That aside, life expectancy, afaik, includes new born illnesses, childhood illness and so on, and then as adults there were occupational related deaths. Those brought down the average then.
Did those who survived all those risks live as long as we do today? IDK. But there has to be data to figure that out, as the raw life expectancy then v now is likely misleading.
why do you say that?
I do remember that the first major pandemic of lung cancer started in the 1920s and the first controlled study of Cigarettes involvement with Lung cancer started in the 1950s - Hill & Doll in the US. A parallel study was started in 1951 in Britain, which ended in 2001.
Prior to that, cancer was routinely written up in case studies and submitted to journals as interesting medical cases.
They generally disable the mitochondria and burn glucose in a much less efficient anaerobic process.
Areas with malnutrition and lower life expectancy would not grow them very well.
Is there any study that areas of malnutrition have lower cancers? I imagine it's hard sorting out causality, with sugar in wealthy western style diets, and perhaps different environmental stressors (pollution?) elsewhere?
I'm pretty sure dissected tumors have eliminated fungal infections as integral parts of many (if not most) cancers. If it's not integral, fungal is opportunistic and likely unavoidable for most cases. I expect that these conceptual models are what makes these kinds of studies difficult to prove.