3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

What makes you think that the many regional cuisines of India are unhealthy?

I ask, since my own diet is heavily weighted towards a mish-mash of Eastern Mediterranean and Indian recipes. Do you recommend I switch to Big Macs and Pizza Express?

When I was in Dubai in the 1980s, there seemed to be a lot of heart attacks among the S Asians. But that could have been the lifestyle they tended to adopt with new found relative wealth: less walking, more smoking etc. I did wonder, though, about the prevalence of ghee in Indian cooking.

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

When I was in Dubai in the 1980s, there seemed to be a lot of heart attacks among the S Asians. But that could have been the lifestyle they tended to adopt with new found relative wealth: less walking, more smoking etc.

Predominantly expatriate male workers - a demographic (and I speak from personal experience) that often struggles to find a healthy lifestyle.

When we were in UAE in the early noughties, I picked up a copy of The Great Curries of India by Camellia Panjabi. It opened my eyes to the huge range of regional variation in Indian cuisine and can heartily recommend it. It goes into some detail of the Ayurvedic philosophical basis, and above all emphasises BALANCE.

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

I did wonder, though, about the prevalence of ghee in Indian cooking.

I wouldn't touch chicken makhani with a barge pole. But a couple of days a week I'll get by on tarka dal, a couple of freshly made roti and a dish of mixed pickles. There's a smidgeon of ghee in it, but a 500 ml jar will last me about six months. Probably get more saturated fat from my occasional treat of canned spam.

For heart health, my understanding is that liberal use of garlic and ginger with ghee/jaggery not so much is a reasonable approach..

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

As mentioned before, one big issue is detection rates- I am not familiar with the Indian health system, but I wouldn't be surprised if screening is less prevalent especially in underresourced areas. A recent study also mentioned that rates are increasing, in part due to demographic changes, but they also mentioned improvement in screening programs.

Yeah, a lot of other factors, too, e g. there have been studies connecting sunlight levels with lowered rates of colorectal cancer. Vitamin D production seems to have a protective effect. This complicates the causation picture in places like Uganda, where you have copious sunlight, a very unprocessed high fiber diet, everyone walks a lot, and shorter average lifespan than developed countries. All those can cause lower cancer rates, but to what degree? With colorectal cancers one might be tempted to point to the diet as primary, but you'd need to look at a range of countries where those other factors are different.

51 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Predominantly expatriate male workers - a demographic (and I speak from personal experience) that often struggles to find a healthy lifestyle.

When we were in UAE in the early noughties, I picked up a copy of The Great Curries of India by Camellia Panjabi. It opened my eyes to the huge range of regional variation in Indian cuisine and can heartily recommend it. It goes into some detail of the Ayurvedic philosophical basis, and above all emphasises BALANCE.

I wouldn't touch chicken makhani with a barge pole. But a couple of days a week I'll get by on tarka dal, a couple of freshly made roti and a dish of mixed pickles. There's a smidgeon of ghee in it, but a 500 ml jar will last me about six months. Probably get more saturated fat from my occasional treat of canned spam.

For heart health, my understanding is that liberal use of garlic and ginger with ghee/jaggery not so much is a reasonable approach..

Yes I make dhal with vegetable oil - seems fine, but then I’m not a connoisseur of Indian cooking.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Yeah, a lot of other factors, too, e g. there have been studies connecting sunlight levels with lowered rates of colorectal cancer. Vitamin D production seems to have a protective effect. This complicates the causation picture in places like Uganda, where you have copious sunlight, a very unprocessed high fiber diet, everyone walks a lot, and shorter average lifespan than developed countries. All those can cause lower cancer rates, but to what degree? With colorectal cancers one might be tempted to point to the diet as primary, but you'd need to look at a range of countries where those other factors are different.

Generally speaking, limitations in data, i.e., related to screening, healthcare access etc. make it very difficult to compare cancer rates if the health system has very different standards. There is a reason why some of the lowest cancer rates are found in some of the poorest (and/or war-torn) countries.

Cancer is sufficiently complex that one can project a lot of assumptions and beliefs on it, often with weak data (which to some degree is also true to the related issue of nutrition).

Why is Australia the highest 462.5 and New Zealand 427.3 than the US at 367.0

Why is Australia and New Zealand so high compared to the US?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cancer_rate

Sort that table by "Excluding NMSC" and you get the answer.

21 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

Sort that table by "Excluding NMSC" and you get the answer.

Could it be those countries have more older people than the US and that is why the cancer rate is higher in those two countries?

List of countries by age structure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_age_structure

Well first of all it is an error to think of "cancer" as a single entity, just as it would be to lump the common cold and ebola into a category called "infections".

On 5/31/2025 at 3:29 PM, Moon99 said:

What is wrong with people immune system? They say 1 in 4 will get cancer in their life?

And the latest data say 1 in 4 will get cancer in their life And that number is to change to 1 in 3 will get cancer in their life.

What is wrong with people immune system? What is causing cancer?

How long before there is cancer cure and how long will it take for cancer cure? Do you think 50 years from now there will be cancer cure? How long before cancer is cure 50 years from now or like 100 years from now?

This is a very good question.

More than 900 man-made chemicals found in everyday consumer products, food, drinking water, pesticides, and workplace environments have been identified as displaying traits linked to an increased risk of breast cancer.

That's just breast cancer alone, but if we check other cancers, and their causes, the answer is the same.

The study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, identified 921 chemicals that either cause mammary tumors in animals or trigger biological changes - such as activating estrogen receptors or increasing estrogen and progesterone production - that promote breast cancer development. Notably, 92% of these chemicals are known to harm or alter DNA, and over half are associated with increased hormone production, a known risk factor for breast cancer.

More than 900 chemicals, many found in consumer products and the environment, display breast cancer-causing traits

While the list of chemicals with proven carcinogenic effects is extensive, only a small fraction of the more than 40,000 chemicals in commercial use have been tested for safety, with estimates suggesting that only about 5% have undergone testing relevant to cancer risk. This regulatory gap means that many chemicals in common products - such as those labeled as “fragrance” in personal care items, or those found in kitchenware labeled “for decorative purposes only” - may contain hidden carcinogens or endocrine-disrupting compounds.

Is there anyone whom hasn't been exposed to cigarettes smoke?

Exposure to secondhand smoke is a known cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers, with scientific evidence confirming its carcinogenic effects.

New Study Finds 17.4 Million U.S. Adults Smoke Cigars, Showing Need For FDA to Regulate All Cigars to Protect Public Health

Tobacco smoke, a well-established human carcinogen, contains at least 40 known carcinogens and is responsible for numerous cancer types, including lung, bladder, and breast cancer.[1]

Environmental pollution from industrial emissions, vehicle exhaust, and household combustion devices also contributes to cancer risk, with environmental, occupational, and behavioral factors accounting for a significant proportion of cancer deaths globally.

Note

DNA mutation is a natural part of cell replication. Many mutations are harmless. Some mutations are even beneficial and help drive evolution. However, mutations sometimes lead to cancer. Because of the presence of natural carcinogens in the environment, and because mutation is a natural part of cell replication, cancer happens even in the absence of man-made chemicals. Despite the fact that cancer is natural, we can certainly reduce our risk of cancer by avoiding tobacco, alcohol, arsenic, radon, ionizing radiation and other carcinogens; by eating more fruits and vegetables; by exercising regularly; by getting vaccinated; and by using sunscreen.

Although many carcinogens are naturally occurring, human-made chemicals - especially those used in consumer products and agriculture - represent a major and growing concern due to widespread, long-term exposure.

Can one's immune system be boosted against cancer?

Fruits and vegetables are an essential part of a healthy diet and are associated with a reduced risk of several types of cancer. Evidence consistently supports a protective effect of greater consumption of vegetables and fruits against cancers of the stomach, esophagus, lung, oral cavity and pharynx, endometrium, pancreas, and colon.

Only in a very limited way, due to the fact that many farm grown fruit and vegetables are laced with chemicals.

A recent comprehensive nationwide study published in July 2024 found that agricultural pesticide use, including chemical sprays on vegetables, is associated with a cancer risk comparable to that of tobacco smoking for several types of cancer, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia, bladder, colon, lung, and pancreatic cancers.

So, it's a hard battle to win in a world where man is his own worst enemy.

57 minutes ago, KingKobra said:

This is a very good question.

More than 900 man-made chemicals found in everyday consumer products, food, drinking water, pesticides, and workplace environments have been identified as displaying traits linked to an increased risk of breast cancer.

That's just breast cancer alone, but if we check other cancers, and their causes, the answer is the same.

The study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, identified 921 chemicals that either cause mammary tumors in animals or trigger biological changes - such as activating estrogen receptors or increasing estrogen and progesterone production - that promote breast cancer development. Notably, 92% of these chemicals are known to harm or alter DNA, and over half are associated with increased hormone production, a known risk factor for breast cancer.

More than 900 chemicals, many found in consumer products and the environment, display breast cancer-causing traits

While the list of chemicals with proven carcinogenic effects is extensive, only a small fraction of the more than 40,000 chemicals in commercial use have been tested for safety, with estimates suggesting that only about 5% have undergone testing relevant to cancer risk. This regulatory gap means that many chemicals in common products - such as those labeled as “fragrance” in personal care items, or those found in kitchenware labeled “for decorative purposes only” - may contain hidden carcinogens or endocrine-disrupting compounds.

Is there anyone whom hasn't been exposed to cigarettes smoke?

Exposure to secondhand smoke is a known cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers, with scientific evidence confirming its carcinogenic effects.

New Study Finds 17.4 Million U.S. Adults Smoke Cigars, Showing Need For FDA to Regulate All Cigars to Protect Public Health

Tobacco smoke, a well-established human carcinogen, contains at least 40 known carcinogens and is responsible for numerous cancer types, including lung, bladder, and breast cancer.[1]

Environmental pollution from industrial emissions, vehicle exhaust, and household combustion devices also contributes to cancer risk, with environmental, occupational, and behavioral factors accounting for a significant proportion of cancer deaths globally.

Note

DNA mutation is a natural part of cell replication. Many mutations are harmless. Some mutations are even beneficial and help drive evolution. However, mutations sometimes lead to cancer. Because of the presence of natural carcinogens in the environment, and because mutation is a natural part of cell replication, cancer happens even in the absence of man-made chemicals. Despite the fact that cancer is natural, we can certainly reduce our risk of cancer by avoiding tobacco, alcohol, arsenic, radon, ionizing radiation and other carcinogens; by eating more fruits and vegetables; by exercising regularly; by getting vaccinated; and by using sunscreen.

Although many carcinogens are naturally occurring, human-made chemicals - especially those used in consumer products and agriculture - represent a major and growing concern due to widespread, long-term exposure.

Can one's immune system be boosted against cancer?

Fruits and vegetables are an essential part of a healthy diet and are associated with a reduced risk of several types of cancer. Evidence consistently supports a protective effect of greater consumption of vegetables and fruits against cancers of the stomach, esophagus, lung, oral cavity and pharynx, endometrium, pancreas, and colon.

Only in a very limited way, due to the fact that many farm grown fruit and vegetables are laced with chemicals.

A recent comprehensive nationwide study published in July 2024 found that agricultural pesticide use, including chemical sprays on vegetables, is associated with a cancer risk comparable to that of tobacco smoking for several types of cancer, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia, bladder, colon, lung, and pancreatic cancers.

So, it's a hard battle to win in a world where man is his own worst enemy.

That is a rather perverse conclusion to draw, seeing that incidence of cancer is associated with increased longevity, itself the product of human medicine.

6 hours ago, KingKobra said:

So, it's a hard battle to win in a world where man is his own worst enemy.

Man is also responsible for the improvement in diagnostics and treatment, and as was pointed out, when you mitigate mortality from infectious disease, you live long enough to die from something else, including cancer.

It’s not like people didn’t die of cancer >100 years ago, and many of the factors you list aren’t an issue of one’s immune system

DNA can't replicate perfectly for all time in an organism. Even without external agents, it will degrade eventually, to lethal effect.

Also the immune response goes down with age, without any external input. I think some posters should familiarize themselves with the concept of senescence. The only way to avoid it is to die young.

10 hours ago, exchemist said:

That is a rather perverse conclusion to draw, seeing that incidence of cancer is associated with increased longevity, itself the product of human medicine.

Do you mean the statement that man is his own worst enemy?

Why would you think scientific studies are perverse?

Humans are significantly damaging the Earth's ecosystems through a range of activities, with scientific assessments indicating that only about 3% of the planet's land remains ecologically intact, meaning it retains its original flora and fauna. This degradation is driven by land and sea use changes, pollution, climate change, overexploitation of resources, and the introduction of invasive species. The destruction of ecosystems has accelerated over time, with approximately one-third of the Earth's forests lost over the last 10,000 years, and around three-quarters of that deforestation occurring in the last 300 years alone. Currently, humanity is destroying an average of 10 million hectares of forest each year.

Scientists warn that the loss of biodiversity directly threatens human well-being

Human activities are causing unprecedented environmental degradation, with scientific studies indicating that the rate of destruction is unmatched in at least the past 11,700 years. The destruction spans multiple domains: carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at record highs, widespread species extinction is occurring, and ecosystems are being altered by pollution from fertilizers and deforestation.

According to a 2023 Stanford study, entire genuses are going extinct at a rate 35 times higher than the historical average, representing an "irreversible threat to the persistence of civilization". This rapid decline is driven by human overconsumption, population growth, and intensive agriculture, which have led to a 68% average drop in global vertebrate wildlife populations since 1970.

The scale of human impact is profound: 97% of Earth’s ecosystems are no longer ecologically intact, leaving only 3% as undisturbed habitats. This includes the loss of critical life-support systems such as forests, wetlands, and oceans, which are essential for clean air, water, and food security. The oceans, which absorb 30% of human-emitted carbon dioxide, are acidifying faster than at any time in the last 300 million years, threatening marine life and the services it provides.

Scientists warn that the loss of biodiversity directly threatens human well-being, as ecosystems provide services worth trillions of dollars annually, with half of global GDP dependent on their healthy functioning. The destruction of nature is now considered as significant a threat to humanity as climate change itself. Despite these warnings, the world has so far failed to meet any major international targets for halting biodiversity loss, although new goals are expected to be set at the upcoming Cop15 biodiversity summit.

Humans are causing life on Earth to vanish

If you are referring to the published scientific studies on man-made chemical and activities, contributing to cancers, these are not conclusions drawn by me. These are studies carried out by scientists that use evidence to gather scientific data.

I know scientists do attack other scientists about their studies, but please don't put me in the middle of that, what they call "hubris" fight.

I'm only quoting the research.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Man is also responsible for the improvement in diagnostics and treatment, and as was pointed out, when you mitigate mortality from infectious disease, you live long enough to die from something else, including cancer.

It’s not like people didn’t die of cancer >100 years ago, and many of the factors you list aren’t an issue of one’s immune system

Lot's of people live without cancer, and we know that people can live longer, if they don't get hit by a bus; fall off a cliff; get eaten by a shark, or crocodile; get murdered; smoke or drink themselves to death; etc.

We also know that diseases are hereditary, and the lifestyle of one's fore-parents can contribute to poor health.

We also know that people live longer, and healthier, when not exposed to harmful chemical, and live off healthier foods.

Since the OP is asking about cancer, I provided information on this alone.

If we want to talk about people living longer, and why, we can also do that.

Scientific research has identified five distinct geographic regions, known as Blue Zones, where people live significantly longer and healthier lives compared to the global average. These areas - Okinawa, Japan; Sardinia, Italy; Nicoya, Costa Rica; Ikaria, Greece; and Loma Linda, California - were pinpointed through epidemiological data and extensive studies by Dan Buettner and his team, who found that residents in these regions reach age 100 at rates 10 times higher than in the United States.

The longevity observed in these communities is attributed not to genetics alone, but to a combination of lifestyle and environmental factors, with only about 20% of lifespan influenced by genes and 80% by lifestyle choices.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Also the immune response goes down with age, without any external input. I think some posters should familiarize themselves with the concept of senescence. The only way to avoid it is to die young.

Cancer incidence rates among young people, particularly those under the age of 50, have been rising for several types of cancer, according to multiple scientific studies. From 2010 to 2019, the incidence of 14 cancer types increased in people under 50, including breast, colorectal, kidney, uterine, pancreatic, and several types of lymphoma. Notably, female breast cancer and colorectal cancer showed the largest absolute increases in early-onset cases, with approximately 4,800 and 2,100 additional diagnoses in 2019 compared to 2010, respectively.

A 2024 study in The Lancet Public Health found that 17 of 34 cancers examined showed increasing rates among younger adults, with particularly steep rises in intestinal and pancreatic cancers.

Another study analyzing data from 2003 to 2017 across 42 countries found that in over 75% of countries, diagnoses for six obesity-related cancers—thyroid, breast, colorectal, kidney, endometrial, and leukemia—rose among young adults.

Researchers emphasize that while improved screening plays a role, it cannot fully explain the trend. Factors such as lifestyle changes, including poor diet, physical inactivity, and rising obesity rates - especially among younger generations - are believed to be significant contributors. The World Health Organization notes that adult obesity has more than doubled since 1990, and childhood and adolescent obesity rates have tripled from 1990 to 2021.

Interesting information, isn't it.

The saying, "we are what we eat" is true, and that evidently applies to how we live too.

It is known that we can either aid our health, or harm it. In fact, people are indeed literally jogging for their health.

4 hours ago, KingKobra said:

We also know that diseases are hereditary, and the lifestyle of one's fore-parents can contribute to poor health.

Yes, but not both at the same time. Hereditary means lifestyle isn’t a factor.

4 hours ago, KingKobra said:

We also know that people live longer, and healthier, when not exposed to harmful chemical, and live off healthier foods.

And the point was they’re sort of a package deal. It’s difficult to disentangle things that give good health outcomes from bad, but overall we have better outcomes.

4 hours ago, KingKobra said:

Since the OP is asking about cancer, I provided information on this alone.

The OP asked what’s wrong with our immune system and used cancer as a dubious example

The more interesting literature search might be rates of autoimmune diseases. And the intricate knot of separating change in detection rates from causal factors. Wiley is a good starting place...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1756-185X.15426

On 12/3/2025 at 9:16 PM, swansont said:

Yes, but not both at the same time. Hereditary means lifestyle isn’t a factor.

That's not true.

Lifestyle affects both parent and their offspring.

There are many examples.

Paternal diet, obesity, smoking, and exposure to environmental stressors or endocrine-disrupting chemicals have been linked to epigenetic alterations in sperm, including DNA methylation, histone modification, and changes in small non-coding RNA expression. [1] These modifications are associated with increased risks of metabolic dysfunction, obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and even mental health issues such as depressive-like behavior and heightened stress sensitivity in offspring. [1][2]

Recent research highlights that factors such as poor nutrition, physical inactivity, and chronic stress can leave lasting epigenetic marks on sperm, which may impair fertilization potential and early embryo development. [1] For example, paternal smoking has been shown to induce DNA hypermethylation in genes related to antioxidant defense and insulin resistance, potentially predisposing children to metabolic disorders. [1] Similarly, paternal obesity and alcohol consumption are correlated with adverse health outcomes in offspring, including altered body weight and increased risk of cancer. [2] Even physical exercise has been found to protect against diet-induced obesity in offspring, suggesting that positive lifestyle choices can have beneficial epigenetic effects. [2]

The concept is supported by the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) paradigm, which emphasizes that both maternal and paternal preconception environments play a crucial role in shaping the offspring’s metabolic and physiological responses in adulthood. [2] While most evidence has historically focused on maternal influences, growing data now confirm that paternal lifestyle factors significantly contribute to the epigenetic legacy passed to children. [1][2] This suggests that the health of future generations may be influenced not only by genetics but also by the lifestyle choices of parents prior to conception. [3]

On 12/3/2025 at 9:16 PM, swansont said:

And the point was they’re sort of a package deal. It’s difficult to disentangle things that give good health outcomes from bad, but overall we have better outcomes.

That depends on where you live, doesn't it.

On 12/3/2025 at 9:16 PM, swansont said:

The OP asked what’s wrong with our immune system and used cancer as a dubious example

Thank you for your opinion.

The immune system plays a vital role in the prevention and eradication of diseases, including cancer, through a process known as immune surveillance.

So, the OP made a very valid query.

On 5/31/2025 at 3:29 PM, Moon99 said:

How long before there is cancer cure and how long will it take for cancer cure? Do you think 50 years from now there will be cancer cure? How long before cancer is cure 50 years from now or like 100 years from now?

There is no cure for some diseases, including cancer. At least, no cure from any human effort.

However, the only cure for all diseases will go into effect during the 1,000 year reign of Christ as king and high priest in God's kingdom - the instrument of God put in place to cure sick mankind. Matthew 6:10

At that time "No one living will say "I am sick", because the people living at that time, will be freed from sin", which is the cause of sickness, and death.

...no inhabitant will say, “I am sick”; the people who dwell there will be forgiven their iniquity.

Isaiah 33:24

Please see Romans 5:12; Revelation 21:3, 4 in the holy scriptures.

No man knows when this will be, but we can be guaranteed it will come to be.

2 hours ago, KingKobra said:

There is no cure for some diseases, including cancer

No, many cancers are treatable today.

2 hours ago, KingKobra said:

. At least, no cure from any human effort.

You are unaware of decades of medical research?

2 hours ago, KingKobra said:

However, the only cure for all diseases will go into effect during the 1,000 year reign of Christ as king and high priest in God's kingdom

Ah, that explains it.

2 hours ago, KingKobra said:

That depends on where you live, doesn't it.

No, because that ignores the “overall” part of the statement.

2 hours ago, KingKobra said:

Thank you for your opinion.

The immune system plays a vital role in the prevention and eradication of diseases, including cancer, through a process known as immune surveillance.

That they asked about immune systems is not opinion. It’s an easily-discernible fact - the very first sentence of the first post, and title of the thread

2 hours ago, KingKobra said:

So, the OP made a very valid query.

Your answer here is an answer to some question, but not to the issue asked in the thread’s title. There are a number of good answers in the thread explaining why cancer, or an uptick in cancer, can occur without it being due to some recent compromise of the immune system.

2 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

No, many cancers are treatable today.

You are unaware of decades of medical research?

Ah, that explains it.

And the Jolly Roger is hoisted at last. 🏴‍☠️