Connect with us

Health

As cancer rates soar in younger people, experts seek answers

Published

3 months ago

13 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By John-Michael Dumais, The Defender

Two recent reports by the American Cancer Society reveal alarming increases in numerous cancers among millennials and Gen Z in the U.S. While mainstream medical experts debate causes, some doctors told The Defender mRNA vaccines may be to blame for the recent emergence of aggressive cancers that often don’t respond to conventional treatments.

Cancer rates among younger generations are rising at an alarming pace, with medical professionals reporting unprecedented increases in aggressive cancers over the past few years.

A study published in the August edition of The Lancet Public Health revealed that through 2019, the incidence rates for 17 of 34 cancer types were increasing in progressively younger people in the U.S., ABC News reported on July 31.

Lead author Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, Ph.D., from the American Cancer Society (ACS) told The Washington Post that if current trends in cancer and mortality rates among Gen X and millennials continue, it “may halt or even reverse the progress that we have made in reducing cancer mortality over the past several decades.”

More recent data from the ACS’ “Cancer statistics, 2024” report — with data on cancer incidence through 2020 and mortality through 2021 — showed the trend continuing.

As of 2021, among adults under 50, colorectal cancer has become the leading cause of cancer death in men and the second-leading cause in women, despite ranking fourth for both sexes in the late 1990s.

Some researchers point to lifestyle, poverty and environmental factors as potential causes for the uptick in cancers, while others suggest the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may be to blame for the rise in “turbo cancers.”

Meanwhile, Pfizer in December 2023 spent $43 billion for Seagan, a “cancer care” biotech company with only $2.2 billion in sales. Seagan’s already-approved drugs include those for bladder cancer, cervical cancer, breast cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma.

The cancer trend has also caught the attention of health organizations worldwide, including the World Health Organization, which in February predicted a 77% rise in new cancer cases — from 20 million cases in 2022 to over 35 million cases by 2050.

Which cancers are on the rise?

The Lancet study revealed disturbing trends in cancer rates for people born between 1920 and 1990, finding that through 2019, incidence rates for 17 of 34 cancer types analyzed were increasing in progressively younger birth cohorts.

For some cancers, the incidence rate was approximately 1 to 3 times higher in the 1990 birth cohort (people in their late 20s at the time of the study) compared to the 1955 birth cohort (people in their mid-60s at the time of the study).

Particularly concerning were the increases in cancers of the small intestine (256% higher), kidney and renal pelvis (192% higher), and pancreas in both males and females (161% higher). For women, liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer rates also saw a significant uptick (105% higher).

In younger cohorts, cancer incidence also increased for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, uterine corpus (endometrial) cancer, colorectal cancer, non-cardia gastric (stomach) cancer, gallbladder and other biliary cancer, ovarian cancer, and testicular cancer, anal cancer and Kaposi sarcoma in males.

For those around 30 years old, cancer rates increased an average of 12% across all cancer types.

The study also noted that mortality rates mirrored incidence trends for several cancers, including liver cancer in females, uterine corpus, gallbladder and other biliary, testicular and colorectal cancers. This suggests that the increase in incidence is substantial enough to outweigh improvements in cancer survival rates.

The findings from the ACS’ cancer statistics report, which contains data through 2021, provide additional context to the rising cancer rates in younger generations, particularly for colorectal cancer in both sexes and breast, cervical, uterine and liver cancers in women.

The Ethical Skeptic, a well-regarded statistician on the social platform X, posted more recent cancer mortality data. The following graph, based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s  WONDER online databases, shows excess mortality from malignant neoplasms (spreading tumors) “elevated 29% and still rising” for ages 0-54 through week 22 of 2024:

More recent ‘turbo cancers’

Dr. William Makis, a Canadian board-certified nuclear medicine radiologist and oncologist, reported in an interview on the “America Out Loud PULSE” podcast on July 6 that he has seen “just an explosion of extremely aggressive cancers in very young individuals” since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Cancers Makis identified that are particularly affecting younger populations include breast cancer, colon cancer, bile duct cancer, pancreatic cancer, leukemia and lymphoma.

Makis emphasized that these cancers are presenting at advanced stages (3 or 4), are behaving “very aggressively” and are often resistant to conventional treatments. He referred to these as “turbo cancers” due to their rapid growth and spread.

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a renowned oncologist and professor at St. George’s, University of London, has reported rapidly progressing cancers in patients receiving COVID-19 mRNA booster shots, although he did not specify the ages affected.

In particular, melanoma patients who had been in remission in his practice experienced sudden relapses. Cancer doctors around the world told him him about rapidly accelerating cancers, including lymphomas, leukemia, kidney and colorectal cancer and “multiple metastatic spread” of cancers throughout the body.

A Japanese study published in April in the journal Cureus reported post-COVID-19-vaccination increases in mortality for most age groups, including those under 50 years old. Cancers with the highest excess mortality rates included ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, lip/oral/pharyngeal cancer and pancreatic cancer.

We do not have the data to point to

Mainstream medical experts have proposed several theories to explain the rising cancer rates among younger generations.

In the Lancet paper, the authors attribute the increase in cancers in younger people to higher exposure to carcinogens early in life, obesity, unhealthy diet, environmental chemicals, changes in reproductive patterns and alcohol-related behaviors.

In its “Cancer statistics, 2024” report, the ACS pointed to several additional potential culprits, including poverty-related factors such as inadequate health insurance and lack of access to screening and high-quality healthcare, and to structural racism-related factors, including mortgage lending bias and neighborhood-level redlining.

Dr. William Dahut, a medical oncologist and ACS chief scientific officer, told ABC News that finding a single cause is difficult. “It’s so easy for us to say ‘yes, it’s obesity’; ‘yes, it’s lack of exercise’; ‘yes, it’s processed food.’ But we do not have the data to point to.”

Dr. Kevin Nead, a radiation oncologist and assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, told ABC News that something different could be happening with the biology of cancer in younger patients, indicating a need for new approaches to screening and early detection.

Left entirely unaddressed by the current mainstream medical and media reporting is the potential contribution to the rising rates of brain, thyroid and salivary gland cancers of EMR (electromagnetic radiation) exposure from cellphones, Bluetooth headsets, Wi-Fi routers and 4G/5G transmission towers.

Rapid cancer onset ‘basically impossible along the known paradigm’

Dr. Harvey Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Defender, “Clinicians have been seeing very strange things, for example, 25-year-olds with colon cancer who don’t have family histories of the disease.”

He stressed that this cancer typically takes decades to develop and that its appearance in younger people is “basically impossible along the known paradigm for how colon cancer works.”

On the podcast with Makis, Dr. Peter McCullough, a prominent cardiologist and researcher, also noted the typically longer lead time for cancers to develop.

“Is what we’re seeing now — are these just individuals who have cancers at the time they take the COVID vaccines or are these brand new cancers caused by the vaccines?” he asked.

Possible mechanisms for mRNA vaccine-caused cancers

Makis hypothesized that the mRNA vaccines could be accelerating already existing cancers and are likely responsible for the recent rise in aggressive cancers.

“These lipid nanoparticles [LNPs] — one of the key features is that they don’t stay in the arm. They end up in the systemic circulation,” Makis said.

He suggested that about 75% of the injection ends up in the bloodstream within a few hours, potentially depositing “pseudouridine, modified mRNA and DNA” throughout the body. He listed the brain, bone marrow, liver, pancreas, gall bladder, spleen, testes, ovaries, liver, colon and breast milk as among the locations where these components have been found.

“We are seeing cancers where there is deposition of these vaccine particles,” he said, noting that bone marrow deposition could be causing the increased incidence of leukemia.

Risch, while cautioning that long-term data is still lacking, pointed out potential mechanisms by which vaccines might affect cancer risk.

“The spike protein is toxic,” he stated. “The LNP itself is toxic. The biological manufacturing process involving inadequate filtration of possible harmful components can be toxic.”

Both Makis and Risch discussed the “IgG4 [immunoglobin type 4] antibody shift” caused by the mRNA vaccines as a likely contributor to rapid-onset cancers.

Risch explained how this particular antibody differs from IgG1 and IgG2 responses, which work to neutralize foreign pathogens. By contrast, IgG4 creates a “tolerance response” to keep the immune system from overreacting to things like pollen and food allergens.

Makis explained how after multiple mRNA injections, the level of IgG4 antibodies markedly increases, reducing immune surveillance, thus making “cancer invisible to your immune system.”

“If you’ve got tolerance to cancer cells, it’s not going to stop the cancer cells from reproducing,” Risch said. “You don’t want that to happen.”

Risch said that no one yet knows the depth of damage to the immune surveillance mechanisms the mRNA vaccines are causing, “but there are plausible mechanisms to be looking at.”

This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views
Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 49 mins ago

Trump’s government efficiency department plans to cut $500 Billion in unauthorized expenditures, including funding for Planned Parenthood

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Alberta government announces review of Trudeau’s euthanasia regime

Censorship Industrial Complex / 4 hours ago

Congressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies

Alberta

Early Success: 33 Nurse Practitioners already working independently across Alberta

Published on November 20, 2024

By

Nurse practitioners expand primary care access

The Alberta government’s Nurse Practitioner Primary Care program is showing early signs of success, with 33 nurse practitioners already practising independently in communities across the province.

Alberta’s government is committed to strengthening Alberta’s primary health care system, recognizing that innovative approaches are essential to improving access. To further this commitment, the Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Program was launched in April, allowing nurse practitioners to practise comprehensive patient care autonomously, either by operating their own practices or working independently within existing primary care settings.

Since being announced, the program has garnered a promising response. A total of 67 applications have been submitted, with 56 approved. Of those, 33 nurse practitioners are now practising autonomously in communities throughout Alberta, including in rural locations such as Beaverlodge, Coaldale, Cold Lake, Consort, Morley, Picture Butte, Three Hills, Two Hills, Vegreville and Vermilion.

“I am thrilled about the interest in this program, as nurse practitioners are a key part of the solution to provide Albertans with greater access to the primary health care services they need.”

Adriana LaGrange, Minister of Health

To participate in the program, nurse practitioners are required to commit to providing a set number of hours of medically necessary primary care services, maintain a panel size of at least 900 patients, offer after-hours access on weekends, evenings or holidays, and accept walk-in appointments until a panel size reaches 900 patients.

With 33 nurse practitioners practising independently, about 30,000 more Albertans will have access to the primary health care they need. Once the remaining 23 approved applicants begin practising, primary health care access will expand to almost 21,000 more Albertans.

“Enabling nurse practitioners to practise independently is great news for rural Alberta. This is one more way our government is ensuring communities will have access to the care they need, closer to home.”

Martin Long, parliamentary secretary for rural health

“Nurse practitioners are highly skilled health care professionals and an invaluable part of our health care system. The Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Program is the right step to ensuring all Albertans can receive care where and when they need it.”

Chelsae Petrovic, parliamentary secretary for health workforce engagement

“The NPAA wishes to thank the Alberta government for recognizing the vital role NPs play in the health care system. Nurse practitioners have long advocated to operate their own practices and are ready to meet the growing health care needs of Albertans. This initiative will ensure that more people receive the timely and comprehensive care they deserve.”

Jennifer Mador, president, Nurse Practitioner Association of Alberta

The Nurse Practitioner Primary Care program not only expands access to primary care services across the province but also enables nurse practitioners to practise to their full scope, providing another vital access point for Albertans to receive timely, high-quality care when and where they need it most.

Quick facts

  • Through the Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Program, nurse practitioners receive about 80 per cent of the compensation that fee-for-service family physicians earn for providing comprehensive primary care.
    • Compensation for nurse practitioners is determined based on panel size (the number of patients under their care) and the number of patient care hours provided.
  • Nurse practitioners have completed graduate studies and are regulated by the College of Registered Nurses of Alberta.
  • For the second consecutive year, a record number of registrants renewed their permits with the College of Registered Nurses of Alberta (CRNA) to continue practising nursing in Alberta.
    • There were more than 44,798 registrants and a 15 per cent increase in nurse practitioners.
  • Data from the Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Program show:
    • Nine applicants plan to work on First Nations reserves or Metis Settlements.
    • Parts of the province where nurse practitioners are practising: Calgary (12), Edmonton (five), central (six), north (three) and south (seven).
  • Participating nurse practitioners who practise in eligible communities for the Rural, Remote and Northern Program will be provided funding as an incentive to practise in rural or remote areas.
  • Participating nurse practitioners are also eligible for the Panel Management Support Program, which helps offset costs for physicians and nurse practitioners to provide comprehensive care as their patient panels grow.

Related information

Continue Reading

Addictions

BC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies

Published on November 20, 2024

By

By Liam Hunt

Canada’s safer supply programs are “selling people down the river,” says a leading medical expert in British Columbia. Dr. Julian Somers, director of the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction at Simon Fraser University, says that despite the thin evidence in support of these experimental programs, the BC government has aggressively expanded them—and retaliated against dissenting researchers.

Somers also, controversially, raises questions about doctors and former health officials who appear to have gravitated toward businesses involved in these programs. He notes that these connections warrant closer scrutiny to ensure public policies remain free from undue industry influence.

Safer supply programs claim to reduce overdoses and deaths by distributing free addictive drugs—typically 8-milligram tablets of hydromorphone, an opioid as potent as heroin—to dissuade addicts from accessing riskier street substances. Yet, a growing number of doctors say these programs are deeply misguided—and widely defrauded.

Ultimately, Somers argues, safer supply is exacerbating the country’s addiction crisis.

Somers opposed safer supply at its inception and openly criticized its nationwide expansion in 2020. He believes these programs perpetuate drug use and societal disconnection and fail to encourage users to make the mental and social changes needed to beat addiction. Worse yet, the safer supply movement seems rife with double standards that devalue the lives of poorer drug users. While working professionals are provided generous supports that prioritize recovery, disadvantaged Canadians are given “ineffective yet profitable” interventions, such as safer supply, that “convey no expectation that stopping substance use or overcoming addiction is a desirable or important goal.”

To better understand addiction, Somers created the Inter-Ministry Evaluation Database (IMED) in 2004, which, for the first time in BC’s history, connected disparate information—i.e. hospitalizations, incarceration rates—about vulnerable populations.

Throughout its existence, health experts used IMED’s data to create dozens of research projects and papers. It allowed Somers to conduct a multi-million-dollar randomized control trial (the “Vancouver at Home” study) that showed that scattering vulnerable people into regular apartments throughout the city, rather than warehousing them in a few buildings, leads to better outcomes at no additional cost.

In early 2021, Somers presented recommendations drawn from his analysis of the IMED to several leading officials in the B.C. government. He says that these officials gave a frosty reception to his ideas, which prioritized employment, rehabilitation, and social integration over easy access to drugs. Shortly afterwards, the government ordered him to immediately and permanently delete the IMED’s ministerial data.

Somers describes the order as a “devastating act of retaliation” and says that losing access to the IMED effectively ended his career as a researcher. “My lab can no longer do the research we were doing,” he noted, adding that public funding now goes exclusively toward projects sympathetic to safer supply. The B.C. government has since denied that its order was politically motivated.

In early 2022, the government of Alberta commissioned a team of researchers, led by Somers, to investigate the evidence base behind safer supply. They found that there was no empirical proof that the experiment works, and that harm reduction researchers often advocated for safer supply within their studies even if their data did not support such recommendations.

Somers says that, after these findings were published, his team was subjected to a smear campaign that was partially organized by the British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (BCCSU), a powerful pro-safer supply research organization with close ties to the B.C. government. The BCCSU has been instrumental in the expansion of safer supply and has produced studies and protocols in support of it, sometimes at the behest of the provincial government.

Somers is also concerned about the connections between some of safer supply’s key proponents and for-profit drug companies.

He notes that the BCCSU’s founding executive director, Dr. Evan Wood, became Chief Medical Officer at Numinus Wellness, a publicly traded psychedelic company, in 2020. Similarly, Dr. Perry Kendall, who also served as a BCCSU executive director, went on to found Fair Price Pharma, a now-defunct for-profit company that specializes in providing pharmaceutical heroin to high-risk drug users, the following year.

While these connections are not necessarily unethical, they do raise important questions about whether there is enough industry regulation to minimize potential conflicts of interest, whether they be real or perceived.

The BCCSU was also recently criticized in an editorial by Canadian Affairs, which noted that the organization had received funding from companies such as Shoppers Drug Mart and Tilray (a cannabis company). The editorial argued that influential addiction research organizations should not receive drug industry funding and reported that Alberta founded its own counterpart to the BCCSU in August, known as the Canadian Centre of Recovery Excellence, which is legally prohibited from accepting such sponsorships.

Already, private interests are betting on the likely expansion of safer supply programs. For instance, Safe Supply Streaming Co., a publicly traded venture capital firm, has advertised to potential investors that B.C.’s safer supply system could create a multi-billion-dollar annual market.

Somers believes that Canada needs more transparency regarding how for-profit companies may be directly or indirectly influencing policy makers: “We need to know exactly, to the dollar, how much of [harm reduction researchers’] operating budget is flowing from industry sources.”

Editor’s note: This story is published in syndication with Break The Needle and Western Standard.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Dr. Julian M. Somers is director of the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction at Simon Fraser University. He was Director of the UBC Psychology Clinic, and past president of the BC Psychological Association. Liam Hunt is a contributing author to the Centre For Responsible Drug Policy in partnership with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Continue Reading

Trending

X