Doubtdispelled wrote: igorfrankensteen wrote:
It is the CAUSES or TRIGGERS of cancer which have changed, and been added to, over time.
This is another example of poor science reporting. A prejudiced journalist discovers that an assumption they made is false, and assumes their false assumption was universal, and not just peculiar to them.
Not quite. People get the idea that cancer is a 'modern' disease because so many people die from it now, but their impression is wrong, and that's because so many of the older causes of death have been eliminated, that it just seems cancer is 'new'. The reality is that those who may have eventually succumbed to cancer died from some other cause before they could develop a terminal case.
You've partially misunderstood me.
I am specifically NOT siding with those who think cancer is an entirely new thing, caused entirely by modern human inventions.
What I am saying, is that declaring EITHER extreme, based on the fact that cancer has always been possible, is erroneous reasoning.
The fact that cancer happened long before chemical additives became a part of our lives, IS proof that cancer isn't entirely
caused by humans.
However the fact that cancer in general is not new, does NOT mean that all chemical additives and so on, are entirely safe, and do NOT cause cancer.
Nor is the fact that people living longer and not dying of other causes, and therefore suffering from cancer in old age, prove that all other cancer triggers are not triggers after all.
I'm trying to figure out a way to hit the exact correct logical target, and not fall into the idiocy of aiming wildly to the left, simply because I used to aim wildly to the right.
Getting things wrong now, in the opposite way one got them wrong in the past, does not mean that one got them right.