3 ms·
> cancer was such a rare occurrence prior to WWI why do you say that?
by jjtheblunt 4y ago
> cancer was such a rare occurrence prior to WWI
why do you say that?
- Supermancho 4y agoPrimarily because I don't remember the dates that coincided with the industrial revolution and mass production of cigarettes, alongside demonstrative analytics. I thought 100 years ago was a decent starting point for data. I do remember that the first major pandemic of lung cancer started in the 1920s and the first controlled study of Cigarettes involvement with Lung cancer started in the 1950s - Hill & Doll in the US. A parallel study was started in 1951 in Britain, which ended in 2001. Prior to that, cancer was routinely written up in case studies and submitted to journals as interesting medical cases.
- jjtheblunt 4y agoPerhaps infection disease killed people who would otherwise have grown a cancer, as your timing coincides with antibiotics adoption and technologies, I believe.
- chasil 4y agoCancer loves sugar. They generally disable the mitochondria and burn glucose in a much less efficient anaerobic process. Areas with malnutrition and lower life expectancy would not grow them very well.
- jjtheblunt 4y agoIs there data that supports this? (I don't even know where to look for a query of that sort)
- chasil 4y agoThe change in a cancer cell's glucose processing is known as the Warburg Effect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_effect_(oncology) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2849637/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2849637/
- jjtheblunt 4y agoThanks. Is there any study that areas of malnutrition have lower cancers? I imagine it's hard sorting out causality, with sugar in wealthy western style diets, and perhaps different environmental stressors (pollution?) elsewhere?