Cancer as a modern invention

A study of hundreds of Egyptian mummies and other ancient evidence has found virtually no cases of cancer, which first seems to turn up at the advent of the modern world.   Here are some of the conclusions from researchers:

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.

Scientists found no signs of cancer in their extensive study of mummies apart from one isolated case

Despite slivers of tissue from hundreds of Egyptian mummies being rehydrated, just one case of cancer has been confirmed. This is even though tumours should be better preserved by mummification than healthy tissues.

Fossil evidence is also sparse, with just a few dozen – mostly disputed – examples, Nature Reviews Cancer journal reports.

Even the study of thousands of Neanderthal bones has provided only one example of a possible cancer.

And references to cancer-like problems in ancient Egyptian texts are more likely to have been caused by leprosy or varicose veins.

Researcher Michael Zimmerman, a visiting professor at Manchester University, said: ‘The virtual absence of malignancies in mummies must be interpreted as indicating their rarity in antiquity. This indicates that cancer-causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialisation.’

The ancient Greeks were probably the first to define cancer as a specific disease and to distinguish between benign and malignant tumours.

But researchers said it was unclear if this signalled a real rise in the disease, or just a greater medical knowledge.

The 17th century provides the first descriptions of surgery for breast and other cancers, while the first reports of distinctive tumours occurred in the past 200 years or so.

They include scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps in 1775 and nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761.

Co-researcher Professor Rosalie David said: ‘There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer.

‘So it has to be down to pollution and changes to diet and lifestyle.

‘The important thing about our study is that it gives a historical perspective to this disease.

via Cancer ‘is purely man-made’ say scientists after finding almost no trace of disease in Egyptian mummies | Mail Online.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Guy

    “There’s nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer.”

    SO the ultraviolet rays of the sun DON’T cause skin cancer?

  • Guy

    “There’s nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer.”

    SO the ultraviolet rays of the sun DON’T cause skin cancer?

  • Tom Hering

    “Cancer ‘is purely man-made’ say scientists …”

    “Worldwide, the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer estimated that in 2002 17.8% of human cancers were caused by infection, with 11.9% being caused by one of seven different viruses.” – Oncovirus (Wikipedia)

  • Tom Hering

    “Cancer ‘is purely man-made’ say scientists …”

    “Worldwide, the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer estimated that in 2002 17.8% of human cancers were caused by infection, with 11.9% being caused by one of seven different viruses.” – Oncovirus (Wikipedia)

  • Dave Sarafolean

    Talk to any toxicologist and you will get a different story, particularly those who research natural products for carcinogens. For instance, one toxicologist I know told me that there are several known carcinogens that naturally occur in coffee.

    The conclusion of this story is overly-simplistic.

  • Dave Sarafolean

    Talk to any toxicologist and you will get a different story, particularly those who research natural products for carcinogens. For instance, one toxicologist I know told me that there are several known carcinogens that naturally occur in coffee.

    The conclusion of this story is overly-simplistic.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Yeah, but back in the old days cancer had lots of competition: viruses, bacteria, injuries. It was harder to live long enough to get cancer!
    :-)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Yeah, but back in the old days cancer had lots of competition: viruses, bacteria, injuries. It was harder to live long enough to get cancer!
    :-)

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Now Dave S., lay off on the coffee! :^)

    I am torn on this one. As Dave, Guy and Tom note, there are plenty of naturally known carcinogens. That said, it’s also true that the ancient Egyptians didn’t smoke or grow their crops with pesticides–tobacco being of course the biggest known cause of cancers. HPV was also unknown at the time, I believe.

    Plus, hey, you’re not as likely to find breast cancer (which typically develops after age 40 or 50) when people only live to age 35, have children and nurse them, and eat a predominantly plant based diet. A valuable addition to this study would be some statistics to describe what we should (extrapolated from what we know today and today’s rates) vs. what we do, and whether the difference is statistically significant.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    Now Dave S., lay off on the coffee! :^)

    I am torn on this one. As Dave, Guy and Tom note, there are plenty of naturally known carcinogens. That said, it’s also true that the ancient Egyptians didn’t smoke or grow their crops with pesticides–tobacco being of course the biggest known cause of cancers. HPV was also unknown at the time, I believe.

    Plus, hey, you’re not as likely to find breast cancer (which typically develops after age 40 or 50) when people only live to age 35, have children and nurse them, and eat a predominantly plant based diet. A valuable addition to this study would be some statistics to describe what we should (extrapolated from what we know today and today’s rates) vs. what we do, and whether the difference is statistically significant.

  • http://www.brandywinebooks.net Lars Walker

    I agree with the two previous. I suspect the chief operative factor is length of life.

  • http://www.brandywinebooks.net Lars Walker

    I agree with the two previous. I suspect the chief operative factor is length of life.

  • Carl Vehse

    Cooking meat over a fire produces benzo[a]pyrene and other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heterocyclic amines carcinogens.

    And there has been some evidence suggesting another carcinogen that is risky to inhale. In fact, people who avoid inhaling this carcinogen entirely have never be known to subsequently develop cancer.

  • Carl Vehse

    Cooking meat over a fire produces benzo[a]pyrene and other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heterocyclic amines carcinogens.

    And there has been some evidence suggesting another carcinogen that is risky to inhale. In fact, people who avoid inhaling this carcinogen entirely have never be known to subsequently develop cancer.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Plus, hey, you’re not as likely to find breast cancer (which typically develops after age 40 or 50) when people only live to age 35, have children and nurse them, and eat a predominantly plant based diet.”

    The big risk for breast cancer is delaying the first full term pregnancy.

    http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/

    http://www.halls.md/breast/risk.htm

    Of course it isn’t politically correct to say that it is healthier for women to have their first baby before they are 20, so you won’t see much discussion of this topic.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Plus, hey, you’re not as likely to find breast cancer (which typically develops after age 40 or 50) when people only live to age 35, have children and nurse them, and eat a predominantly plant based diet.”

    The big risk for breast cancer is delaying the first full term pregnancy.

    http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/

    http://www.halls.md/breast/risk.htm

    Of course it isn’t politically correct to say that it is healthier for women to have their first baby before they are 20, so you won’t see much discussion of this topic.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “when people only live to age 35″

    One more nit to pick.

    35 may have been the arithmetic mean, however it was not common to die anywhere near that age. Either folks died before age 5 or they had a pretty good shot at making it to 70 or 80. Mortality was higher at all ages, but there were plenty of old people. Excavations at Pompeii revealed many old women’s skeletons with characteristic signs of osteoporosis etc. By counting all the skeletons and assigning rough age estimates, they were able to figure out that a significant fraction of regular folks lived pretty long.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “when people only live to age 35″

    One more nit to pick.

    35 may have been the arithmetic mean, however it was not common to die anywhere near that age. Either folks died before age 5 or they had a pretty good shot at making it to 70 or 80. Mortality was higher at all ages, but there were plenty of old people. Excavations at Pompeii revealed many old women’s skeletons with characteristic signs of osteoporosis etc. By counting all the skeletons and assigning rough age estimates, they were able to figure out that a significant fraction of regular folks lived pretty long.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    sg, if you’re looking for breast cancer, you’ve got to deal with the reality of maternal mortality. Put gently, I would bet a LOT of women would die between ages 18-40 simply because those were the childbearing years.

    Now granted, once a woman got past that, she had an excellent chance of getting to 60 or so, as she’d conquered disease and childbirth. But keep in mind here that deaths in one’s prime years were not uncommon among women in that day, sad to say.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    sg, if you’re looking for breast cancer, you’ve got to deal with the reality of maternal mortality. Put gently, I would bet a LOT of women would die between ages 18-40 simply because those were the childbearing years.

    Now granted, once a woman got past that, she had an excellent chance of getting to 60 or so, as she’d conquered disease and childbirth. But keep in mind here that deaths in one’s prime years were not uncommon among women in that day, sad to say.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Yeah, Bike, I agree. Death from childbirth was higher partly because each woman had more children, and partly because of the just the general state of medicine, but still, it would not be anywhere near half of all women. Maybe 10% at the most. I made the point that mortality was higher at all ages. So maybe 0nly 30% as many people made it to 70 from 30 as today would. However, that is still a lot.

    My main point was that even an honest guy like you omitted the biggest breast cancer risk. I figure that is because it is outside the common discourse on the subject. Eating a plant based diet and breastfeeding could reduce risk by 5%-10% maybe more, but certainly bottle feeding and eating meat won’t raise risk 200%-300% like waiting till age 30 to have the first baby.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Yeah, Bike, I agree. Death from childbirth was higher partly because each woman had more children, and partly because of the just the general state of medicine, but still, it would not be anywhere near half of all women. Maybe 10% at the most. I made the point that mortality was higher at all ages. So maybe 0nly 30% as many people made it to 70 from 30 as today would. However, that is still a lot.

    My main point was that even an honest guy like you omitted the biggest breast cancer risk. I figure that is because it is outside the common discourse on the subject. Eating a plant based diet and breastfeeding could reduce risk by 5%-10% maybe more, but certainly bottle feeding and eating meat won’t raise risk 200%-300% like waiting till age 30 to have the first baby.

  • Booklover

    The last sentence of the article reads:

    “Scientists now say a healthy diet, regular physical activity and maintaining a healthy weight can prevent about a third of the most common cancers so perhaps our ancestors’ lifestyle reduced their risk from cancer.”

    Dang! We have to focus on fruits, vegetables, and grains rather than animal fat, salt, and processing?? We have to get up and move around?? Walk instead of drive?? Grind out the cigarettes? Toss the bottles??

    It’s easier just to don a pink ribbon.

  • Booklover

    The last sentence of the article reads:

    “Scientists now say a healthy diet, regular physical activity and maintaining a healthy weight can prevent about a third of the most common cancers so perhaps our ancestors’ lifestyle reduced their risk from cancer.”

    Dang! We have to focus on fruits, vegetables, and grains rather than animal fat, salt, and processing?? We have to get up and move around?? Walk instead of drive?? Grind out the cigarettes? Toss the bottles??

    It’s easier just to don a pink ribbon.

  • Booklover

    sg, I agree with you that the medical field often seems to ignore politically incorrect findings. It is sad how, in our society, the birthing of children, especially in early 20′s, is often frowned upon.

    However, although having a first birth late in age is a risk factor for breast cancer, it is not the biggest risk. The second site you cite lists “age” as the biggest risk.

  • Booklover

    sg, I agree with you that the medical field often seems to ignore politically incorrect findings. It is sad how, in our society, the birthing of children, especially in early 20′s, is often frowned upon.

    However, although having a first birth late in age is a risk factor for breast cancer, it is not the biggest risk. The second site you cite lists “age” as the biggest risk.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    This just seems like a supreme example of terrible science journalism (even if there also appears to be some terrible science behind it all).

    Let’s see, if we look at a particular subset of people (what, you think the people who got mummified represent a statistically valid sample?) from a particular country and culture at a particular time, keeping in mind how relatively small and narrow that sample is … we can draw conclusions about cancer for all people at all time?

    As SG has noted (@4), people who are dying from starvation, dysentery, or a host of other problems that do not characterize modern life, don’t have much to worry about from cancer. I’m not even sure how people would have diagnosed all or most forms of cancer back in the day. Sure, if you’re lucky, you can detect a tumor with your bare hands, but plenty of tumors occur in hard to find places, and some forms of cancer (like leukemia) don’t even generate tumors!

    Which isn’t to say that modern life isn’t more full of carcinogens than ancient life was. I’d believe that, sure.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    This just seems like a supreme example of terrible science journalism (even if there also appears to be some terrible science behind it all).

    Let’s see, if we look at a particular subset of people (what, you think the people who got mummified represent a statistically valid sample?) from a particular country and culture at a particular time, keeping in mind how relatively small and narrow that sample is … we can draw conclusions about cancer for all people at all time?

    As SG has noted (@4), people who are dying from starvation, dysentery, or a host of other problems that do not characterize modern life, don’t have much to worry about from cancer. I’m not even sure how people would have diagnosed all or most forms of cancer back in the day. Sure, if you’re lucky, you can detect a tumor with your bare hands, but plenty of tumors occur in hard to find places, and some forms of cancer (like leukemia) don’t even generate tumors!

    Which isn’t to say that modern life isn’t more full of carcinogens than ancient life was. I’d believe that, sure.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    lifetime risk
    =30 = 13.9%

    “It isn’t politically correct to say that it is healthier for women to have their first baby before they are 20, so you won’t see much discussion of this topic” (@8). I believe you’ve misdiagnosed the problem, SG. I see plenty of medical sites discussing this topic. Just peruse these search results for [pregnancy breast cancer risk younger].

    The thing is, though, that no one thinks it’s a good idea to recommend having babies earlier for the purpose of reducing the risk of breast cancer. That’s because having a baby is an intensely personal decision that has a huge impact on one’s life. Giving up smoking or alcohol pales in comparison! Yes, there is a benefit to having (and breastfeeding) babies earlier in life. That’s something for potential moms to consider. But it’s pretty dang far down the list of things to consider.

    I think what SG meant to say, also, was that age at first pregnancy is the largest controllable risk factor for breast cancer. I haven’t seen any experts spell that out, but it’s certainly believable.

    “Bottle feeding and eating meat won’t raise risk 200%-300% like waiting till age 30 to have the first baby.” For someone who likes statistics as much as you do, that’s some fairly sloppy work. :) All other factors being equal, the calculator you pointed to said that the lifetime risk for breast cancer with those having a first child before 20 was 7.5%. For those waiting until 30, however, it rose to 13.9%. Which means — again, according to your calendar — that the maximum amount one could increase one’s own risk due to waiting to have children is by a factor of 1.85. Not by 2, and definitely not by 3.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    lifetime risk
    =30 = 13.9%

    “It isn’t politically correct to say that it is healthier for women to have their first baby before they are 20, so you won’t see much discussion of this topic” (@8). I believe you’ve misdiagnosed the problem, SG. I see plenty of medical sites discussing this topic. Just peruse these search results for [pregnancy breast cancer risk younger].

    The thing is, though, that no one thinks it’s a good idea to recommend having babies earlier for the purpose of reducing the risk of breast cancer. That’s because having a baby is an intensely personal decision that has a huge impact on one’s life. Giving up smoking or alcohol pales in comparison! Yes, there is a benefit to having (and breastfeeding) babies earlier in life. That’s something for potential moms to consider. But it’s pretty dang far down the list of things to consider.

    I think what SG meant to say, also, was that age at first pregnancy is the largest controllable risk factor for breast cancer. I haven’t seen any experts spell that out, but it’s certainly believable.

    “Bottle feeding and eating meat won’t raise risk 200%-300% like waiting till age 30 to have the first baby.” For someone who likes statistics as much as you do, that’s some fairly sloppy work. :) All other factors being equal, the calculator you pointed to said that the lifetime risk for breast cancer with those having a first child before 20 was 7.5%. For those waiting until 30, however, it rose to 13.9%. Which means — again, according to your calendar — that the maximum amount one could increase one’s own risk due to waiting to have children is by a factor of 1.85. Not by 2, and definitely not by 3.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Apologies for leaving some of my notes at the top of my last post (@15).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Apologies for leaving some of my notes at the top of my last post (@15).

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Yeah, tODD those calculators don’t address all factors and I am not sure what factors you put in, so I admit to being sloppy on citations. Other studies do show potentially higher risks for some individuals. I would have to go look them up. Still, the increased risk by waiting is so stunning compared to all the other risks, that the discussion of it should drown out all other discussion. Instead, it is virtually ignored by folks who claim to care.

    My complaint is that no one tells teens that they increase their risks enormously by waiting. That isn’t advising them to have kids sooner. It is just telling them the truth and letting them consider it. Why not just tell the truth? Also young women are constantly pressured to go to college and have careers they don’t even know they want. The hem and haw with this major or that. Then after they graduate and get married, they quit and stay home, even liberal women do. No one feels sorry for them that they missed the opportunity of having kids sooner. Rather most take the callous attitude that they can still have kids, maybe IVF or some such. I admit it is personal because of my friends who waited and then got cancer and died before their kids graduated. Based on the far greater chance of getting cancer by waiting, I can figure probably a couple of them died because they waited. Would they have waited if they had known? I don’t know. What about their daughters? Shouldn’t they at least have the opportunity to know. I mean the danger is profound. It is not like the difference between 1 in 10,000 and 2 in 10,000, it is the difference between the very high 8% and the insanely high 13%.

    To me this discussion is like the Juan Williams thread. Why is it that folks can’t just say stuff? What he said was goofy. What, at most 1 in a million muslims is a crazy terrorist. Big deal. Whereas you have real imminent danger that can’t even be discussed. It is too personal? So is HPV. So what. People need to hear the truth.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Yeah, tODD those calculators don’t address all factors and I am not sure what factors you put in, so I admit to being sloppy on citations. Other studies do show potentially higher risks for some individuals. I would have to go look them up. Still, the increased risk by waiting is so stunning compared to all the other risks, that the discussion of it should drown out all other discussion. Instead, it is virtually ignored by folks who claim to care.

    My complaint is that no one tells teens that they increase their risks enormously by waiting. That isn’t advising them to have kids sooner. It is just telling them the truth and letting them consider it. Why not just tell the truth? Also young women are constantly pressured to go to college and have careers they don’t even know they want. The hem and haw with this major or that. Then after they graduate and get married, they quit and stay home, even liberal women do. No one feels sorry for them that they missed the opportunity of having kids sooner. Rather most take the callous attitude that they can still have kids, maybe IVF or some such. I admit it is personal because of my friends who waited and then got cancer and died before their kids graduated. Based on the far greater chance of getting cancer by waiting, I can figure probably a couple of them died because they waited. Would they have waited if they had known? I don’t know. What about their daughters? Shouldn’t they at least have the opportunity to know. I mean the danger is profound. It is not like the difference between 1 in 10,000 and 2 in 10,000, it is the difference between the very high 8% and the insanely high 13%.

    To me this discussion is like the Juan Williams thread. Why is it that folks can’t just say stuff? What he said was goofy. What, at most 1 in a million muslims is a crazy terrorist. Big deal. Whereas you have real imminent danger that can’t even be discussed. It is too personal? So is HPV. So what. People need to hear the truth.

  • Grace

    I asked my Internist what his thoughts were, as to why people got cancer (this was about 15 years ago) his answer was; three things, water, food and the air we breath – I agreed with him. I would add too much sun, without protection to be another.

    1. Polluted water, additives and other substances from landfills, etc.
    2. Food that has been processed, additives for freshness/shelf life, insecticides, excess fat, salt and sugar.
    3. Air – pollution from hundreds of sources. This would include smoking, either doing it yourself, or living in an environment, where others smoke.

  • Grace

    I asked my Internist what his thoughts were, as to why people got cancer (this was about 15 years ago) his answer was; three things, water, food and the air we breath – I agreed with him. I would add too much sun, without protection to be another.

    1. Polluted water, additives and other substances from landfills, etc.
    2. Food that has been processed, additives for freshness/shelf life, insecticides, excess fat, salt and sugar.
    3. Air – pollution from hundreds of sources. This would include smoking, either doing it yourself, or living in an environment, where others smoke.

  • erik

    Why do we get cancer? Why does anyone get cancer? and do notice that, however rare, there were cases of cancer back then, and why does anybody get anything, and die? Three letters–s, i, n

    The more pressing question should be this–Why has “wise” man, with all his scientific and technological skill, not been able to solve the problem of death?

    Even if they come up with a 100 percent cure for all cancer, the mortality rate will remain also at 100 percent.

    Jesus is the Antidote to death. Science will never see this.

  • erik

    Why do we get cancer? Why does anyone get cancer? and do notice that, however rare, there were cases of cancer back then, and why does anybody get anything, and die? Three letters–s, i, n

    The more pressing question should be this–Why has “wise” man, with all his scientific and technological skill, not been able to solve the problem of death?

    Even if they come up with a 100 percent cure for all cancer, the mortality rate will remain also at 100 percent.

    Jesus is the Antidote to death. Science will never see this.

  • Grace

    erik

    Science does have a place, certainly you know this. Medicine is valuable in alleviating pain and suffering – add to that, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, performed by radiology, antibiotics and a host of other wonderful things we have been granted by God. Pain suffered by those who are ill is greatly, if not completely reduced by modern medicine.

    Think of asmatics, who in times passed, gasped for air, day after day.. but now there are treatments for these people, who would otherwise suffer until they drew their final breath.

    YES, we will all die, but God has given us medications that will help in time of need. He is so faithful to give us these things in time of illness.

  • Grace

    erik

    Science does have a place, certainly you know this. Medicine is valuable in alleviating pain and suffering – add to that, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, performed by radiology, antibiotics and a host of other wonderful things we have been granted by God. Pain suffered by those who are ill is greatly, if not completely reduced by modern medicine.

    Think of asmatics, who in times passed, gasped for air, day after day.. but now there are treatments for these people, who would otherwise suffer until they drew their final breath.

    YES, we will all die, but God has given us medications that will help in time of need. He is so faithful to give us these things in time of illness.

  • Pingback: Cancer: Man’s Own Doing? « P21chong's Blog

  • Pingback: Cancer: Man’s Own Doing? « P21chong's Blog

  • erik

    Grace

    Yes, I certainly do know this. The medical field with all its related occupations is a wonderful field of vocation. My wife is studying to be a nurse.

    The reason for my comment is that we so easily can be enticed into a mentality that assumes that diseases can be avoided if we just avoid this or that, or if society returned to this or that state. Maybe diseases can be avoided, I don’t know, and that’s fine if people like to pursue that kind of study. But I am trying to sound the warning against letting such pursuits become a thing unto themselves, which usually entails some sort of legalism (smoking=sin; drinking=evil) when they should just remain means to serve the neighbor. I think that is where you are at with your concerns over cancer, which is great, and more power to ya. I just think it’s–pardon the pun– healthy to be reminded in the middle of such interesting discussions and pursuits that a person can “do all the right things” and still end up with cancer, or something else. Sometimes it’s not a matter of lifestyle or diet or whatever. Sometimes the devil just likes to cause us grief. Look at the story of Job.

    Which is why, in the midst of weakness and suffering, we need the grace of God in Christ all the more.

  • erik

    Grace

    Yes, I certainly do know this. The medical field with all its related occupations is a wonderful field of vocation. My wife is studying to be a nurse.

    The reason for my comment is that we so easily can be enticed into a mentality that assumes that diseases can be avoided if we just avoid this or that, or if society returned to this or that state. Maybe diseases can be avoided, I don’t know, and that’s fine if people like to pursue that kind of study. But I am trying to sound the warning against letting such pursuits become a thing unto themselves, which usually entails some sort of legalism (smoking=sin; drinking=evil) when they should just remain means to serve the neighbor. I think that is where you are at with your concerns over cancer, which is great, and more power to ya. I just think it’s–pardon the pun– healthy to be reminded in the middle of such interesting discussions and pursuits that a person can “do all the right things” and still end up with cancer, or something else. Sometimes it’s not a matter of lifestyle or diet or whatever. Sometimes the devil just likes to cause us grief. Look at the story of Job.

    Which is why, in the midst of weakness and suffering, we need the grace of God in Christ all the more.

  • Grace

    erik – 21

    Cancer may or may not be avoidable. There are many things we can avoid to lessen our chances of getting this disease. Did you know that those who smoke have a much greater risk of getting bladder cancer? Many people have no clue, that it doesn’t just affect the lungs or throat and mouth.

    I am happy that your wife is going to be a nurse, they are in demand – Hospitals can certainly use more gifted and caring nurses.

  • Grace

    erik – 21

    Cancer may or may not be avoidable. There are many things we can avoid to lessen our chances of getting this disease. Did you know that those who smoke have a much greater risk of getting bladder cancer? Many people have no clue, that it doesn’t just affect the lungs or throat and mouth.

    I am happy that your wife is going to be a nurse, they are in demand – Hospitals can certainly use more gifted and caring nurses.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X