3 ms·

The article in the Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/ctvt-tumor-broke-all-rules/595246/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/

The article in the Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/ctvt-tumor-broke-all-rules/595246/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/ctvt-tum...) said: "Also, the majority of those mutations, including almost all of the recent ones, are neutral. They don’t seem to benefit the tumor in any way. Again, that’s very different from most cancers, which are constantly adapting to outfox their hosts’ immune systems, or to grow a little faster, or to spread to new areas. Not so with CTVT. “We think that the cancer is not adapting anymore,” says Adrian Baez-Ortega, who was one of the main researchers on the study. “Maybe it doesn’t really need to.” Perhaps, early on in CTVT’s history, it found such thorough ways of escaping the immune system and jumping into new hosts that no further tweaks were necessary. Or perhaps it no longer imposes enough harm on its hosts to warrant a counterattack. It’s rarely fatal, after all, and if dogs are otherwise healthy, it doesn’t grow very fast. “The tumor and the dogs aren’t competing against each other anymore,” Baez-Ortega says. “They’re coexisting. The cells behave like cancer cells, but the ecology of the tumor is that of a parasite.” And a fairly benign one at that."

setr 7y ago
>The tumor and the dogs aren’t competing against each other anymore,” Baez-Ortega says. “They’re coexisting. The cells behave like cancer cells, but the ecology of the tumor is that of a parasite.” And a fairly benign one at that." This is pretty much the story of any “old” virus; new viruses (new mutations, species jumping, etc) tend to kill, but they optimize towards coexistence, since killing the host reduces reproduction/spread opportunity. So eventually they become benign within a population (both by their evolution, and adaptation of human immune system) and only become threatening again when encountering a new population (eg an “infected” city-man visiting rural populations). Notably, due to the more rapid spread of disease in cities, due to higher density, city-folk tend to have more benign/evolved diseases than rural populations. Which I think is also the answer to my childhood question: why did the europeans famously have diseases to spread and kill native americans with.. but the native americans could offer no such devastating disease in return? Both groups should have been encountering new diseases; my answer being that the native americans were carrying fewer suppressed diseases. There’s of course the popular answer that europeans were more evil/willing to spread disease with things like chicken-pox blankets.. (and catapulting rotting animals), but it’s really difficult to imagine native americans would be so primitive that couldn’t learn/mimick the idea... or perhaps its just written out of the history books.. But I never found confirmation on this
- ErikCorry 7y ago
  This is basically the "plot" of "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.
  - setr 7y ago
    When the time came to read Guns, Germs and Steel, I had bought into Plagues and Peoples (William McNeill) instead -- similar accounts, but more controlled in scope (which made it more trustworthy, imo); as a result, I guess I missed a very convenient confirmation :)
- reallydude 7y ago
  CCP Makes a pretty good case regarding livestock - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk America did offer a new disease that ravaged Europe. Syphillis.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    And like this disease, Syphillis was initially terrifying, with flesh falling off of victims' faces, before the disease "decided" that it was better to let its victims live with genital sores rather than die horrific deaths. For the disease, it could infect more people on a longer-living host.
- kryptiskt 7y ago
  There is at least one disease that traveled in the opposite direction. Syphilis came from the Americas and it was really devastating when it first appeared.

setr 7y ago

>The tumor and the dogs aren’t competing against each other anymore,” Baez-Ortega says. “They’re coexisting. The cells behave like cancer cells, but the ecology of the tumor is that of a parasite.” And a fairly benign one at that." This is pretty much the story of any “old” virus; new viruses (new mutations, species jumping, etc) tend to kill, but they optimize towards coexistence, since killing the host reduces reproduction/spread opportunity. So eventually they become benign within a population (both by their evolution, and adaptation of human immune system) and only become threatening again when encountering a new population (eg an “infected” city-man visiting rural populations). Notably, due to the more rapid spread of disease in cities, due to higher density, city-folk tend to have more benign/evolved diseases than rural populations. Which I think is also the answer to my childhood question: why did the europeans famously have diseases to spread and kill native americans with.. but the native americans could offer no such devastating disease in return? Both groups should have been encountering new diseases; my answer being that the native americans were carrying fewer suppressed diseases. There’s of course the popular answer that europeans were more evil/willing to spread disease with things like chicken-pox blankets.. (and catapulting rotting animals), but it’s really difficult to imagine native americans would be so primitive that couldn’t learn/mimick the idea... or perhaps its just written out of the history books.. But I never found confirmation on this

ErikCorry 7y ago
This is basically the "plot" of "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.
- setr 7y ago
  When the time came to read Guns, Germs and Steel, I had bought into Plagues and Peoples (William McNeill) instead -- similar accounts, but more controlled in scope (which made it more trustworthy, imo); as a result, I guess I missed a very convenient confirmation :)
reallydude 7y ago
CCP Makes a pretty good case regarding livestock - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk America did offer a new disease that ravaged Europe. Syphillis.
- weberc2 7y ago
  And like this disease, Syphillis was initially terrifying, with flesh falling off of victims' faces, before the disease "decided" that it was better to let its victims live with genital sores rather than die horrific deaths. For the disease, it could infect more people on a longer-living host.
kryptiskt 7y ago
There is at least one disease that traveled in the opposite direction. Syphilis came from the Americas and it was really devastating when it first appeared.