History suggests cancer is a modern industrial disease

“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.” — Michael R. Zimmerman

Although ancient civilizations recognized cancer well enough to distinguish between some malignant and benign tumors, relatively few cases of the disease were documented in ancient times. This is the contention of a study titled “Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between?” in which researchers A. Rosalie David and Michael R. Zimmerman examine literature and corporeal remains preserved by societies from antiquity to modernity to develop what David called “a historical perspective to this disease” in a press release last Thursday.

Zimmerman’s contribution to the study includes finding rectal cancer in an unnamed 1600-year old mummy, which is said to be “the first ever histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy.”

The study notes sparse documentation of “distinctive tumors” prior to industrialization, but finds examples proliferating in recent centuries: “scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps in 1775, nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761 and Hodgkin’s disease in 1832.” In their formal publication, the authors indicate that a “striking rarity of malignancies in ancient physical remains might indicate that cancer was rare in antiquity, and so poses questions about the role of carcinogenic environmental factors in modern societies.” Davis expresses this conclusion forcefully:
“Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message — cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.”
However infrequently it may have occurred in the centuries before medical scientists performed the autopsies that finally put humorism to rest, humanity’s history with cancer goes back ~3,600 years.

David said the study “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.”

The release goes on to preempt other counterpoints:

  • Evidence of cancer in animal fossils, non-human primates and early humans is scarce… Various malignancies have been reported in non-human primates but do not include many of the cancers most commonly identified in modern adult humans.
  • It has been suggested that the short life span of individuals in antiquity precluded the development of cancer. Although this statistical construct is true, individuals in ancient Egypt and Greece did live long enough to develop such diseases as atherosclerosis, Paget’s disease of bone, and osteoporosis, and, in modern populations, bone tumours primarily affect the young.
  • Another explanation for the lack of tumours in ancient remains is that tumours might not be well preserved. Dr. Zimmerman has performed experimental studies indicating that mummification preserves the features of malignancy and that tumours should actually be better preserved than normal tissues. In spite of this finding, hundreds of mummies from all areas of the world have been examined and there are still only two publications showing microscopic confirmation of cancer. Radiological surveys of mummies from the Cairo Museum and museums in Europe have also failed to reveal evidence of cancer.
A stern rebuttal on the Cancer Research UK “Science Update” blog disputes the importance of man-made environmental carcinogens, suggesting “lifestyle factors such as not smoking, keeping a healthy weight, limiting alcohol, getting enough exercise and avoiding sunburn have an important effect on cancer risk.”



The final point made in a post at Dr. Lorraine Cramer’s website (Microblogology) undermines the rebuttal by pointing to examples that may best be explained by connecting industrial pollution to cancer:
“The sad thing is that it appears we have not just created disease in humans, we are seeing cancers, or mysterious deaths in animals out in the wild: Baby wright whales dying mysteriously in record numbers, sea lions developing cancer, elephants dying from unknown causes, and dead sea turtles washing ashore.”
I’d add that fish are being found “with discolored bodies, deformities and rotting flesh” according to some reports; would it shock anyone if industrial pollution is found to cause yet one more case of animal disease?