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
Dr. Malone: Bird flu ‘emergency’ in California is a case of psychological bioterrorism
From LifeSiteNews
Contrary to initial reporting from corporate media, the WHO, and the apocalyptic mutterings of Dr. Peter Hotez, there continues to be no evidence indicating the circulation of a highly pathogenic version of bird flu in either animal or human populations.
What is the current threat assessment for Avian Influenza, and has it changed?
I previously established and published a brief baseline threat assessment for Avian Influenza on July 2, 2024. Four dominant parameters must be considered when assessing a potential infectious disease threat to human populations:
- Disease severity (a measurable objective truth)
- Mechanism of transmission and observed transmissibility (an experimentally testable objective truth)
- Evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission (a measurable objective truth)
- Assessment of anticipated future risk (subjective, speculative, and hypothetical)
Politicians and their allies (in BioPharma, academia, and other sectors) have a variety of conflicts of interest and agendas which are not aligned with objective, dispassionate assessment and response to public health and infectious disease issues, and cannot be relied upon to analyze and respond to these key parameters objectively.
An assessment of the conflicts of interest and political agenda(s) of California’s Gavin Newsom is beyond the scope of this analysis. Still, please remember that Governor Newsom clearly mismanaged and overreacted to the COVID threat, as did the World Economic Forum that trained and coached (coaches?) him as a “Young Leader” and clearly continues to influence his political postures.
Although California has remained under Democrat party control – in significant part consequent to “rank choice” voting policies – during the recent presidential election there was a clear shift and momentum toward the Republican party across the majority of the state.
California has a very large dairy industry, and I know that a leader in and representative of that industry has close connections to Newsom. The presence of the virus in Southern California dairy farms is widespread, with over 300 dairy herds testing positive in the last 30 days
Has the threat assessment circa July 2024 changed? Let’s revisit the basics:
Disease severity, December 2024
Disease severity continues to be mild, with the exception of one new case which apparently triggered Newsom to declare a state of emergency in California.
According to Newsweek, “A person in Louisiana was hospitalized in critical condition with severe respiratory symptoms from a bird flu infection, according to state health officials. The patient had been in contact with sick and dead birds in a backyard flock, according to the CDC. Louisiana health officials said the patient is older than 65 and has underlying medical conditions.”
Here is the current CDC threat summary
- H5 bird flu is widespread in wild birds worldwide and is causing outbreaks in poultry and U.S. dairy cows with several recent human cases in U.S. dairy and poultry workers.
- While the current public health risk is low, CDC is watching the situation carefully and working with states to monitor people with animal exposures.
- CDC is using its flu surveillance systems to monitor for H5 bird flu activity in people.
The CDC charts above document that the risk of H5 in humans is low, disease severity is low, and although massive testing has occurred, there are only 61 total “exposure” sources found from cattle, birds, and other mammals.
There are a total of three human cases picked up from the CDC flu surveillance program since February 25, 2024, and a total of 58 cases in the U.S., after testing almost 10,000 people who were exposed to infected animals.
In sum, the profile of disease severity has not changed since July 2024. As opposed to initial reporting from corporate media, dark warnings from the WHO and Dr. Tedros, and the apocalyptic mutterings of Dr. Peter Hotez, there continues to be no evidence indicating the circulation of a highly pathogenic version of this virus in either animal or human populations.
Mechanism of transmission and observed transmissibility
All reported U.S. transmission events involve human exposure in the context of intensive contact during animal husbandry or other known animal hosts, indicating that the mechanism of transmission remains intensive exposure to infected animals and animal carcasses. No change from July 2024.
Evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission
No evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission, now or in the past with this currently circulating variant.
Assessment of anticipated future risk
This appears to be the crux of Newsom’s alarmist response involving the declaration of a “State of Emergency” for bird flu in California. A statement from the governor’s office characterized the move as a “proactive action to strengthen robust state response” to avian influenza A (H5N1), also known as bird flu.
“This proclamation is a targeted action to ensure government agencies have the resources and flexibility they need to respond quickly to this outbreak,” Newsom said in a statement. “Building on California’s testing and monitoring system – the largest in the nation – we are committed to further protecting public health, supporting our agriculture industry, and ensuring that Californians have access to accurate, up-to-date information.”
He added, “While the risk to the public remains low, we will continue to take all necessary steps to prevent the spread of this virus.”
This statement demonstrates either a profound ignorance of the mechanism by which animal influenza viruses spread, including avian influenza, or the presence of a hidden agenda. With a wide range of animal reservoirs, including migratory waterfowl, there is no way that the state of California can prevent the spread of this virus.
READ: Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed
Conclusion
There has been no significant change in the current threat assessment associated with Avian Influenza relative to July 2024. The CDC, which has recently been implicated in industrial-scale “PsyWar” deployment of psychological bioterrorism regarding COVID and has an organizational conflict of interest in promoting vaccines and vaccine uptake, characterizes the current public health risk as low.
My conclusion regarding the Newsom declaration of a “State of Emergency” for bird flu in California is that it is being driven by a hidden agenda. There are multiple hypotheses regarding what that hidden agenda may be, but Newsom’s statement that, “Building on California’s testing and monitoring system – the largest in the nation – we are committed to further protecting public health, supporting our agriculture industry, and ensuring that Californians have access to accurate, up-to-date information,” suggests that this declaration may, at a minimum, reflect advocacy by and for California’s infectious disease testing industry, which includes both academic and commercial components.
Reprinted with permission from Robert Malone.
Alberta
Province says Alberta family doctors will be the best-paid and most patient-focused in the country
Dr. Shelley Duggan, president, Alberta Medical Association
New pay model, better access to family doctors |
Alberta’s government is implementing a new primary care physician compensation model to improve access to family physicians across the province.
Alberta’s government recognizes that family physicians are fundamental to strengthening the health care system. Unfortunately, too many Albertans do not currently have access to regular primary care from a family physician. This is why, last year, the government entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Alberta Medical Association (AMA) and committed to developing a new primary care physician compensation model.
Alberta’s government will now be implementing a new compensation model for family doctors to ensure they continue practising in the province and to attract more doctors to choose Alberta, which will also alleviate pressures in other areas of the health care system.
This new model will make Alberta’s family doctors the strongest-paid and most patient-focused in the country.
“Albertans must be able to access a primary care provider. We’ve been working hard with our partners at the Alberta Medical Association to develop a compensation model that will not only support Alberta’s doctors but also improve Albertans’ access to physicians. Ultimately, our deal will make Alberta an even more attractive place to practise family medicine.”
“We have worked with the Alberta Medical Association to address the challenges that primary care physicians are facing. This model will provide the supports physicians need and improve patient access to the care they need.”
The new model is structured to encourage physicians to grow the number of patients they care for and encourage full-time practice. Incentives include increases for:
- Maintaining high panel numbers (minimum of 500 patients), which will incentivize panel growth and improve access to primary care for patients.
- Providing after-hours care to relieve pressure on emergency departments and urgent care centres.
- Improving technology to encourage using tools that help streamline work and enhance patient care.
- Enhancing team-based care, which will encourage developing integrated teams that may include family physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, dietitians and pharmacists to provide patients with the best care possible.
- Adding efficiencies in clinical operations to simplify processes for both patients and health care providers.
As a market and evidence-based model, it recognizes and pays for the critically important work of physicians, including the number of patients seen and patient complexity, as well as time spent providing direct and indirect care.
“Family medicine is the foundation of our health care system. This model recognizes the extensive training, experience and leadership of primary care physicians, and we hope it will help Alberta to attract and retain more family medicine specialists who provide comprehensive care.”
Additionally, family physicians who are not compensated through the traditional fee-for-service model will now receive higher pay rates under their payment model, known as the alternative relationship plan. This includes those who provide inpatient care in hospitals and rural generalists. Alberta’s government is increasing this to ensure hospital-based family physicians and rural generalists also receive fair, competitive pay that reflects the importance of these roles.
“This new compensation model will make Alberta more attractive for physicians and will make sure more Albertans can have improved access to a primary care provider no matter where they live. It will also help support efforts to strengthen primary care in Alberta as the foundation of the health care system.”
“Family physicians have been anxiously awaiting this announcement about the new compensation model. We anticipate this model will allow many primary care physicians to continue to deliver comprehensive, lifelong care to their patients while keeping their community clinics viable.”
Quick facts
- Enrolment in the primary care physician compensation model will begin in January with full implementation in spring 2025, provided there are at least 500 physicians enrolled.
- The alternative relationship plan rate has not been updated since it was initially calculated in 2002.
- The new compensation model for family doctors is the latest primary health care improvement following actions that include:
- A $42-million investment to recruit more health providers and expand essential services.
- A new rural and remote bursary program for family medicine resident physicians.
- Additional funding of $257 million to stabilize primary care delivery and improve access to family physicians.
- Implementing the Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Program, which expands the role of nurse practitioners by allowing them to practise comprehensive patient care autonomously, either by operating their own practices or working independently within existing primary care settings.
Related information
-
Opinion1 day ago
How Christianity Remade the World
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
How The NFL Grinch Bought Xmas: Drowning In A Sea of Football
-
Health1 day ago
Dr. Malone: Bird flu ‘emergency’ in California is a case of psychological bioterrorism
-
armed forces1 day ago
Canadian military deployed ‘gender advisors’ to Ukraine, Haiti at taxpayers’ expense
-
Business1 day ago
Rand Paul Releases Report Detailing $1,000,000,000,000 In Gov’t Waste. Here Are The Worst Offenders
-
Business2 days ago
Taxpayers release Naughty and Nice List