Health
As cancer rates soar in younger people, experts seek answers

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 acquisition expands Pfizer’s oncology portfolio to 25 approved drugs, which, by the second quarter of this year, helped the company recover from last year’s drop in COVID-19 vaccine sales when its stock lost half its value.
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.
Emmy Award winning FOX 4 Morning Reporter Matt Stewart announces he has Cancer – His Wife has also developed Cancer – 💔
“Friends, I have some devastating news to share with all of you. I have been feeling a little off mentally lately – dizzy, nauseous, a little double vision.… pic.twitter.com/NaiVzj8qN1
— “Sudden And Unexpected” (@toobaffled) July 28, 2024
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.”
Full vid: https://t.co/76kyipSw0T
— Sense Receptor (@SenseReceptor) August 11, 2024
Health
Horrific and Deadly Effects of Antidepressants

The Vigilant Fox
Once you see what else these drugs are doing, you’ll never look at depression “treatment” the same way again.
The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
Did you know that SSRI antidepressants INCREASE suicidal thoughts by 255%?
A clinical trial on healthy volunteers found that 2 out of 20 became suicidal after taking Zoloft.
One was literally on her way to kill herself when a timely phone call saved her life.
But it’s not just suicidal thoughts that make antidepressants dangerous.
And once you see what else these drugs are doing, you’ll never look at depression “treatment” the same way again.
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—or SSRIs—are one of the most harmful medicines prescribed today.
And that’s saying a lot because the market is FULL of harmful medicines.
What’s so bad about these antidepressants?
First of all, their use is widespread and frequently unjustifiable.
They promise to be a magical solution to depression and anxiety, but it’s quite the opposite.
In fact, they can cause side effects far worse than what they claim to treat.
SSRIs don’t just dull your emotions, and they don’t alter your brain chemistry for the better.
They literally reprogram your brain.
Between 40% and 60% of users report emotional numbness. Not just negative emotions—all emotions.
Joy, pain, motivation—all of it completely flatlined.
Some describe it as “life without color” or a “zombie-like” existence.
Sure, maybe you don’t feel depressed anymore. But you don’t feel anything at all.
That sounds… terrible.
Depression can be serious, but should we accept emotionless zombies as the alternative?
If you want to dig even deeper into the dark side of antidepressants and why they’re so harmful, check out @Midwesterndoc’s comprehensive report on the subject. And be sure to share this with anyone you know who may be considering starting an SSRI.
And it’s not just becoming an emotionless zombie you have to worry about. The emotional shutdown can lead to something that is much worse than depression and anxiety.
I don’t mean just a little anger here and there.
SSRIs are causing people to commit suicide—and yes, even horrific mass shootings.
And guess what? The FDA knew about it.
Prozac triggers hallucinations, mania, and violence, and the FDA has known all along.
Even animals become aggressive on SSRIs.
But instead of going back to the drawing board, the FDA approved it anyway.
After nine years on the market, 39,000 people reported major psychiatric events. And those are only the people who reported it…
Really makes you question FDA approval, doesn’t it?
Did you know most of the mass shooters we hear about in the news were often on SSRIs?
It’s true.
And the media even reported on it. But then, they stopped.
That’s weird.
So why are we “not allowed” to talk about SSRIs and violence anymore?
It’s pretty simple.
It would blow the lid off one of the most dangerous pharmaceutical cover-ups in modern history.
It would expose the truth that Big Pharma knowingly released drugs that could make people snap and kill other people.
And they just kept selling them anyway.

But the psychotic violence caused by SSRIs is only the tip of the iceberg.
Obviously, not everyone taking these drugs becomes a mass shooter. But that doesn’t mean the other side effects are any less terrible for those who experience them.
SSRIs truly warp your mind, body, and emotions. And sometimes it is irreversible.
The numbers are truly chilling:
→ A 255% increase in suicidal thoughts
→ 30% of SSRI users develop Bipolar disorder
→ 59% suffer long-term sexual dysfunction
With many saying their libido never came back even after stopping the drug.
The science is clear. The harm caused by SSRIs greatly outweighs any benefits they provide.
Talk about depressing…
A 2020 study involving 20 healthy volunteers with zero history of depression or other mental illnesses had shocking results.
They were each given Zoloft.
TWO of them BECAME suicidal.
One of them was even on her way to kill herself when a divinely timed phone call interrupted her plans.
These two study participants were still affected several months later. They were actually questioning the stability of their personalities.
This doesn’t sound like a magic solution. This sounds like torture.
Speaking of stopping SSRIs—good luck!
They are highly addictive.
And it’s not just physical addiction. It’s neurological.
And because of what they do to the brain, it can take years to step down the dose and wean off of them. Years!
Withdrawal symptoms include things like:
– Brain zaps
– Panic attacks
– Suicidal spirals
– Derealization
And these symptoms can last weeks, months, or even years.
It’s not uncommon to fail and continue taking them because the withdrawal is just that bad.
A 2022 review found that 56% of users who tried to stop SSRIs experience withdrawal symptoms, and 46% describe it as severe.
Psychiatrists mislabel it as a “relapse” and prescribe even more drugs.
The system is set up to trap you. There’s no exit.
And the most vulnerable groups?
Pregnant women and children.
Despite strong evidence linking SSRIs to birth defects, premature birth, and newborn death, the FDA still endorses their use during pregnancy.
One study showed a six times higher risk of pulmonary hypertension in newborns.
Another study showed that SSRI babies lost height and weight in just 19 weeks.
This isn’t good.
SSRIs are being pushed on everyone. Especially vulnerable people like foster kids, parolees, prisoners, and elderly nursing home residents.
And in many of these cases, there is no real ability for them to say no.
That’s not mental health care. That’s drugging people.
The industry tells us SSRIs are “fixing a serotonin imbalance.”
But that’s a lie.
There’s no solid evidence that depression is caused by low serotonin.
So what’s the real mechanism at play here?
SSRIs alter brain wiring. And obviously not always in good ways.
SSRI users describe feeling like their “personality changed” after starting the drug.
The reports are endless and absolutely chilling.
Some were left numb for years. Others became aggressive, impulsive, or dissociated from reality.
Many say they don’t recognize who they became after taking SSRIs.
Excuse me… what?!
And of course, patients and their families are rarely warned about these effects.
Most say they were never told about the risks. There was no informed consent.
How can you not inform depressed people that their medication might make them suicidal? How is it even possible that we can be asking that question?
They experienced these things and talked to their doctors.
They were gaslit every step of the way.
If you or someone you love is taking SSRIs or is considering taking them, I urge you to read the full report from A Midwestern Doctor
How many more people have to suffer before this ends?
How many more people who reach out to their doctor because something is off and they’re looking for help are going to be hurt, sometimes permanently?
It’s time to expose the cover-up and end Big Pharma’s abuse and gaslighting once and for all.
RFK Jr. is right—this could finally be the turning point.
For 40 years, this tragedy was hidden behind slick ads and corrupted science.
But now it’s in the light and MAHA is ready to fight.
If you know anyone considering starting an SSRI, be sure to forward them this information. Because if you wait until after, it might be too late.
Thanks for reading!
This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact.
Addictions
Addiction experts demand witnessed dosing guidelines after pharmacy scam exposed

By Alexandra Keeler
The move follows explosive revelations that more than 60 B.C. pharmacies were allegedly participating in a scheme to overbill the government under its safer supply program. The scheme involved pharmacies incentivizing clients to fill prescriptions they did not require by offering them cash or rewards. Some of those clients then sold the drugs on the black market.
An addiction medicine advocacy group is urging B.C. to promptly issue new guidelines for witnessed dosing of drugs dispensed under the province’s controversial safer supply program.
In a March 24 letter to B.C.’s health minister, Addiction Medicine Canada criticized the BC Centre on Substance Use for dragging its feet on delivering the guidelines and downplaying the harms of prescription opioids.
The centre, a government-funded research hub, was tasked by the B.C. government with developing the guidelines after B.C. pledged in February to return to witnessed dosing. The government’s promise followed revelations that many B.C. pharmacies were exploiting rules permitting patients to take safer supply opioids home with them, leading to abuse of the program.
“I think this is just a delay,” said Dr. Jenny Melamed, a Surrey-based family physician and addiction specialist who signed the Addiction Medicine Canada letter. But she urged the centre to act promptly to release new guidelines.
“We’re doing harm and we cannot just leave people where they are.”
Addiction Medicine Canada’s letter also includes recommendations for moving clients off addictive opioids altogether.
“We should go back to evidence-based medicine, where we have medications that work for people in addiction,” said Melamed.
‘Best for patients’
On Feb. 19, the B.C. government said it would return to a witnessed dosing model. This model — which had been in place prior to the pandemic — will require safer supply participants to take prescribed opioids under the supervision of health-care professionals.
The move follows explosive revelations that more than 60 B.C. pharmacies were allegedly participating in a scheme to overbill the government under its safer supply program. The scheme involved pharmacies incentivizing clients to fill prescriptions they did not require by offering them cash or rewards. Some of those clients then sold the drugs on the black market.
In its Feb. 19 announcement, the province said new participants in the safer supply program would immediately be subject to the witnessed dosing requirement. For existing clients of the program, new guidelines would be forthcoming.
“The Ministry will work with the BC Centre on Substance Use to rapidly develop clinical guidelines to support prescribers that also takes into account what’s best for patients and their safety,” Kendra Wong, a spokesperson for B.C.’s health ministry, told Canadian Affairs in an emailed statement on Feb. 27.
More than a month later, addiction specialists are still waiting.
According to Addiction Medicine Canada’s letter, the BC Centre on Substance Use posed “fundamental questions” to the B.C. government, potentially causing the delay.
“We’re stuck in a place where the government publicly has said it’s told BCCSU to make guidance, and BCCSU has said it’s waiting for government to tell them what to do,” Melamed told Canadian Affairs.
This lag has frustrated addiction specialists, who argue the lack of clear guidance is impeding the transition to witnessed dosing and jeopardizing patient care. They warn that permitting take-home drugs leads to more diversion onto the streets, putting individuals at greater risk.
“Diversion of prescribed alternatives expands the number of people using opioids, and dying from hydromorphone and fentanyl use,” reads the letter, which was also co-signed by Dr. Robert Cooper and Dr. Michael Lester. The doctors are founding board members of Addiction Medicine Canada, a nonprofit that advises on addiction medicine and advocates for research-based treatment options.
“We have had people come in [to our clinic] and say they’ve accessed hydromorphone on the street and now they would like us to continue [prescribing] it,” Melamed told Canadian Affairs.
A spokesperson for the BC Centre on Substance Use declined to comment, referring Canadian Affairs to the Ministry of Health. The ministry was unable to provide comment by the publication deadline.
Big challenges
Under the witnessed dosing model, doctors, nurses and pharmacists will oversee consumption of opioids such as hydromorphone, methadone and morphine in clinics or pharmacies.
The shift back to witnessed dosing will place significant demands on pharmacists and patients. In April 2024, an estimated 4,400 people participated in B.C.’s safer supply program.
Chris Chiew, vice president of pharmacy and health-care innovation at the pharmacy chain London Drugs, told Canadian Affairs that the chain’s pharmacists will supervise consumption in semi-private booths.
Nathan Wong, a B.C.-based pharmacist who left the profession in 2024, fears witnessed dosing will overwhelm already overburdened pharmacists, creating new barriers to care.
“One of the biggest challenges of the retail pharmacy model is that there is a tension between making commercial profit, and being able to spend the necessary time with the patient to do a good and thorough job,” he said.
“Pharmacists often feel rushed to check prescriptions, and may not have the time to perform detailed patient counselling.”
Others say the return to witnessed dosing could create serious challenges for individuals who do not live close to health-care providers.
Shelley Singer, a resident of Cowichan Bay, B.C., on Vancouver Island, says it was difficult to make multiple, daily visits to a pharmacy each day when her daughter was placed on witnessed dosing years ago.
“It was ridiculous,” said Singer, whose local pharmacy is a 15-minute drive from her home. As a retiree, she was able to drive her daughter to the pharmacy twice a day for her doses. But she worries about patients who do not have that kind of support.
“I don’t believe witnessed supply is the way to go,” said Singer, who credits safer supply with saving her daughter’s life.
Melamed notes that not all safer supply medications require witnessed dosing.
“Methadone is under witness dosing because you start low and go slow, and then it’s based on a contingency management program,” she said. “When the urine shows evidence of no other drug, when the person is stable, [they can] take it at home.”
She also noted that Suboxone, a daily medication that prevents opioid highs, reduces cravings and alleviates withdrawal, does not require strict supervision.
Kendra Wong, of the B.C. health ministry, told Canadian Affairs that long-acting medications such as methadone and buprenorphine could be reintroduced to help reduce the strain on health-care professionals and patients.
“There are medications available through the [safer supply] program that have to be taken less often than others — some as far apart as every two to three days,” said Wong.
“Clinicians may choose to transition patients to those medications so that they have to come in less regularly.”
Such an approach would align with Addiction Medicine Canada’s recommendations to the ministry.
The group says it supports supervised dosing of hydromorphone as a short-term solution to prevent diversion. But Melamed said the long-term goal of any addiction treatment program should be to reduce users’ reliance on opioids.
The group recommends combining safer supply hydromorphone with opioid agonist therapies. These therapies use controlled medications to reduce withdrawal symptoms, cravings and some of the risks associated with addiction.
They also recommend limiting unsupervised hydromorphone to a maximum of five 8 mg tablets a day — down from the 30 tablets currently permitted with take-home supplies. And they recommend that doses be tapered over time.
“This protocol is being used with success by clinicians in B.C. and elsewhere,” the letter says.
“Please ensure that the administrative delay of the implementation of your new policy is not used to continue to harm the public.”
This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.
Subscribe to Break The Needle
-
2025 Federal Election21 hours ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
Energy2 days ago
Indigenous-led Projects Hold Key To Canada’s Energy Future
-
Energy2 days ago
Many Canadians—and many Albertans—live in energy poverty
-
Business2 days ago
Canada Urgently Needs A Watchdog For Government Waste
-
2025 Federal Election20 hours ago
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
2025 Federal Election10 hours ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
International2 days ago
Pope Francis has died aged 88
-
2025 Federal Election21 hours ago
Real Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney