I don’t think of it as a particularly modern introduction to humanity.

Tobacco was unknown in Europe until Europeans were introduced to it by native Americans. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco

Wow. That’s mind-blowing. I knew it was a huge economic driver in the early American colonies, but I always imagined it pre-dated [in Europe] the colonization.

Thank you for my TIL!

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#40

Post by teachingassist » Sat, May 15, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #25

Sebb767 wrote: post #12

One thing which I always thought of, but which the article doesn't mention, is age. Especially older people seem more prone to cancer, so in my mind a lower life expectancy will naturally lead to a lower cancer rate, as people die before cancer "is able to get them". Or am I missing something?

This is a common misconception. Life expectancy hasn't changed much. It's children dying that bright down the average in earlier years. If you lived to your 20s your life expectancy was pretty much the same as it is now.

I agree, but cancer rates rise sharply as you age.

So, your claim (that life expectancy hasn't changed much) doesn't contradict the parent's claim (that a lot more people are dying of age-related cancers).