• AppleTea@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    That’s a good question. I don’t know for sure. I just meant to imply that thinking about cancers in terms of “cures” isn’t a very useful way to approach the matter.

    A cursory search suggests that reptiles and birds do get cancer, just at a noticeably reduced rate. Maybe something to do with metabolism? Or a side effect of bodies capable of live birth? Dunno.

    I’ve also heard that whales and elephants get less cancers than we would expect from animals (or I guess mammals) of their size.

    • jpeps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I’m just saying this from memory so I may be wrong, but I think size will be a big factor for reduced cancer in small animals. For whales and elephants they have had to gain extra adaptations to handle cancer which accounts for the difference.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Cancer isn’t directly tied to the nu,ber of cells. It’s the type. Cancer shows up in places where cells replaced most often. Some cells are long lived, others not so much. The more replication you have, the greater the chance of a mutation that ends up being classified as cancer. So while a whale is huge, a lot of that size comes from things like muscle and fat, which don’t replicate once mature (I believe). So the complexity of the human body causes it to have more things that need to replicate, and thus more opportunities for cancer. And then of course, plenty of otther things we do that bump up our chances…

        • jpeps@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Ah that’s an interesting point. Perhaps really we’re the big ones then.