This question already has an answer here:
I wondered: If I get into the library and look into the medical section it is evident that there are thousands and thousands of different human physical diseases. But if I look into the section of animal diseases it is by no means as large as the human section. But humans are by no means the only beings with extraordinarily cell complexity. Many other animals have an equal amount of cell complexity. So shouldn't other animals have an comparative equal amount of diseases ?
Naturally as humans we are much more interested in human physiology which would explain the discrepancy. But is there any evidence that animals, especially mammals, have not an equal amount of (still unknown) different diseases ?
Remark: While a bit similar, this is not this question:
I am asking about the quantity of diseases, not if humans are especially prone for diseases.
ADDENDUM: The difference between the questions is like "Is building A more prone to fall in natural catastrophes than other buildings because it seems like it ?"
and "How many faults have building A in comparison to other buildings ?"
A correct answer to the first question is: "We made a statistical comparison and building A is more/less/equal prone to fall in a natural catastrophe. The impression is wrong/right."
A correct answer to the second question is: "Building A has in fact a mean approximately 13 000 faults while other buildings have only 5400 faults. But the reason can be that the other building are inspected with less care." Or "No, they both have very likely something like 9000 faults".
It is a completely different question. The second question does not ask for the severity of faults. It could even be that building A has more faults while being more secure because the faults itself are much less severe.