Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Health

As cancer rates soar in younger people, experts seek answers

Published

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.

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 canceruterine 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.

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

Addictions

BC overhauls safer supply program in response to widespread pharmacy scam

Published on

By Alexandra Keeler

A B.C. pharmacy scam investigation has led the provincial government to return to a witnessed consumption model for safer supply

More than 60 pharmacies across B.C. are alleged to have participated in a kickback scheme linked to safer supply drugs, according to a provincial report released Feb. 19.

On Feb. 5, the BC Conservatives leaked a report that showed the findings of an internal investigation by the B.C. Ministry of Health. That investigation showed dozens of pharmacies were filling prescriptions patients did not require in order to overbill the government. These safer supply drugs were then diverted onto the black market.

After the report was leaked, the province committed to ending take-home safer supply models, which allow users to take hydromorphone pills home in bottles. Instead, it will require drug users to consume prescribed opioids in a witnessed program, under the oversight of a medical professional.

Gregory Sword, whose 14-year-old daughter Kamilah died in August 2022 after taking a hydromorphone pill that had been diverted from B.C.’s safer supply program, expressed outrage over the report’s findings.

“This is so frustrating to hear that [pharmacies] were making money off this program and causing more drugs [to flood] the street,” Sword told Canadian Affairs on Feb. 20.

The investigation found that pharmacies exploited B.C.’s Frequency of Dispensing policy to maximize billings. To take advantage of dispensing fees, pharmacies incentivized 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. Pharmacies earned up to $11,000 per patient a year.

“I’m positive that [the B.C. government has] known this for a long time and only made this decision when the public became aware and the scrutiny was high,” said Elenore Sturko, Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, who released the leaked report in a statement on Feb. 5.

“As much as I am really disappointed in how long it’s taken for this decision to be made, I am also happy that this has happened,” she said.

The health ministry said it is investigating the implicated pharmacies. Those that are confirmed to have been involved could have their licenses suspended, be referred to law enforcement or become ineligible to participate in PharmaCare, the provincial program that helps residents cover the costs of prescription drugs.

Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis – or donate to our investigative journalism fund.

 

Witnessed dosing

The leaked report says that “a significant portion of the opioids being freely prescribed by doctors and pharmacists are not being consumed by their intended recipients.” It also says “prescribed alternatives are trafficked provincially, nationally and internationally.”

Critics of the safer supply program say it enables addiction, while supporters say it reduces overdoses.

Sword, Kamilah’s father, is suing the provincial and federal governments, arguing B.C.’s safer supply program made it possible for youth such as his daughter to access drugs.

Madison, Kamilah’s best friend, also became addicted to opioids dispensed through safer supply programs. Madison was just 15 when she first encountered “dillies” — hydromorphone pills dispensed through safer supply, but widely available on the streets. She developed a tolerance that led her to fentanyl.

“I do know for sure that some pharmacies and doctors were aware of the diversion,” Madison’s mother Beth told Canadian Affairs on Feb. 20.

“When I first realized what my daughter was taking and how she was getting it, I phoned the pharmacy and the doctor on the label of the pill bottle to inform them that the patient was selling their hydromorphone,” Beth said.

Masha Krupp, an Ottawa mother who has a son enrolled in a safer supply program, has said the safer supply program in her city is similarly flawed. Canadian Affairs previously reported on this program, which is run by Recovery Care’s Ottawa-based harm reduction clinics.

“I read about the B.C. pharmacy scheme and wasn’t surprised,” Krupp told Canadian Affairs on Feb. 20. Krupp lost a daughter to methadone toxicity while she was in an addiction treatment program at Recovery Care.

“Three years [after starting safer supply], my son is still using fentanyl, crack cocaine and methadone, despite being with Dr. [Charles] Breau and with Recovery Care for over three years,” Krupp testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health on Oct. 22, 2024.

Krupp has been vocal about the dangers of dispensing large quantities of opioids without proper oversight, arguing many patients sell their prescriptions to buy stronger street drugs.

“You can’t give addicts 28 pills and say, ‘Oh here you go,’” she said in her testimony. “They sell for three dollars a pop on the street.”

Krupp has also advocated for witnessed consumption of safer supply medications, arguing supervised dosing would prevent diversion and ensure proper oversight of pharmacies.

“I had talked about witnessed dosing for safe supply when I appeared before the parliamentary health committee last October,” she told Canadian Affairs this week.

“I’m grateful that finally … this decision has been made to return to a witness program,” said Sturko, the B.C. MLA.

In 2020, B.C. implemented a witnessed consumption model to ensure safer supply opioids were consumed as prescribed and to reduce diversion. In 2021, the province switched to take-home models. Its stated aim was to expand access, save lives and ease pressure on health-care facilities during the pandemic.

“You’re really fighting against a group of people … working within the bureaucracy of [the B.C. NDP] government … who have been making efforts to work towards the legalization of drugs and, in doing that, have looked only for opportunities to bolster their arguments for their position, instead of examining their approach in a balanced way,” said Sturko.

“These are foreseeable outcomes when you do not put proper safeguards in place and when you completely ignore all indications of negative impacts.”

Sword also believes some drug policies fail to prioritize the safety of vulnerable individuals.

“Greed is the ultimate evil in society and this just proves it,” he said. We don’t care about these drugs getting into the wrong hands as long as I get my money.”


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.

Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Health

Trump HHS officially declares only two sexes: ‘Back to science and common sense’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

The memo concludes by defining “female,” “male,” “woman,” “girl,” “man,” “boy,” “mother,” and “father” accordingly, based on observable scientific fact rather than subjective thoughts or feelings of gender dysphoria.

It is the official policy of the United States once more to maintain a biology-based definition of “sex” across all federal agencies, according to a new memo from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS).

The February 19 memo lays out the understanding of sex and related terminology to be used for the purposes of interpreting and abiding by federal rules, regulations, and partnerships.

“There are only two sexes, female and male, because there are only two types of gametes,” it says. “An individual human is either female or male based on whether the person is of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggs (ova) or sperm. The sex of a human, female or male, is determined genetically at conception (fertilization), and is observable before birth.”

Sex, the memo continues, “is unchangeable and determined by objective biology. The use of hormones or surgical interventions do not change a person’s sex because such actions do not change the type of gamete that the person’s reproductive system has the biological function to produce. Rare disorders of sexual development do not constitute a third sex because these disorders do not lead to the production of a third gamete.”

The memo concludes by defining “female,” “male,” “woman,” “girl,” “man,” “boy,” “mother,” and “father” accordingly, based on observable scientific fact rather than subjective thoughts or feelings of gender dysphoria.

“It took many years of effort but we are finally back to science and common sense,” reacted Roger Severino, former director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the first Trump administration.

 

It is an article of progressive faith that gender is no more than a matter of self-perception that individuals are free to change at will. But according to modern biology, sex is not a subjective sense of self but an objective scientific reality, established by an individual’s chromosomes from their earliest moments of existence and reflected by hundreds of genetically based characteristics.

Yet for years LGBT activists have worked to promote “gender fluidity,” the idea that sexual identity is separate from biology and discernible only by personal perception, across public educationlibrarieshealth care, and cultural traditions such as beauty contests, school homecomings, and athletic competitions.

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has taken multiple executive actions to reverse the Biden administration’s transgender policies, including an order that ends all federal support for “transition” procedures on minors, rescinds or amends all of the Biden health bureaucracy’s past endorsements of underage “transitioning,” and calls for a review of the medical literature on the subject, enforcing all existing restrictions on underage “transitioning,” and taking regulatory action to “end” the practice to the greatest extent possible under current law.

Another order prohibits males who claim to be female from competing against actual women in sex-specific athletic programs at schools receiving government funding. A third disqualifies gender-confused individuals from military service and prohibits military health services from conducting “transition” treatments and procedures.

Continue Reading

Trending

X