The doctor recognising there is no treatments is actually really smart. Most doctors of the time would come up with crazy theories that had no evidence
exactly when i look at old cemetaries and do the math those people lived nice old ages from 1910s to 1980s 1900 to late 1970s now while this isnt an exact science if i were to aggregate the date from more old cemtaries and have a data set in the thousands or 10s of thousands i think the trend of removing preteens out the data set would show how long the mortality rate hasnt really changed much. so many pediatric diseases and infant diseases and complications that we are just like wild life cubs. Kids just are easier to die off. for animals is a prey picking off the weakest in the pack. for humans kids just have weaker immunities or have less judgement skills or so many other vulnerabilites that make them extremely skew the mortality rate to a younger age. as such you MUST both mortality rates with AND without young kids.
Cancer in and of itself is just a cell mutation that causes unregulated cell division, so cancer would probably be about as old as multicellular organisms are.
Only partially correct. It is a mutation that causes unregulated division AND the system to keep these cells in check in the body, apoptosis, also failed. Cancer cells happen often, they usually blow themselves up.
I study this subject. It's obviously more complicated. You have genes that repair DNA (caretaker genes), genes that inhibit proliferation of cells (gatekeepers or better known as tumor suppressor genes) and you have genes that promote cell proliferation (proto-oncogenes).
@@steffighter144 Yeah, but the point that was being made is that cancer is inherent to the existence of multicellular organisms and therefore cancer existed whenever multicellular organisms existed.
There probably is a cure. (((Certain people))) with small hats and big noses are just unlikely going to allow this cure to be within reach of all pf their slaves. It is too lucrative and "fun" for them to extort people while they painfully die.
@@Leil2221Let me guess, essential oils? Vaccines are bad for you? Lets throw that the earth is flat in there also. Oh and lets not forget about jesus, jesus heals cancer if you believe hard enough!
I caught myself doing that with surveys of towns the other day; not the same, I know, but I was thinking the town existed as surveyed on the. map by the government surveyor when it's just a wish list of town sites. Nothing existed like that at all; the roads, the house spaces the public parks. I slapped my self!!
Exactly, most cancer is not visible from outside your body. Back then you didn’t have a doctor that X-rayed you and told you what was wrong. If you had pain in your chest you had pain in your chest and that was it. If it killed you then it killed you.
Average life span was low because child mortality was high. People who made it out of childhood lived past their 30s. Average life span is very misunderstood.
@@chrisj1319no that’s a far fetched assumption. i think they most likely didn’t encounter anything that killed them. it’s not like they survived typhus and the plague and where thus „stronger“. it was more pure luck to not have had anything deadly before.
I’m a university student, and we learned about cancer treatments pre-anaesthesia - I’m pretty sure me and every other person in the room was like “yeah no, I’ll just die thanks”
Look up Chinese papers on microblasts of salt & hot peppers to kill cancerous tumors. Cancer is curable. Or you can shut off a specific sugar molecule and then it no longer wants to replicate.
I’m sorry to ask this at the risk of looking silly but I need to know more/ understand what you mean… can you pretty pls explain what you said? What are “cancer treatments pre-anesthesia”?
im glad that you are better kid cancer is another thing since infant mortality is the factor to consider with that same style of thinking. its also probably why parents had more kids back then compared to now.... idk just some things to think about
You wouldn’t have gotten it in the first place if it weren’t for “modern medicine” These types of people are the cause of the problem so that they can profit off its “cure” which many times ends in catastrophe
cancer most likely began when animals began to evolve. as it’s basically a bunch of cells that go haywire and think they’re their own organism, i could see it being wayyyyy older than the dinosaurs.
@@Ghost_King108 i commented! idk why it doesn’t show, basically i was just saying that cancer is probably way older than dinos even because it’s basically just a cell mutation that makes them go haywire and think they’re their own organism
True. If you throw out infant mortality data, our forefathers lived almost as long as us. All our gains from modern medicine are erased by our unhealthy modern lifestyle.
@@mws73 Daltem is right but you're wrong. Check the stats. You can even see the life expectancy at 60 or 65 keep on increasing those past decades (albeit at a decreasing speed).
@@babelbabel2419 that’s misinterpreting data. Infant and child mortality was so prevalent until modern times that it was the majority of human deaths in all of history. If you disregard all deaths under age ten the average life expectancy of the Bronze Age was like 55. Similar numbers pop up across different periods
I was diagnosed at 14 & was paralyzed from the waist down & told I might never walk again. I’m so thankful for chemo, radiation & surgery that saved my life. I’m living on borrowed time & should’ve died many times over! I suffer from severe nerve pain/CRPS pain thanks to the tumor attaching itself to my spine. Thankfully I can walk with a cane now, over 20 years later. Cancer sucks!
@@Team920_ Ask anything you’d like, I don’t mind at all. I had hurt my back 2 years prior, slipped disc. It got better and than I was bounced off a trampoline & it started hurting again. It was getting worse and worse, my legs felt like they were on fire, only at night. Dr’s said it was “growing pains” & I was missing a lot of school bc I was up all night in awful pain so I had to sleep during the day when I wasn’t in pain. Finally my Mom demanded they give me an MRI & she would pay for it out of pocket if nothing showed. (Insurance said they wouldn’t pay for an MRI when the X-ray didn’t show anything.) The MRI is when they called and told my parents to get me to a children’s hospital, which was 1 and a half hours away from home, ASAP. Turns out I had a tumor growing on my spinal cord and it was pushing on the nerves that worked my legs. As soon as I walked into the hospital, my legs gave out and that was the last time I was able to walk for a long time. I needed to have emergency decompression surgery, and I came out paralyzed from the waist down. Typically the type of cancer I had, Ewing sarcoma, goes to an arm or leg and they amputate because it’s such a fast growing cancer. Bc I had an injured back, it went to the weakest spot, my spine.They can’t really amputate a spine so I did a year of chemo, a month of radiation, and a couple of surgeries. The sad truth is I had been sent to a spinal specialist and he said it was just growing pains. I was sent to Physical therapy 3 different times, with no relief. Then they sent me to a chiropractor, which made it worse. So insurance had no problem paying for all that, but when it came to an MRI, they kept denying it. Makes me wonder if i’d have been paralyzed if they had skipped all that bs and just given me a damn MRI from the beginning. If we caught it earlier, would I still be disabled and living in excruciating pain on a daily basis. I try not to think that way as it’s not helpful and only makes me angry.
Throughout all of human history, we mostly had no understanding of why people died because we had no idea how we stayed alive. Something to do with air, water and food. But people could also just feel a pain and die.
My husband recently diagnosed stage 3 lung cancer shortly after his 50th birthday. He had always loved teaching chemistry, and was very passionate about it. Our older son also has cerebral palsy, and we have a surprise baby (a girl) coming. These are hard times for us, but we are praying that we can get through this.
Thats the issue with alot of mental illnesses today and people saying "its just a trend these things never used to exist". They've always existed, we just never had the means or ressources to diagnose it
I read something from Scotland in the 1700’s basically describing what could be considered depression in a man who’s wife had died. “ he stopped eating, he didn’t visit his friends, he cloistered himself in his room. His wife had recently died.”
Also, we have stranger mental health because we have more _abstract_ problems than earlier civilizations. We stress about multi-year investments, 30-year mortgages and student loans. Most people in history stressed about a physical army or plague or crop failure, that they could see or touch. They could judge exactly how big their problems were, but we tend to overestimate our abstract problems and k*ll ourselves.
@@LowestofheDead we also have a radically different relationship with our duties over time than people used to. like the separation between shit to worry about and shit to enjoy yourself is rly terribly deprecated in modern life
Does anyone else think that she kinda looks like Jane foster from Thor and it’s even crazier that she is talking about cancer when Jane foster in the movie was battling cancer?
people weren't dying at 35, the child mortality rate was just much higher which brought down the average lifespan. if you did reach to adulthood you had a decent chance of living to 60. still not great but better than how you made it seem.
35 is a bit low, but i don't think many ppl were reaching 60s , atleast in my country....mid 40s is what was common as it seems, then obviously there those 2-3 who would live up to 90-100 & then somehow it'll get spread as everyone who lived had a really looong & beautiful life...
I was just coming to say this. "Average life span" was never 35. Life expectancy was. Life span is specifically a measure of life expectancy among those who reach adulthood. And that remained pretty constant until about a hundred years ago or so with modern medicine.
Also diagnosing internal diseases was insanely difficult until less than a century ago. Even posthumously, as the church vehemently banned dissection and autopsy
Thats what i was thinking! That people have always died of the same stuff, but without a ct scan or someone who knew what they were doing during an autopsy, an embolism or brain tumor would just look like "natural causes" or age!
It would be super interesting if once we start getting a later and later life expectancy we start discovering other problems too similar to cancer's situations, like if reaching 120 years old or older starts becoming more and more common or something
this video reminded me of the ancient dog ass cancer. one dog had cancer that somehow became contagious, so it is technically now a single celled breed of dog, and while i think it’s rare, is still around today! sci show made a great video about it
Technically cancer is as old as the first multicellular organism with tissue specialization because that’s the minimum requirement for a tumor to be problematic. So probably 1-2 billion years ago whenever that evolution happened
Cancer isn't an external disease. Cancer is your own cells going rogue . Also, cancer cells are immortal and can always perfectly replicate themselves. So apparently, the key to immortality is figuring out how cancer cells telomeres dont fray when they replicate.
Cancer can be an external transmisable disease. Canine Transmissible Venereal Tumor is a cancer that spreads between dogs through the transfer of living cancer cells, primarily during mating. One of the most remarkable aspects of CTV tumors is that their cells are those of the original dog (in which the cancer arose thousands of years ago), and not the carrier dog.
@@klow4491 it's still your own cells "external factors" are simply things that trigger mutation within YOUR cells (biggest example is the sun vs skin cancer)
To those who have beaten The Big C, congratulations, and may you have a long, happy. healthy life. Blessed be, dear souls, blessed be. I'm in remission, and currently beating the odds, but I'm still on my journey.
I do believe that cancer would be EXTREMELY old. Like thousands and millions of years back. Since cancer is just cell production issues, it would go wayy back
@@elvisedison1741 I don't think there's any good in extending life past 100. It's just sad seeing people in their 70s and 80s struggle with each breath they take
Oh no. It will be worse than cancer. Think about it. Those diseases we vac against were quick deaths. Cancer is slow death. Next Phase is "agony lived with."
We had to put my dog down 8 years ago because of cancer. I discovered it too by a tumor in the mouth. Still miss her sometimes such a good, loving , cuddling dog.
In the documentary Uranium -- Twisting the Dragon's Tail, it shows aboriginal radiation warnings signs paint in areas of uranium deposits. The painting show disfigurements to warn others to stay away. The disfigurements would have been cancerous growths.
The fact that cancer presented itself as sort of a ''tougher challenge than the other diseases'' right after we mostly fended the other ones off and found more ways to defeat them, is honestly really chilling. Maybe far into the future we'll end up exposing another humungous beast too.....
Yes old age The human body is genetically unable to live past around 125 years because at that point our dna stops being able to replicate The next issue well likely face is the limitations of our own genetics
Hippocrates (460-375 BC) had several references to cancer in his documentation. He realized that growing tumors mainly afflict the adults [7]. Also, the nomenclature of oncology is built upon his comparison of tumoral growths with a moving crab, which led to the generation of scientific terms such as cancer (a non-healing malignant ulcer) and carcinoma (a malignant tumor) [8]. He theorized that an imbalance in body humor, i.e. blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile instigates diseases [7] and that excess black bile is responsible for the development of cancer [9]. The humoral theory, which considered cancer a general disease, was the standard of medical practice through centuries because autopsies were banned due to religious prohibitions and also because its theoretical nature would leave no questions unanswered [10]. Galen (131 - 200 AD), one of the undoubtedly most influential physicians for many centuries, adopted the humoral theory but believed that the black bile was responsible for incurable cancer, whereas thin bile was related to curable cancer [11]. Throughout the Islamic Golden Age (7th to 14th century), prominent Muslim Persian and Arab scholars penned about cancer in their writings [9]. Al Zahrawi (936-1013 AD) was the first to distinguish between acute kidney inflammation and kidney cancer [9]. Cancer was assumed to have a difficult treatment, which could be probably successful only if performed at an early stage and also if the tumor was accessible, small-sized, and not adjacent to major organs for the possibility of surgical removal. Ibn Sina (980-1037 AD), known as Avicenna in the west, was one of the leading pioneers of medical science in the Islamic Golden Age [12]. He clarifies his surgical approach to early removal of a tumoral growth in his eminent work “Al-Qanun-fi-al-Tibb” (The Canon of Medicine): “All diseased tissue should be removed with radical excision, which could utilize amputation and removal of veins surrounding the growth, or catheterization if necessary” [9]
My mother passed away earlier this year due to an undetected cancer. At least she didn't even know that she was with cancer nor have suffered like her older brothers.
A few people are pickup up on the "died by 35" thing, so I just wanna point out: That's the trouble with talking about average life spans and life expectancy odds - you're both right! The average of *all* human lifespans of the time *was* 35, which is relevant and true for the topic of most people not living long enough to get cancer and a useful way to phrase it when time is short. But it is also true and relevant that you look at life expectancy by breaking it down into the averages for each age group, each one having it's own odds of survival, the odds increasing as you move past each milestone. Super-high mortality rate in infancy, lower in childhood, lower again in adolescence... But explaining that takes more time, and UA-cam Shorts is a time-limited format. I'm sure, judging by her past work, that Cleo understands this and is just using the easiest-to-understand way of phrasing so a broader audience can get the point on this topic. But I think you folks have commented here because there is that common misconception that the average means most people died by 35, instead of that being the average skewed by deaths at early age. It would be cool to see Cleo do a Short on how life expectancy is measured, so more people understand that people did live to old age in the Ancient world - it's just that infant mortality and other causes skewed the average.
Yeah, it's just not something simple enough to encompass in a single number. Infant mortality has dropped a lot. So have many other causes of death. Then you have to factor in the amount of violence in your area, like are wars common there. But I think any single factor, in isolation, will show that people are much more likely to make it to old age now, and that once people have made it that far, modern medicine is helping them to make it even longer.
@@LoveLearnShareGrow You can compare life expectancy at an age, for example the life expectancy of an 18 year old in Britain was in their low 60s in the early 1800s, mid 60s in late 1800s, low 70s by mid 1900s, and late 70s to early 80s now
They are correct AVERAGE life expectancy is not relevant to this discussion and she should not have brought it up. And the way she brought it up does imply that she does not understand the statistic. I like where she goes after explaining and showing a graph of cause death per year. The way she used it implies that most people died at around 30, when half dyed close to zero and half died close to 60 middle-aged death was only common during war or natural disaster. Life expectancy has gone up but plenty of people lived long enough to get cancer. they just had other diseases that we couldn't treat killing them at the same time, And cancer is harder to detect. Call it bad editing too if you want but if she understood the statistics I don't know why she wouldn't use the correct graph. She doesn't know everything and neither do you or I.
Life expectancy from the 12th to 19th century, excluding child mortality, was about 55, so just at the beginning of the jump in odds of getting cancer. People were still fairly likely to die before the odds of cancer increased drastically. That said, I feel like there's a lot more to be said about the fact that cancer would have been nigh impossible to detect in the first place. There may be some cancers that have increased in the modern age, but carcinogens and genetic problems didn't spontaneously appear in the mid 19th century. They had no modern machinery. Surgery was almost a death sentence in itself. Even autopsies were considered pretty taboo until the 19th century. In many cases, cancer would likely have been attributed to something else without a visual tumor. Even for a visible tumor, it would have been difficult to impossible in many cases to tell cancer had actually metastasized and thus was the cause of death. Also, our archaeological record isn't great because many cancers start in soft tissue and aren't identifiable from skeletons alone.
cancer is absolutely older than all human history like because of what cancer is it's probably been around since multicellular life has. Infact cancer is just when cells in a multi cellular organisms start evolveing separately from the rest and begin Replicating out of control because of damage to an original cell
@@willwrite3675 your right there are lots of other things cancer does but it wouldn't do that if it wasn't replicating out of control or being a problem if it wasn't out of control its just rapid cell growth and if it doesn't begin to evolve to survive the immune system it won't live long enough to become cancer and be harmful those are fundamental but I do get your point its not just that simple it will do other things
People back then had a lot more to worry about than cancer, it's just that cancer became widespread due to multiple factors such as eradicating other diseases or improvements in medicine
We've had cancer as long as we've had cells, it's a thing we have always lived and died with, now there are treatments we van use to stop it in many cases Early stage Cancer isn't an end all anymore if you get the right medicine
And fighting cancer is about to get a whole lot easier when AOH 1996 is done with human trails. For anyone unaware, there's finally a "cancer pill" and it's called AOH 1996. It's in the human trials stage right now
Yes cancer has been around, but was rare back in the day. The product we consume add to it so much more which is why there is so many with cancer today.
Well, yeah, I would always have assumed that cancer had existed for as long as we have, but they just didn't have a name for it and didn't know what it was
What blows my mind is in the 80s a researcher assigned musical notes to the chemicals that make up DNA and cancer sounded like Chopin's death march. It was on 60 minutes back then, but there's an article about it in the LA Times from 86. Not some earth changing discovery, but it was cool in a macabre way
My librarian said cancer is solved by oxygen and hospitals keep people sick for money.... Yeah I have been told to respect everyone's opinions (she also thinks birds are robots controlled by the govt.) And not call her insane.
Fun Fact: The Birds are Robots conspiracy started as a jokey Experiment by some guy who didn't believe any of that and acted like people he grew up around with their theories.
This has been something I've been wondering! I was like is cancer new? How come I didn't hear about it back in the day? Not that I was there back then!
I think two things can be true at once: Yes, people died of other stuff leaving certain cancers undiagnosed and hidden. But we also have exposure to a carcinogenic substance’s daily: many of which are found in our food, water, and body care products. We frequently consume and are exposed to stuff that most of our ancestors never came into contact with. (Edit: More in comments)
It’s estimated that nearly all cancers are multifactorial; meaning that there is a genetic predisposition but environmental factors are what ultimately initiate the disease. Our tap water commonly contains lead, arsenic, nitrates and nitrites, glyphosate and other known carcinogens (cancer causing agents). The average human consumes over a liter of glyphosate (pesticide) every year. There are many carcinogens added to common foods as flavors / flavors enhancers, colors, fillers, preservatives and other additives. Processed foods are a great example of food to avoid. Many people consume foods with high levels of theses substances as their primarily source of nutrients which will lead to cancer at some point in their lifetime. Most of these factors are much more modern implementations. We did not live like this the majority of human history. It’s important to do your research, and limit exposure where you can. Edit: removed double phrasing
@@bellashiloh6210 While people today (Industrial Revolution till present, let's say that) have been in contact with more carcinogens, people in the past still had them. Lead and arsenic are some of the oldest examples of toxic materials commonly used in early civilizations.
@@synckar6380 while lead and arsenic are good examples. They were really only introduced to society a couple thousand years ago. I think like 100 bc. That in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of years that humans have been around. She brought up how we don’t see cancer on ancient people, that’s why.
Oddly enough, Monsanto is a perfect example of why we see more cancer today than we did 100 years ago. On the one hand, the chemicals they use to kill pests and other stuff causes a LOT of disease after prolonged exposure. On the other hand, if it weren’t for massive improvements in agribusiness like Monsanto, millions of people would never live to be old enough to HAVE long term exposure to anything. You can’t die from Glyphosate-induced cancer at age 55 if you dies from starvation at age six… Just an observation. They are far from perfect and there is certainly room for improvement, but without them, a LOT of us wouldn’t be here to bitch about them.
I have to add that infectious disease was the primary cause of death until the 50's. If that goes down, other conditions have to go up given we all have to die from something. Also, I don't believe people realise how unlikely a cancer diagnosis was without the technology that we have today. My grandmother died from ovarian cancer in the 60s, she was first diagnosed with indigestion, which then became appendicitis and was only revealed to have cancer when they found her tumours in surgery... no signs of an appendix problem. If it was her left ovary everyone would have though she died of indigestion or something similar. According to my grandfather's death certificate, he died from a cough!
Even after the medical community found out about cancer and ways to treat it, in most places and for most people treatment was still unaccessible. My grandma used to tell me that when she was little people would just die seemingly out of nowhere, and when someonen asked what was the reason, the answer was simply "d'e mancau su entu", which means "the wind (i.e. the soul) has left them"
This makes me so happy, someday we will cure cancer completely I have been to a cancer hospital a couple of times and I have seen the patients closely and the loved ones crying after death, it is so painful to watch, some day we will cure it
Having done some genealogy, I can tell you that diseases also went by different names in the past, or symptoms would be attributed to other diseases. For example, anything from depression to autoimmune diseases and CFS would be referred to on records as 'tired blood'. Thus something like cancer could be hidden in old records.
I'd assume if you're starting to develop pain thousands of years ago, you just may not have thought of cancer, may not have had access to a doctor, may not have developed visible lumps, and may have just died.
This gives me a chilling thought: once we can consistently treat cancer, heart disease, and other major causes of death… what new or rare illnesses will we uncover or make prevalent?
Not only that, but if they saw cancer, there’s no easy way for them to have determined what it is and subsequently label it as distinct from other illnesses.
"A bulging mass in the breast”-cool, hard, dense as a hemat fruit, and spreading insidiously under the skin-could hardly be a more vivid description of breast cancer. Every case in the papyrus was followed by a concise discussion of treatments, even if only palliative: milk poured through the ears of neurosurgical patients, poultices for wounds, balms for burns. But with case forty-five, Imhotep fell atypically silent. Under the section titled “Therapy,” he offered only a single sentence: “There is none. " Emperor of all maladies .
There are several factors that could contribute to younger people getting cancer in the past. These factors include limited medical knowledge, inadequate diagnostic tools, different environmental exposures (such as higher rates of smoking or different pollutants), and potentially genetic predispositions that weren't well understood or identified earlier. Moreover, increased awareness, improved healthcare, better screening methods, and lifestyle changes have also influenced the detection and incidence of cancer in younger individuals today.
A lot of people don’t even understand how cancer comes around, so for anyone who doesn’t allow me to explain. Some Cancer comes from an overgrowth of cells in one area known as a tumor and the problem is mostly that these cells continue to multiply, (because of a mutation in the cell division or replication process) so there is no end to this. That is why people get surgeries to have these tumors removed. But sometimes in more dangerous cases the cancer can be harder to get rid of. This depends on exactly what kind of cancer it is. Sometimes in these dangerous cases, the surgery could leave one cell behind with this mutation and another tumor could sprout. Which is why some with breast cancer for example just get their breasts cut off. My cheer coach had this done and she got implants after, she is very happy with them. (Close family friend) But yeah hopefully that helps anyone who needed that!
Swedish study found that other than lung and skin cancer, cancer rates for other types increased dramatically post 1945 onwards. Open air nuclear testing has been the main contributor in my view.
In your opinion. Your view would be through evidence, also remember correlation is not causation. Also post nuclear war the world's life expectancy in particularly the first world has exploded, not to mention great advances in paediatric medicine and also the irradiation of communicable diseases through world vaccine programs. As these have allowed people to live longer and not die from these diseases they are likely to die of cancer or we can just simply blame nuclear bombs, which is ironic because we collectively get more radiation in our lifetime from the sun, but let's blame the nuclear bomb.
Reading an ancient language that says "there is no treatment" is the building blocks of a good horror film
Genius
That would be an awesome movie
This sort of reminded me of the film “Knowing” when they found “E E”
Actually that’s a good point
I felt the chills when she said that
"there is no treatment" gotta be the scariest shit 💀
In spanish Vademecum from the early XX century they said to communicate the bad news to the family and pray for the patient's soul. Yup.
I GOT TB
still pretty much true today. palliative treatment maybe
@@The_guy_on_the_interneti mean, technically speaking there are multiple treatments for different cancers 🤷🤷
Like Rabies, if not vaccinated on time, there's no cure
"there is no treatment" sent shivers down my spine
Gess the spooky scary skeletons arent as spooky as cancer.
Hopefully crisper can solve these problems
@@kevinwoodrobotics😂😂😂😂 i had heard crisper when i was 10
@@AryaTasunayes symptoms of cancer
We still don't have a treatment, because what we called a treatment is not a treatment, it's an unbearable punishment which killed my father.
The doctor recognising there is no treatments is actually really smart. Most doctors of the time would come up with crazy theories that had no evidence
Yes.. the first part of solving a problem is realizing there is a problem
There's no cure (yet) for them so they keep looking
Average age wasn't 35, unless you include child mortality
If you live to ~10, you can make it to your 60's
exactly when i look at old cemetaries and do the math those people lived nice old ages from 1910s to 1980s 1900 to late 1970s
now while this isnt an exact science if i were to aggregate the date from more old cemtaries and have a data set in the thousands or 10s of thousands i think the trend of removing preteens out the data set would show how long the mortality rate hasnt really changed much.
so many pediatric diseases and infant diseases and complications that we are just like wild life cubs. Kids just are easier to die off. for animals is a prey picking off the weakest in the pack. for humans kids just have weaker immunities or have less judgement skills or so many other vulnerabilites that make them extremely skew the mortality rate to a younger age.
as such you MUST both mortality rates with AND without young kids.
It was still a lot lower than today regardless
I was going to say this exactly. I've given you a thumbs up instead.
Or wars, which artificially made men die young.
Now you can easily make it to your 80s. He point is still relevant
Cancer in and of itself is just a cell mutation that causes unregulated cell division, so cancer would probably be about as old as multicellular organisms are.
Only partially correct. It is a mutation that causes unregulated division AND the system to keep these cells in check in the body, apoptosis, also failed. Cancer cells happen often, they usually blow themselves up.
@@Nick-hi9gx yes I know I'm just saying that because of its origin it's going to naturally be very ancient
I study this subject. It's obviously more complicated. You have genes that repair DNA (caretaker genes), genes that inhibit proliferation of cells (gatekeepers or better known as tumor suppressor genes) and you have genes that promote cell proliferation (proto-oncogenes).
@@steffighter144 Yeah, but the point that was being made is that cancer is inherent to the existence of multicellular organisms and therefore cancer existed whenever multicellular organisms existed.
@@steffighter144 ok here's your star point
Lost many important people in my life to cancer. I hope one day we find a cure.
There probably is a cure.
(((Certain people))) with small hats and big noses are just unlikely going to allow this cure to be within reach of all pf their slaves.
It is too lucrative and "fun" for them to extort people while they painfully die.
It has a natural cure. You can help people around you if you want.
@@Leil2221Let me guess, essential oils? Vaccines are bad for you? Lets throw that the earth is flat in there also. Oh and lets not forget about jesus, jesus heals cancer if you believe hard enough!
@@Leil2221your right T-Cells fight and eliminate cancer cells
Depends on the type of cancer. We are closer to solving some than we are to others. The only constant for treatment is eating less sugar.
It's frightening how many people think that when we discovered and described it is the same as when cancer first happened.
I caught myself doing that with surveys of towns the other day; not the same, I know, but I was thinking the town existed as surveyed on the. map by the government surveyor when it's just a wish list of town sites. Nothing existed like that at all; the roads, the house spaces the public parks. I slapped my self!!
I think the larger contributor here is the fact that it’s really difficult to detect cancer without access to modern knowledge and technology
if that’s the case, the egyptian’s technology at the time must have been incredibly impressive!!
edit: quote *at the time* people
@@wolfieolfie tbh, they were incredibly impressive in a way.
Even if it's not the case here.
Exactly, most cancer is not visible from outside your body. Back then you didn’t have a doctor that X-rayed you and told you what was wrong. If you had pain in your chest you had pain in your chest and that was it. If it killed you then it killed you.
@@wolfieolfienah, probably just being able to see/feel tumors
@@wolfieolfie really difficult \= impossible, we’re talking about statistics here
Thank you Natalie Portman for telling us about the history of cancer
Looks like a mix between Keira Knightyley and Natalie portman
I can't unsee it now
😂😂😂😂😂
@@huskydadtokoda😂😂😂😂
omg im not the only one thinking this.
Average life span was low because child mortality was high. People who made it out of childhood lived past their 30s. Average life span is very misunderstood.
True, but maybe you could still make the argument that the people who did make it to adulthood are healthier fitter folks less likely to get cancer?
that being said, it kinda works in this case, because those babies didn’t get cancer 🤷🏻♀️
@@rhiannonm8132 yet again the babies dying so much skewed the results.
True enough but people still have higher possibility of dying of something else, infection, food poisoning, cold winter.
@@chrisj1319no that’s a far fetched assumption. i think they most likely didn’t encounter anything that killed them. it’s not like they survived typhus and the plague and where thus „stronger“. it was more pure luck to not have had anything deadly before.
We found cancer in dinosaur bones
I’m a university student, and we learned about cancer treatments pre-anaesthesia - I’m pretty sure me and every other person in the room was like “yeah no, I’ll just die thanks”
Look up Chinese papers on microblasts of salt & hot peppers to kill cancerous tumors. Cancer is curable. Or you can shut off a specific sugar molecule and then it no longer wants to replicate.
I’m sorry to ask this at the risk of looking silly but I need to know more/ understand what you mean… can you pretty pls explain what you said?
What are “cancer treatments pre-anesthesia”?
I think he meant before pain killers. Surgery will no numbing agent.
@YoSpongebob it means cutting you open while you are conscious so you can feel everything
@@YoSpongebobabove
I had cancer and beat it when I was 13 and it’s been 10 years since I have. So I’m thankful for modern cancer treatments
🙌🏻 so happy for your recovery
im glad that you are better
kid cancer is another thing since infant mortality is the factor to consider with that same style of thinking.
its also probably why parents had more kids back then compared to now.... idk just some things to think about
Where are you from ?
You wouldn’t have gotten it in the first place if it weren’t for “modern medicine”
These types of people are the cause of the problem so that they can profit off its “cure” which many times ends in catastrophe
That's awesome brother. Stay blessed and healthy always.
This video is the sanity I needed
It’s like unlocking a new difficulty irl
We’ve also observed dinosaur bones with telltale signs of cancer- pretty amazing to think of it in that time scale.
cancer most likely began when animals began to evolve. as it’s basically a bunch of cells that go haywire and think they’re their own organism, i could see it being wayyyyy older than the dinosaurs.
Yt drunk cause it say one reply but there is nothing here?? 😊
@@Ghost_King108 i commented! idk why it doesn’t show, basically i was just saying that cancer is probably way older than dinos even because it’s basically just a cell mutation that makes them go haywire and think they’re their own organism
@@jimjimsaucecould you elaborate? I’m sorry, I didn’t really understand that part about the cell mutation and going haywire
@@rosacade-cancer is just cells mutating and doing mitosis until you get tumor sobits probably old as multi celled life itself
The 35 age expectancy is brought down by extreme child mortality
If you make it past 10, you'll probably live to your 60's
There were lots of diseases, like small pox, TB, cholera. Which didn't care what age you are.
@@hemanthkumar5438 and?
That would only reinforce that average age being 35 is due to extreme child mortality
True. If you throw out infant mortality data, our forefathers lived almost as long as us. All our gains from modern medicine are erased by our unhealthy modern lifestyle.
@@mws73 Daltem is right but you're wrong. Check the stats. You can even see the life expectancy at 60 or 65 keep on increasing those past decades (albeit at a decreasing speed).
@@babelbabel2419 that’s misinterpreting data. Infant and child mortality was so prevalent until modern times that it was the majority of human deaths in all of history. If you disregard all deaths under age ten the average life expectancy of the Bronze Age was like 55. Similar numbers pop up across different periods
"how old is cancer" i would say as old as life itself.
Damn, pneumonia doing some work back in the 20's
Good old dust bowl
I was diagnosed at 14 & was paralyzed from the waist down & told I might never walk again. I’m so thankful for chemo, radiation & surgery that saved my life. I’m living on borrowed time & should’ve died many times over! I suffer from severe nerve pain/CRPS pain thanks to the tumor attaching itself to my spine. Thankfully I can walk with a cane now, over 20 years later. Cancer sucks!
So glad to hear you're still here . If you don't mind me asking what were your beginning symptoms?
You are a Warrior!
Keep fighting the fight, never let it beat you, live life to the fullest in honor to our great God Jehovah
@@Team920_ Ask anything you’d like, I don’t mind at all. I had hurt my back 2 years prior, slipped disc. It got better and than I was bounced off a trampoline & it started hurting again. It was getting worse and worse, my legs felt like they were on fire, only at night. Dr’s said it was “growing pains” & I was missing a lot of school bc I was up all night in awful pain so I had to sleep during the day when I wasn’t in pain. Finally my Mom demanded they give me an MRI & she would pay for it out of pocket if nothing showed. (Insurance said they wouldn’t pay for an MRI when the X-ray didn’t show anything.) The MRI is when they called and told my parents to get me to a children’s hospital, which was 1 and a half hours away from home, ASAP. Turns out I had a tumor growing on my spinal cord and it was pushing on the nerves that worked my legs. As soon as I walked into the hospital, my legs gave out and that was the last time I was able to walk for a long time. I needed to have emergency decompression surgery, and I came out paralyzed from the waist down. Typically the type of cancer I had, Ewing sarcoma, goes to an arm or leg and they amputate because it’s such a fast growing cancer. Bc I had an injured back, it went to the weakest spot, my spine.They can’t really amputate a spine so I did a year of chemo, a month of radiation, and a couple of surgeries.
The sad truth is I had been sent to a spinal specialist and he said it was just growing pains. I was sent to Physical therapy 3 different times, with no relief. Then they sent me to a chiropractor, which made it worse. So insurance had no problem paying for all that, but when it came to an MRI, they kept denying it. Makes me wonder if i’d have been paralyzed if they had skipped all that bs and just given me a damn MRI from the beginning. If we caught it earlier, would I still be disabled and living in excruciating pain on a daily basis. I try not to think that way as it’s not helpful and only makes me angry.
@@ericfine325 Thank you! I try.😜
This is exactly why increased use of seatbelts is linked to higher rates of cancer deaths
vaxactly....
not really, correlation doesnt mean causation
@@gregkerna7410did you not get the joke?
@@gregkerna7410 linked to doesn't mean causation, too.
@@gregkerna7410 Exactly. People can't die of cancer if they die in a car crash first.
Throughout all of human history, we mostly had no understanding of why people died because we had no idea how we stayed alive. Something to do with air, water and food. But people could also just feel a pain and die.
My husband recently diagnosed stage 3 lung cancer shortly after his 50th birthday. He had always loved teaching chemistry, and was very passionate about it.
Our older son also has cerebral palsy, and we have a surprise baby (a girl) coming.
These are hard times for us, but we are praying that we can get through this.
Logically, cancer should be as old as life itself
Edit: well, multicellular life
Exacly
Was just about to mention this.
To sum it up, Cancer is just your own cells deciding to break away from the Whole that is you and work on their own.
The video's question was a peculiar one, and so to pinpoint the exact age: Baby Earth. (Approximately billion years ago)
Yeah because we have found dinosaurs fossils with cancerous tumors
@@VelociraptorsOfSkyrimliterally cellular traitors/rebels
Thats the issue with alot of mental illnesses today and people saying "its just a trend these things never used to exist". They've always existed, we just never had the means or ressources to diagnose it
I read something from Scotland in the 1700’s basically describing what could be considered depression in a man who’s wife had died.
“ he stopped eating, he didn’t visit his friends, he cloistered himself in his room. His wife had recently died.”
Also, we have stranger mental health because we have more _abstract_ problems than earlier civilizations.
We stress about multi-year investments, 30-year mortgages and student loans. Most people in history stressed about a physical army or plague or crop failure, that they could see or touch. They could judge exactly how big their problems were, but we tend to overestimate our abstract problems and k*ll ourselves.
@@LowestofheDead we also have a radically different relationship with our duties over time than people used to. like the separation between shit to worry about and shit to enjoy yourself is rly terribly deprecated in modern life
This is so off topic. Is it necessary to bring that typa shit in everything??
@@LowestofheDeadstress is stress no matter what you stress about. Humans have struggled for a long time
Cancer is old as mutual cellular beings
Does anyone else think that she kinda looks like Jane foster from Thor and it’s even crazier that she is talking about cancer when Jane foster in the movie was battling cancer?
people weren't dying at 35, the child mortality rate was just much higher which brought down the average lifespan. if you did reach to adulthood you had a decent chance of living to 60. still not great but better than how you made it seem.
+
35 is a bit low, but i don't think many ppl were reaching 60s , atleast in my country....mid 40s is what was common as it seems, then obviously there those 2-3 who would live up to 90-100 & then somehow it'll get spread as everyone who lived had a really looong & beautiful life...
@@blue_whale_in_the_space About 60-65 seems average where I live until 1800s
I was just coming to say this. "Average life span" was never 35. Life expectancy was. Life span is specifically a measure of life expectancy among those who reach adulthood. And that remained pretty constant until about a hundred years ago or so with modern medicine.
True about high mortality rates for the
Also diagnosing internal diseases was insanely difficult until less than a century ago. Even posthumously, as the church vehemently banned dissection and autopsy
Thats what i was thinking! That people have always died of the same stuff, but without a ct scan or someone who knew what they were doing during an autopsy, an embolism or brain tumor would just look like "natural causes" or age!
It would be super interesting if once we start getting a later and later life expectancy we start discovering other problems too similar to cancer's situations, like if reaching 120 years old or older starts becoming more and more common or something
this video reminded me of the ancient dog ass cancer. one dog had cancer that somehow became contagious, so it is technically now a single celled breed of dog, and while i think it’s rare, is still around today! sci show made a great video about it
Technically cancer is as old as the first multicellular organism with tissue specialization because that’s the minimum requirement for a tumor to be problematic. So probably 1-2 billion years ago whenever that evolution happened
probably less years ago; it probably happened a very long time after the development of specialised tissue organisms
Plants don't get cancer and neither do sponges 🧽.
Yeah but it may not have been a problem at all. plants can live for thousands of years without dying or getting sick from cancer
Cancer isn't an external disease. Cancer is your own cells going rogue . Also, cancer cells are immortal and can always perfectly replicate themselves. So apparently, the key to immortality is figuring out how cancer cells telomeres dont fray when they replicate.
In dogs, dog cancer can spread to other dogs through smelling of dog genitalia from what ive heard.
Cancer can be an external transmisable disease. Canine Transmissible Venereal Tumor is a cancer that spreads between dogs through the transfer of living cancer cells, primarily during mating. One of the most remarkable aspects of CTV tumors is that their cells are those of the original dog (in which the cancer arose thousands of years ago), and not the carrier dog.
Cancer can be caused by external factors
@@hertrueself wild imagine that but with humans, shit could be crazy
@@klow4491 it's still your own cells
"external factors" are simply things that trigger mutation within YOUR cells (biggest example is the sun vs skin cancer)
To those who have beaten The Big C, congratulations, and may you have a long, happy. healthy life.
Blessed be, dear souls, blessed be.
I'm in remission, and currently beating the odds, but I'm still on my journey.
Given that cancer occurs in almost all living things, it is nearly as old as life, several billion years at least.
Elephants don't get cancer, aren't they mammal?
@@thegrandknowledge1026 Of course elephants can get cancer. And of course they are mammals.
@@thegrandknowledge1026they do but it just doesn’t kill them like it does to us
@@lityem What prevents them from killing the elephants?
@@thegrandknowledge1026 they’re immune system is much better at defeating cancer
I do believe that cancer would be EXTREMELY old. Like thousands and millions of years back. Since cancer is just cell production issues, it would go wayy back
I'm quite convinced it is. The oldest finding of cancer was in a 77 mio year old dinosaur bone - and I'm sure cancer existing long before that.
imagine the other things that might pop up once we find a cure for cancer
Those other things pop bcz we expand our lifespan right? So people would live happily to 100 yrs old before those other things pop
@@elvisedison1741 I don't think there's any good in extending life past 100. It's just sad seeing people in their 70s and 80s struggle with each breath they take
Not really or they would've already popped up, unless heart disease is an actual slow mutiplying virus. Other than that maybe rare diseases.
@@bespokepenguin103no it's not it makes me so happy
Oh no. It will be worse than cancer. Think about it. Those diseases we vac against were quick deaths. Cancer is slow death. Next Phase is "agony lived with."
i wonder how many cancer cases got ruled down to "curses" from radioactive "cursed" items
We had to put my dog down 8 years ago because of cancer.
I discovered it too by a tumor in the mouth.
Still miss her sometimes such a good, loving , cuddling dog.
In the documentary Uranium -- Twisting the Dragon's Tail, it shows aboriginal radiation warnings signs paint in areas of uranium deposits. The painting show disfigurements to warn others to stay away. The disfigurements would have been cancerous growths.
An Oncologist & Paleontologist teamed up to determine a dinosaur bone showed evidence it had bone cancer before it died.
The fact that cancer presented itself as sort of a ''tougher challenge than the other diseases'' right after we mostly fended the other ones off and found more ways to defeat them, is honestly really chilling. Maybe far into the future we'll end up exposing another humungous beast too.....
Yes old age
The human body is genetically unable to live past around 125 years because at that point our dna stops being able to replicate
The next issue well likely face is the limitations of our own genetics
I'm so fascinated by every short you make. Thank you for teaching me new things!
Hippocrates (460-375 BC) had several references to cancer in his documentation. He realized that growing tumors mainly afflict the adults [7]. Also, the nomenclature of oncology is built upon his comparison of tumoral growths with a moving crab, which led to the generation of scientific terms such as cancer (a non-healing malignant ulcer) and carcinoma (a malignant tumor) [8]. He theorized that an imbalance in body humor, i.e. blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile instigates diseases [7] and that excess black bile is responsible for the development of cancer [9]. The humoral theory, which considered cancer a general disease, was the standard of medical practice through centuries because autopsies were banned due to religious prohibitions and also because its theoretical nature would leave no questions unanswered [10]. Galen (131 - 200 AD), one of the undoubtedly most influential physicians for many centuries, adopted the humoral theory but believed that the black bile was responsible for incurable cancer, whereas thin bile was related to curable cancer [11]. Throughout the Islamic Golden Age (7th to 14th century), prominent Muslim Persian and Arab scholars penned about cancer in their writings [9]. Al Zahrawi (936-1013 AD) was the first to distinguish between acute kidney inflammation and kidney cancer [9]. Cancer was assumed to have a difficult treatment, which could be probably successful only if performed at an early stage and also if the tumor was accessible, small-sized, and not adjacent to major organs for the possibility of surgical removal. Ibn Sina (980-1037 AD), known as Avicenna in the west, was one of the leading pioneers of medical science in the Islamic Golden Age [12]. He clarifies his surgical approach to early removal of a tumoral growth in his eminent work “Al-Qanun-fi-al-Tibb” (The Canon of Medicine): “All diseased tissue should be removed with radical excision, which could utilize amputation and removal of veins surrounding the growth, or catheterization if necessary” [9]
How can I save a comment?????
@@iwatchthemooooon3002ikr
@@iwatchthemooooon3002
You can take a screenshot, or three.
That's the only way I've figured out how to do it.
Thanks for the lesson. It was fascinating.
Wikipedia?
That hieroglyph saying there is no treatment is chilling
They haven’t deciphered meaning accurately. No one knows their language
My mother passed away earlier this year due to an undetected cancer. At least she didn't even know that she was with cancer nor have suffered like her older brothers.
My mom died from cancer before it was known to everyone in our family. She just slowly, painfully wasted away and we thought it was from other things.
A few people are pickup up on the "died by 35" thing, so I just wanna point out: That's the trouble with talking about average life spans and life expectancy odds - you're both right! The average of *all* human lifespans of the time *was* 35, which is relevant and true for the topic of most people not living long enough to get cancer and a useful way to phrase it when time is short. But it is also true and relevant that you look at life expectancy by breaking it down into the averages for each age group, each one having it's own odds of survival, the odds increasing as you move past each milestone. Super-high mortality rate in infancy, lower in childhood, lower again in adolescence... But explaining that takes more time, and UA-cam Shorts is a time-limited format.
I'm sure, judging by her past work, that Cleo understands this and is just using the easiest-to-understand way of phrasing so a broader audience can get the point on this topic. But I think you folks have commented here because there is that common misconception that the average means most people died by 35, instead of that being the average skewed by deaths at early age. It would be cool to see Cleo do a Short on how life expectancy is measured, so more people understand that people did live to old age in the Ancient world - it's just that infant mortality and other causes skewed the average.
I should have edited before posting, I repeated myself a little there.
Yeah, it's just not something simple enough to encompass in a single number. Infant mortality has dropped a lot. So have many other causes of death. Then you have to factor in the amount of violence in your area, like are wars common there. But I think any single factor, in isolation, will show that people are much more likely to make it to old age now, and that once people have made it that far, modern medicine is helping them to make it even longer.
Umm no, she's dumb. You are assuming she's not dumb but she is. This short proved it.
@@LoveLearnShareGrow You can compare life expectancy at an age, for example the life expectancy of an 18 year old in Britain was in their low 60s in the early 1800s, mid 60s in late 1800s, low 70s by mid 1900s, and late 70s to early 80s now
They are correct AVERAGE life expectancy is not relevant to this discussion and she should not have brought it up. And the way she brought it up does imply that she does not understand the statistic. I like where she goes after explaining and showing a graph of cause death per year. The way she used it implies that most people died at around 30, when half dyed close to zero and half died close to 60 middle-aged death was only common during war or natural disaster. Life expectancy has gone up but plenty of people lived long enough to get cancer. they just had other diseases that we couldn't treat killing them at the same time, And cancer is harder to detect.
Call it bad editing too if you want but if she understood the statistics I don't know why she wouldn't use the correct graph.
She doesn't know everything and neither do you or I.
Life expectancy from the 12th to 19th century, excluding child mortality, was about 55, so just at the beginning of the jump in odds of getting cancer. People were still fairly likely to die before the odds of cancer increased drastically.
That said, I feel like there's a lot more to be said about the fact that cancer would have been nigh impossible to detect in the first place. There may be some cancers that have increased in the modern age, but carcinogens and genetic problems didn't spontaneously appear in the mid 19th century. They had no modern machinery. Surgery was almost a death sentence in itself. Even autopsies were considered pretty taboo until the 19th century. In many cases, cancer would likely have been attributed to something else without a visual tumor. Even for a visible tumor, it would have been difficult to impossible in many cases to tell cancer had actually metastasized and thus was the cause of death. Also, our archaeological record isn't great because many cancers start in soft tissue and aren't identifiable from skeletons alone.
cancer is absolutely older than all human history like because of what cancer is it's probably been around since multicellular life has.
Infact cancer is just when cells in a multi cellular organisms start evolveing separately from the rest and begin Replicating out of control because of damage to an original cell
No it's not 'just' that
@@willwrite3675 your right there are lots of other things cancer does but it wouldn't do that if it wasn't replicating out of control or being a problem if it wasn't out of control its just rapid cell growth and if it doesn't begin to evolve to survive the immune system it won't live long enough to become cancer and be harmful those are fundamental but I do get your point its not just that simple it will do other things
Finally she said what i have been thinking internally for years
People back then had a lot more to worry about than cancer, it's just that cancer became widespread due to multiple factors such as eradicating other diseases or improvements in medicine
We've had cancer as long as we've had cells, it's a thing we have always lived and died with, now there are treatments we van use to stop it in many cases
Early stage Cancer isn't an end all anymore if you get the right medicine
And fighting cancer is about to get a whole lot easier when AOH 1996 is done with human trails. For anyone unaware, there's finally a "cancer pill" and it's called AOH 1996. It's in the human trials stage right now
Was it the one with 12 out of 12 patients being cured?
I wish I had this instead of chemo and radiation. Those things scar you for a lifetime.
Yes cancer has been around, but was rare back in the day. The product we consume add to it so much more which is why there is so many with cancer today.
60 or older u say? (Laughs in child hood cancer)
Always the exception
higher risk doesn't mean you're safe before that
Yeep
Cancer is just the next shonen anime villain we have to fight w/ the power of friendship and teamwork that was lurking here the whole time.
"there is no treatment" man!! that was probably devastating news for someone so many years ago...
Imagine immortality/longevity is commonplace and “dying” was just their “cancer”
Happy 60th birthday. You now qualify for high cancer risk. Congratulations. 🎉🎉
Unless you have really shitty genetics
Well, yeah, I would always have assumed that cancer had existed for as long as we have, but they just didn't have a name for it and didn't know what it was
What blows my mind is in the 80s a researcher assigned musical notes to the chemicals that make up DNA and cancer sounded like Chopin's death march.
It was on 60 minutes back then, but there's an article about it in the LA Times from 86.
Not some earth changing discovery, but it was cool in a macabre way
My librarian said cancer is solved by oxygen and hospitals keep people sick for money.... Yeah I have been told to respect everyone's opinions (she also thinks birds are robots controlled by the govt.) And not call her insane.
How much does cancer make each year, google it
Fun Fact: The Birds are Robots conspiracy started as a jokey Experiment by some guy who didn't believe any of that and acted like people he grew up around with their theories.
You make a valid point. Cancer can't kill you if you starve to death or get eaten by a lion.
😂😂😂
Cleo, you are the best at explaining things! Thank You
Everyone here dwelling on “There is no treatment”, but it’s “Most people didn’t live long enough to get cancer” that gets me.
This has been something I've been wondering! I was like is cancer new? How come I didn't hear about it back in the day? Not that I was there back then!
I think two things can be true at once:
Yes, people died of other stuff leaving certain cancers undiagnosed and hidden.
But we also have exposure to a carcinogenic substance’s daily: many of which are found in our food, water, and body care products. We frequently consume and are exposed to stuff that most of our ancestors never came into contact with.
(Edit: More in comments)
It’s estimated that nearly all cancers are multifactorial; meaning that there is a genetic predisposition but environmental factors are what ultimately initiate the disease.
Our tap water commonly contains lead, arsenic, nitrates and nitrites, glyphosate and other known carcinogens (cancer causing agents).
The average human consumes over a liter of glyphosate (pesticide) every year.
There are many carcinogens added to common foods as flavors / flavors enhancers, colors, fillers, preservatives and other additives. Processed foods are a great example of food to avoid. Many people consume foods with high levels of theses substances as their primarily source of nutrients which will lead to cancer at some point in their lifetime.
Most of these factors are much more modern implementations. We did not live like this the majority of human history.
It’s important to do your research, and limit exposure where you can.
Edit: removed double phrasing
Beatiful woman
@@bellashiloh6210 While people today (Industrial Revolution till present, let's say that) have been in contact with more carcinogens, people in the past still had them. Lead and arsenic are some of the oldest examples of toxic materials commonly used in early civilizations.
@@bellashiloh6210 food fear mongering app
@@synckar6380 while lead and arsenic are good examples. They were really only introduced to society a couple thousand years ago. I think like 100 bc. That in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of years that humans have been around. She brought up how we don’t see cancer on ancient people, that’s why.
Oddly enough, Monsanto is a perfect example of why we see more cancer today than we did 100 years ago.
On the one hand, the chemicals they use to kill pests and other stuff causes a LOT of disease after prolonged exposure.
On the other hand, if it weren’t for massive improvements in agribusiness like Monsanto, millions of people would never live to be old enough to HAVE long term exposure to anything. You can’t die from Glyphosate-induced cancer at age 55 if you dies from starvation at age six…
Just an observation. They are far from perfect and there is certainly room for improvement, but without them, a LOT of us wouldn’t be here to bitch about them.
I have to add that infectious disease was the primary cause of death until the 50's. If that goes down, other conditions have to go up given we all have to die from something.
Also, I don't believe people realise how unlikely a cancer diagnosis was without the technology that we have today. My grandmother died from ovarian cancer in the 60s, she was first diagnosed with indigestion, which then became appendicitis and was only revealed to have cancer when they found her tumours in surgery... no signs of an appendix problem. If it was her left ovary everyone would have though she died of indigestion or something similar. According to my grandfather's death certificate, he died from a cough!
@@liatm3042 yep.
So you would rather live a drawn out painful life or a short, good life 🤔
Even after the medical community found out about cancer and ways to treat it, in most places and for most people treatment was still unaccessible. My grandma used to tell me that when she was little people would just die seemingly out of nowhere, and when someonen asked what was the reason, the answer was simply "d'e mancau su entu", which means "the wind (i.e. the soul) has left them"
My launguage writes almost the exact same as the Egyptian roll you showed I thought it was my launguage for a minute-…..
Meanwhile my great grandfather lived for 100 years in a village
Meanwhile mine started a business to buy a mountain 12 years later only to have it revoked a month in by the government itself w/ no refunds
Your enthusiasm is what makes this much more interesting.
And the other thing
@@brentkaufman1723 lol, it’s what made me click on the video. But not what made me watch it to the end.
Your great at teaching. Love your enthusiasm 👍
My best UA-camr right now
Until recently, we knew so little about the human body that it probably just went undiagnosed.
Absolutely. So many people in the past would have died from cancer without knowing what it was.
This makes me so happy, someday we will cure cancer completely
I have been to a cancer hospital a couple of times and I have seen the patients closely and the loved ones crying after death, it is so painful to watch, some day we will cure it
Having done some genealogy, I can tell you that diseases also went by different names in the past, or symptoms would be attributed to other diseases. For example, anything from depression to autoimmune diseases and CFS would be referred to on records as 'tired blood'. Thus something like cancer could be hidden in old records.
I'd assume if you're starting to develop pain thousands of years ago, you just may not have thought of cancer, may not have had access to a doctor, may not have developed visible lumps, and may have just died.
cancer is as old as cells
This gives me a chilling thought: once we can consistently treat cancer, heart disease, and other major causes of death… what new or rare illnesses will we uncover or make prevalent?
Not only that, but if they saw cancer, there’s no easy way for them to have determined what it is and subsequently label it as distinct from other illnesses.
Cancer is also just getting more common due to environmental pollutants.
It may be getting more common because of pollution and dumb life decisions (smoking for example) but it is definitely nothing new.
It's interesting to think of cancer as almost a modern privilege.
Worst take
Cells being rebellious always
As soon as she said, “how old is cancer” I said to myself: as old as life itself
There will be a day soon when we will be able to cure cancer completely
people have actually or got close to and they get killed
Yep....good content and yes you're amazing!
You are brilliant! Love your videos!
Why is she so wonderful though
😂if only you kw
"A bulging mass in the breast”-cool, hard, dense as a hemat fruit, and spreading insidiously under the skin-could hardly be a more vivid description of breast cancer. Every case in the papyrus was followed by a concise discussion of treatments, even if only palliative: milk poured through the ears of neurosurgical patients, poultices for wounds, balms for burns. But with case forty-five, Imhotep fell atypically silent. Under the section titled “Therapy,” he offered only a single sentence: “There is none. "
Emperor of all maladies .
There are several factors that could contribute to younger people getting cancer in the past. These factors include limited medical knowledge, inadequate diagnostic tools, different environmental exposures (such as higher rates of smoking or different pollutants), and potentially genetic predispositions that weren't well understood or identified earlier. Moreover, increased awareness, improved healthcare, better screening methods, and lifestyle changes have also influenced the detection and incidence of cancer in younger individuals today.
If you're wondering... we know dinosaurs suffered from various cancers, which is pretty fascinating.
Well yeah cancer is as ancient as complex life itself
I just subscribed. Her voice is so soothing, she's easy to listen to and smart
Average intelligence
True, she used to narrate Vox videos.
A lot of people don’t even understand how cancer comes around, so for anyone who doesn’t allow me to explain.
Some Cancer comes from an overgrowth of cells in one area known as a tumor and the problem is mostly that these cells continue to multiply, (because of a mutation in the cell division or replication process) so there is no end to this. That is why people get surgeries to have these tumors removed. But sometimes in more dangerous cases the cancer can be harder to get rid of. This depends on exactly what kind of cancer it is. Sometimes in these dangerous cases, the surgery could leave one cell behind with this mutation and another tumor could sprout. Which is why some with breast cancer for example just get their breasts cut off. My cheer coach had this done and she got implants after, she is very happy with them. (Close family friend)
But yeah hopefully that helps anyone who needed that!
Why are your videos so good? I just found your channel like a month ago and now my shorts feed is filled with your videos. I'm not mad! I love'em!
The fact that I am already older then how long people used to live is scary.
Swedish study found that other than lung and skin cancer, cancer rates for other types increased dramatically post 1945 onwards. Open air nuclear testing has been the main contributor in my view.
In your opinion. Your view would be through evidence, also remember correlation is not causation. Also post nuclear war the world's life expectancy in particularly the first world has exploded, not to mention great advances in paediatric medicine and also the irradiation of communicable diseases through world vaccine programs. As these have allowed people to live longer and not die from these diseases they are likely to die of cancer or we can just simply blame nuclear bombs, which is ironic because we collectively get more radiation in our lifetime from the sun, but let's blame the nuclear bomb.