Oct 15 2010
BS Science Out Of The UK
The United Kingdom used to be a beacon of innovation and exploration. But once the socialists got hold of it, the UK lost its preeminence as it diverted more and more money into its failed National Health System. To that end you get crap like this:
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.
What a pathetic leap in illogic. Mummies were the top of human society – they had the best diets and medical care. They DO NOT reflect the general condition of the broad masses of humanity. In addition, there is very little to link pollution and poor diet to cancer, since it strikes with equal vengeance here in the US, hitting people in all conditions.
Cancer is a lot like a virus, turning a normal cell with controls on its reproduction into a mass of rapidly replicating living tissue. There is a fine line between a virus, which mass produces DNA that can survive and invade nearby cells or organisms, and a cancer, where the new complete and dysfunctional cells – not just the DNA – are manufactured and take over from the good cells required to stay alive.
The likeliest source for cancer is it was a virus that went beyond mass producing DNA. When a virus hits a cell the viral DNA takes over production and the cell is filled with new virus entities, which burst the cell and start their journey to invade someplace else. Cancer cells are different. They take over the DNA production, but instead produce more and more useless cells, still very rapidly. Many scientist believe that cancer could have evolved from a virus.
Other well known sources of cancer are radiation and some chemicals. But how this kind of cancer can become inherited and passed down through generations is still being worked out.
However the origin of cancer is worked out, it will not be because someone did not find lesions on mummies (who have all their inner organs removed in the mummification process) or reading literature written by the elites of the time. No wonder climate science was born in the UK – PhDs are apparently handed there out like candy.
I saw this story – yet another example of someone who had their conclusion all worked out first, and then worked as hard as they could to try and make the story fit.
Here’s another factor they left out (and there’s a long list of these) – before modern medicine, infant mortality was generally 50% before age 5. That was a hard, sad fact of life for most of human history, which is one of the main reasons why up until recently it was always important to have a lot of children – half of them were going to be lost along the way.
But what this means with regard to this study is that the 50% of humanity which was prone to disease was *always* wiped out in the first 5 years of life, which means *all* ancient population of adults were those who had *better* than average resistance to diseases. How does this affect this study? They don’t say, because they never even considered this.
Also, there’s the issue of people dying of things like smallpox and other diseases long before they had the chance to get cancer. Or the fact that he’s trying to extrapolate a conclusion from a sample size that is an almost infinitesimal representation of ancient populations. Oh, we could go on and on.
What percentage of the global population at the time do these mummies represent? What percentage of people born during their birth year do they represent?
As WWS points out, the vast majority of people born never made it to adulthood. As late as the early 1800’s some 85% of people born never made it to 35 years of age. At the time of those mummies very few people lived to over 45. Most of those mummies are people under age 50.
Also, how can they tell about tumors since most of the internal organs have been removed (including all abdominal organs and brains). Those mummies were completely cleaned out of internal organs as part of the embalming process. The only thing they would be able to find are skin and bone tumors.
The results of this study could just as well have been reached without studying any actual mummies. Let’s see, as it has been pointed out above, all young people, no internal organs, equal a low rate of tumors present.
All this sounds like ‘climate change’. We’ve got our mind made up, now let’s preach our foregone conclusion.
Why does the MSM print this garbage?
Another fact that should have been discussed is that mummies are representative of a very small segment of Egyptian society and are highly related from generations of brother-sister matings. Is it too hard to believe that a cance resistent family emerged? There are such familial lines known in the current population.. There is one type of cancer that currently emerges with age and the incidence goes up with age almost to certainty; that is prostate cancer. If you carefully examine all mummies of 60 yrs and higher, you should see some evidence of prostate cancer if it is a natural condition.
Relax – I have it on good authority that the aliens are coming to save us!
Ok, so they’re a little late-ish. It’s a long trip, y’know?