47 ms·

Is early-onset cancer an emerging global epidemic?

227 points by v4dok 4y ago

NhanH 4y ago
I can't find a source with the full paper at all. And I'm guessing that's why there is no comment here.
- posterboy 4y ago
  This is the source, the full article costs only $99 on a journal subscrption, all expenses paid by a university near you in case you have access
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    If it isn't on sci-hub, does it even exist? (/s)
phkahler 4y ago
>> Increased use of screening programmes has contributed to this phenomenon to a certain extent, although a genuine increase in the incidence of early-onset forms of several cancer types also seems to have emerged. How do they separate these two. Early testing is becoming more common so you expect to see more cancer simply due to looking for it. Doc: Early screening has increased the 5-year survival rate for various cancers. Patient: Of course it has, but will I live any longer?
- letsgo39 4y ago
  You should be able to see the 'real' increase from death rates, assuming the cause of death is correctly identified as cancer pre or post mortem.
  - importantbrian 4y ago
    This is the reason most medical studies look at all cause mortality. Cause of death reporting is prone to all kinds of medical judgement and human error that cause reporting specific causes of death to be problematic.
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    Cancer death rates are going down [1], which to me means we are probably better at treating cancer but also probably finding it more often even when not life threatening and might have gone on unnoticed in an earlier time. Also we are getting better at treating other diseases and living longer, leading to being more likely to get cancer since if you live long enough you will almost certainly get some form of it. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-deaths/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-de...
    - cerol 4y ago
      It's slow progress, but we can dream of a day where getting a cancer diagnosis is not a death sentence, but rather something like HIV. Not really curable, but with the right treatment, you can live a fairly normal life. You die with cancer, but not of cancer.
- Gatsky 4y ago
  The only cancer routinely screened for in people under 50 is cervical cancer. Even then, the test detects precancerous lesions mainly. As such, ascertainment bias is not a major methodological concern.
  - Broken_Hippo 4y ago
    Ok. Overall, though, there aren't a lot of cancer screenings otherwise either. You might get a colonoscopy, but you probably aren't checking for bone cancer either. But you would probably get an MRI of your brain if you were having headaches. An ultrasound to check for gallstones, a CT scan to see if that's your appendix that is hurting. And we are getting way more scans than we used to. A lot of tumors are found as a result of modern imaging technology. More are found by self-examination: We know to watch moles and to do breast or testicular exams at home, for example. When we find precancerous stuff, we can often keep an eye on it and/or do something about it, hopefully before it gets out of hand.
  - copperx 4y ago
    Colon cancer guidelines have changed screenings to 45.
    - Gatsky 4y ago
      Yes, but that’s recent and after most of the data in the article was collected.
  - smt88 4y ago
    Lots of cancers are screened in younger people outside of routine: melanoma, colon cancer, breast cancer, etc. are all things that doctors will test for if a person has certain signs (like a suspicious mole or rectal polyps).
    - Gatsky 4y ago
      That isn’t screening though, which by definition occurs in people without symptoms or signs. It is true that better access to healthcare or higher health literacy or more scans being done for other reasons will increase the early detection rate of cancers in younger people. But this almost certainly doesn’t explain the increasing incidence as the article talks about.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Early-stage cancer survivorship rates are much higher, and early detection catches cancers at an earlier stage. Studies have been done that show the benefit of early screening, separate from the bias.
  - throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
    Do those studies account for the (emotional and monetary) cost of false positives from those early detection?
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      I don't think monetary cost was accounted for, and I assume by emotional cost you don't mean the hits to someone's health due to emotions (which are accounted for). It's really hard to get diagnosed with a cancer, but early detection is very helpful for improving outcomes. In the US (in particular), there is a lot more monetary cost to someone's late-stage cancer treatment, and then eventual death, than there is to early-stage cancer treatment, so I would assume that early screening tests are monetarily net beneficial based on the reduction in cancer deaths.
daniel-cussen 4y ago
Free radicals in the water table. Pollution in general. Plastic in the rainwater. Doesn't just affect nature. Backs up up the water table, from ocean to river from the slums to the hills. Good that we're doing it less and less, in some respects. Pollution is poison. Although there is always some. Even very primitive societies eg in the Amazon Basin pollute a bit and after like ten years they move to a new place, and the go in circles in the long run, sustainable.
- myth_drannon 4y ago
  We can scale it to planets. We pollute this planet and then move to another, then another. Come back to Earth in 10 million years. The only small problem with that is that we are not that advanced to do it.
  - jodrellblank 4y ago
    The problem is that there aren't any other planets. Venus is an inferno, Mars may as well be made of asbestos dust with a side of radiation and drought, those are the most hospitable ones in this solar system and we're not getting anywhere further anytime soon[1]. And the amount of rockets and environmental damage to launch billions of people and enough spaceships for billions of people is ... a lot. [1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high...
    - daniel-cussen 4y ago
      No it's not that much, it's water in the atmosphere, hypergolic fuels were before. Steam. It's fine. Although yes when metal vaporizes up in reentry that is pollution.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    That's funny because Elon Musk in his capacity as a vehicle entrepreneur has not only advanced the expansion to Mars, by leaps and bounds, hey if before we could get a million people there now we can get 100 million, or if we could get 100 million now we can get everybody out. Leaps and bounds. Costs the same as a college degree to get a rocket into orbit, in fuel terms. Yeah like $200000, well that's only if you get a scholarship and the price of fuel doesn't skyrocket, but similar. Similar. So what's contradictory is he also yes made good advances with batteries for cars (fixed everything honestly) but really got every other carmaker feeling real threatened right in the business model. A sensitive delicate place, you understand. He got everybody else putting eg 20 billion like Ford into researching electric cars, and partering up, making...making their thing, good cars too, but I would buy no other than a Tesla for a simple reason. Accidents. Fewer accidents is less pollution, yes Tesla allegedly pushes it as self-driving and sometimes it is (Elon gets lied to I saw it once), but really the really cool thing is an incredibly bad driver like me can drive a car while doing his best to pay attention together with the car's safety system. Not instead of. In tandem. Then you don't get all those cadavers filling up the graveyard which takes up land, no joke very expensive South SF...yes the human tragedy yes. But the media overlooks it like nothing so for purely the sake of argument I can focus on the pollution. Well maybe not, pollutes those people with something toxic, there's a debate in medicine eg punches are toxic, blunt force trauma is toxic. Think about that. Well then they're in the hospital for weeks, then the doctors pollute them perhaps [1]. Then, pollution, in the junkyard. Then, you need another car, pollution in the mines to purify the metal...lithium in Chile. So what's the ecological alternative? Basically horses, the original self-driving car, and very ecological. Ford said if he asked people they'd say they wanted faster horses, that is what Tesla makes. . [1] Change of subject: they did this to me twice, to figure out how to do poison you with no excuses, no loopholes, no fucking consent. Shut you up before you open your mouth. Wait wasn't it going to be just two vaccines and that'd be it? Shut up. Can I assay this vaccine? Shut up. Can I object on religious grounds? Ten years ago yes. Shut the fuck up. Like turns out I haven't met a single Covid death, not personally obviously, you neither, through an acquaintance only one, and he died because he went to a hospital, caught Covid in a hospital with an existing condition. Yes I do know how to bitch down to social expectations under the threat of being labeled as a stereotype, or like I used to, sorry, I knew too much it was lobotomized. Dude no excuses nothing don't take no for an answer (violers's slogan), oh there was an exception but you didn't qualify, learn to poison people on the schizos first, then the rest. Nazi playbook, literally. First they came for me man, they're coming for you now. Well didn't poison me twice, hundreds of times meaning two different pills, but second time, mostly dodged it. They provided no benefit and had serious side effects, second one required signatures for consent that were extorted out of 100% of the patients (Clozapine at Clínica Rayencura, full court press, tiered rewards in the Caribbean 10% you get a plane ticket 20% you get a hotel room 30% you get a boat ride to the secret island, shooting for that 100% consent, they got caught in fact biggest suit of its kind, not big enough did it again), doctors say first do no harm. No benefit just harm, poison. Dude just read the consent form (consent is code for rape), then recognized the name, said Oh that Abbott wants me to take this pill? Fuck that. So second time around I was wise and dodged, only guy in the rehab to dodge obesity and immune compromise, it gives you AIDS ["Te da SIDA" -- Juan Luis Lorca Tobar, like July 2018], Abbott--which I'm dying to take to court. Dying to take that Abbott to court. This close to giving me AIDS? What an Abbott. But due to torture that is their fault in part as well, I by design can't properly communicate with any lawyer within the hour I get for free, who'll take the case and ride to victory fucking them in the Federal Circuit...dude my dream. Someday I will get my day in court, evidently not within 13 years, maybe not even 20 years, someday. Dude combination of the 6th and 13th amendment. I can justify with exact mathematics the shrink industry is treating me like a slave. And you know my code compiles. Let that be known. That Abbott owes me money. Hey, Abbott, abbot, cleric right there in the name. Like there's no hot guys studying sixty years to get their degree as a cleric. They get work, or, in the club, get worked, women jumping them nonstop, me too but I think my libido is very damaged again lobotomy. Cleric is a pervy career path basically, come on no partying til 35 and then crazy? Women don't like doctors anymore, just like...eeegh. Yeah money yeah, literally blood money. And even then always beta. Alpha on the secret island? Yeah. Gray's Anatomy, yeah. Patrick Dempsey is handsome and an actor, as counterfactual as it gets, exact opposite career path, bleached his hair to look gray in fact. American Medicine subsidizes those shows for you to trust them. There's good doctors too, that's why they call them good doctors, like dumb blondes, why not just say doctors, why not just say blondes? I was blond, still considered blond in the modeling industry I would say dirty blond. But when I was small? Blond. Smart as fuck. [And in general blondes are only dumb insofar as jealousy first, secondly loss of innocence ie sex diminishes their fairness depending on whom it's with chimeric DNA goes everywhere, yellow felt-tip pen. Finally it's a trait indicating youth, apart from that I] Proved it hardcore, under a psychiatric handicap, beat the secretly nationally-ranked shrink at chess. They had to let me out at that point, but it was a bullshit thing it was an illusion to torture their patients, all I have to do is win this game (which is impossible) and I'm free. Even if you win they won't let you out any sooner. Not a good doctor, not a dumb blond. You can see the before and after on http://fgemm.com http://fgemm.com, my whole history before during and after the torture ward, which had HN access isn't that a nice perk? Another patient who was a lifer said, "cuatro estrellas.". Four star hotel. Lindsay Lohan that's five stars, Hollywood rehab, there's one in Chile nobody said a word about, a rumor among my favorite people. Great food for one, not niggardly with the calories, number one, you'd think if they pretended to understand milligrams they would need to understand calories, nope. Should lose their degrees just for that. Cept for the anorexics. . This where it gets interesting. . So one killer strategy--you really want the shrinktalk I got for you? First off you will remain inside until either your sponsor runs out of money or you stop insisting you're sane. Dude you want to get out (not always better on the outside though), dude shut the fuck up if you want to get released. Just shut the fuck up. Stop saying you're not insane, never accuse more than one person, play dumb because they won't stop til you are dumb. Amnestic drug lobotomy. . I read advice on reddit, Epic Shrinktalk, dude said 1) take shit and 2) ask if you're making progress. Dude playbook for May 12, 2012, right there! That was literally it! I owe him royalties...let me pay them by divulging the following. I took some shit (better than taking on a whole gang) and I asked if I was making progress. And I had signed in myself, that's when they roll out the red carpet if it's legit. Now I know if you're eg a psychiatrist considering treating me reading this you'll be like...the fuck? But bear in mind, lobotomized into divulging compulsively, lost my shit after the final third time of abduction, and second, come on doc you watched One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. You're a doctor, or a good doctor? White horses are not horses, as the Ancient Chinese, School of Names, said. Genius. I've had much more than my share of good doctors, I'm a lifer. I didn't look under a rock, I did a rock census. I know there's 950-998 psychs in Chile. I know what they can do and what they can't. I know the system. I bought the Law Book and read as far as I could, well like any book if there's five words you don't understand on the first page it's beyond your level. Fifteen laws broken in my gainst. OK, so here is something I did understand: If you like the medication (depends on the medication, Risperidone you don't have to) but if it's controlled pretend you hate it. Opioid? Say you're constipated. Oh stimulants uh, can I get something for my stomach ache with that? Do I have to take this pill every day, I'm getting sick in my throat...How do I swallow that down, like what yoghurt to mix it with? Research and complain about the side effects...dude literally swapping pills in the rehab, one man's trash is another man's treasure--outside the rehab, because inside there's no private property. Inside? One man's poison is another man's cure. We hated our shit. We were both flushing it. We wanted the other guy's. So trade. But like better than a trade, absolute gift in both directions. No yuck from saliva dude fuck it, did not care. This is coercion, this is Hell, get fat if you're uninformed because you didn't read this post. Dude your gut wis sticking out like a horse. And this is the right forum to talk about this. Look it all up, it's on http://fgemm.com http://fgemm.com
swader999 4y ago
Gee wonder what could have caused that.
- plmpsu 4y ago
  They're looking at the past several decades...
lebuffon 4y ago
I say this as often as I can. We have a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer with ~83% efficacy. Following the "bread-crumbs" seems like a good strategy to me. We have this little beasty in wild. Human T-lymphotropic virus type 1, but no vaccine. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-t-lymphotropic-virus-type-1 https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-t-lym... We have correlation with cancer with other viruses. Hep C for example. How many more clues do we need to expand research in this direction? Could the implications for the existing cancer "industry" preclude finding prophylactic methods? Asking for a friend.
- myroon5 4y ago
  Not even limited to cancer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32423720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32423720
- Test0129 4y ago
  I used to think this and I don't think so anymore. Consider a company who develops the de-facto cure for a cancer. Let's say a course of normal treatment to remission cost $200,000. There's no reason this company wouldn't release the cure. They would simple charge <COST_OF_NORMAL_TREATMENT> * <MARGIN> + <OPPORTUNITY_COST> for the drug. People would pay almost any amount for such a cure. The company would have no problem padding it's bottom line sufficiently.
  - hirvi74 4y ago
    Devil's Advocate: What if these companies did find a cure, and after running the numbers, determined it was less profitable? Wouldn't 'death by a thousand costs' be more profitable a one-time cure (or limited rounds)? Just because people would be willing to pay almost any amount does not mean they can pay almost any amount. (Personally, I think they would release a cure if they could find one, but I have heard arguments as to why it would be less profitable, and I am curious about your opinions. These companies are evil, but it's not entirely their faults. I think they are a manifestation of a sick society -- with each answer to our hopes and prayers the Monkey Paw curls.)
notamy 4y ago
The most disturbing part, to me, is this: > The early-onset cancer epidemic might be one manifestation of increasing trends in the development of many chronic diseases in young and future generations. Why are chronic diseases trending upwards? Is it the obvious things (pollution, microplastics, obesity, massive drain on mental health from the modern lifestyle, etc.), or is there something else going on?
- dani_german 4y ago
  The past 50 years have seen a huge spike in life expectancy averages almost everywhere worldwide, so I’m just guessing that more people than ever with genetic tendencies to have early cancer onset are surviving and passing down those traits. There is also more people being screened for cancer than ever before so more cases are being detected when 70 years ago they would’ve just died and no one would know why
- lambdaba 4y ago
  The result of misguidance from health professionals, big food & big pharma marketing. Not acknowledging that health is largely a result of lifestyle choices, and that pharmaceuticals are mostly ineffective and often harmful. And now for the specifics: - lies/bad science about meat (particularly red meat) being unhealthy - lies/bad science about cholesterol & saturated fat being unhealthy - not attacking sugar and processed foods at the highest level; should be treated like smoking if not even more harshly I say this for experience, until I fell ill I had no idea about either of those things. Like many of my peers, grew up with tons of sugar, and many misconceptions about what is healthy (although thankfully to a lesser extent than what's common nowadays) I'd also add that these things compound over the generations. We are more sensitive than our parents. It checks out for me, every generation has worsening autoimmune symptoms.
  - p886 4y ago
    plus: high-PUFA oils (seed / vegetable oils) being labelled as "heart-healthy"
    - 4y ago
aaron695 4y ago
illuminerdy 4y ago
samuelizdat 4y ago
I think a young Harvard math professor wrote about this in the 90's.
- dr_hooo 4y ago
  Sorry, but are we supposed to get this reference, or start Googling for math professor cancer?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - vermilingua 4y ago
    Ted Kaczynski
    - calvinmorrison 4y ago
      Doctor Ted Kaczynski
    - thebigspacefuck 4y ago
      That’s what I thought originally but he wasn’t ever professor at Harvard and he was in his 50s in the 90s so it must be someone else.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jker 4y ago
  Berkeley, not Harvard. He was a Harvard graduate, but taught at Berkeley, and in fact was the youngest math professor in Cal history.
bitwize 4y ago
- rajamaka 4y ago
  Source very much needed
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
If we're going to throw out random theories for the cause like diet and pollution, what about all the volatile chemicals off-gassing from freshly manufactured goods?
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  I actually wonder if viral epidemics are to blame? Increased air travel means rare viruses can become widespread.
- swayvil 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
    Impossible. It is safe and effective.
    - coding123 4y ago
      It is telling that people are unwilling to even talk about that. Telling that people fall off science for their political ideologies.
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        It's telling that people can't help but bring up some very-recent thing they're upset about for dubious reasons, when commenting on an article discussing a trend going back decades. People are "unwilling", in this thread, because it's irrelevant. Unless we're going for "all vaccines cause cancer", but from the context ("that vaccine", "It is safe and effective.") it seems we're talking about the Covid-19 vaccines. So, irrelevant. Whether they do or don't increase cancer risk (or even if they decrease it, which is also possible) has no bearing on the topic at hand.
        swayvil 4y ago
dukeofdoom 4y ago
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  name checks out :)
photochemsyn 4y ago
> "However, the effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown. To study early-life exposures and their implications for multiple cancer types will require prospective cohort studies with dedicated biobanking and data collection technologies." What that means is analytical body-burden data collection should be a medical norm, for a variety of substances: polychlorinated biphenyls, triazine herbicides (atrazine), industrial solvents like trichloroethylene, brominated fire retardants, nitrosoamines, plastic-sourced phthalates, perchlorates, hydrazine, hexavalent chromium and so on. Collecting such individual data via blood & urine samples (possibly fat biopsies & breast milk as well) on a yearly basis should really be part of a standard medical checkup procedure. That would provide a dataset which could be used to address that question. This is hardly a new proposal, for example see this 2001 PBS report, in which journalist Bill Moyers got his body burden test results: https://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden.html https://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden.html The results are not unusual. Each of us has some load of industrial chemicals stored in or passing through our bodies. These chemical residues – termed the "chemical body burden" – can be detected in blood, urine and breast milk.
- adamredwoods 4y ago
  Even Nature stated microplastics are everywhere, yet we do not know what effects it will have. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01143-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01143-3
  - istinetz 4y ago
    What do you mean, "even Nature"? They have no incentive to downplay the omnipresence of microplastics
    - krab 4y ago
      I understand it as "not only alarmist sources but also a reputable journal".
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
oxff 4y ago
U relax the Malthusian selection, u get side effects, simple as.
- honkler 4y ago
  this. It's because of mutational load of not letting darwin do its thing
elektor 4y ago
Link to full text paper: https://docdro.id/BLOY55z https://docdro.id/BLOY55z
tinglymintyfrsh 4y ago
- beebmam 4y ago
  > Cancer is easily explained from an evolutionary optimization perspective Anything that "easily explains" cancer should be thrown right out as unscientific. Cancer is many diseases, many of which are profoundly different from the others in both mechanisms of action and causes. I kindly ask that you don't use such confident sounding language, either deluding yourself or others into believing your statements as true, when much of what you state is an untested (and probably unfalsifiable) hypothesis.
  - cerol 4y ago
    > Anything that "easily explains" cancer should be thrown right out as unscientific. Thank you. As someone who's recently lost a loved one to cancer, I've lost count of how many times I've wanted to choke people for coming out with these "simple cancer theories".
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
uwagar 4y ago
[flagged]
- jjcon 4y ago
  Considering the trend started in the 90s and hasn't shown any particular jump in the past couple years that isn't supported by this research.
  - uwagar 4y ago
    dont forget excess deaths.
irrational 4y ago
I feel like there has been a great increase in mental health issues: anxiety, depression, etc., especially among youth. I don’t recall these being major issues from when I was a youth in the late 80s and early 90s. I’m told that I’m wrong and people just didn’t talk about it so I wasn’t aware of it. But even amongst close family members and friends it wasn’t a thing. Now, I’ve seen some claim it is the post 9/11 world or social media, but I have to wonder if there is some chemical we are exposed to more that might be causing mental disorders in addition to early onset cancers.
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  Perhaps knowing that we aren't going to do anything significant about the climate crisis, and thus devastate our environment and the carrying capacity of the planet, might be what's making them a bit touchy.
- dan_quixote 4y ago
  What about constant stimuli fighting for our attention by exploiting our lizard-brain emotions every waking hour?
- gnrlst 4y ago
  > but I have to wonder if there is some chemical we are exposed to more that might be causing mental disorders in addition to early onset cancers. It's always easy to point the finger at a single cause, but the reality is that it's a series of factors that together act like a sophisticated, compound "attack" to the psyche: - Social media weakens your self-confidence and makes you feel in a constant state of inferiority, i.e. your present self. - The "post 9/11 world" you mention, is simply a result of a general worsening of Western political relations over time, which are becoming especially evident recently. That state of turmoil weakens your sense of stability and security, making the future look bleak - i.e. your future self. - Further blows for the knockout: climate change, pollution / micro-plastics / rising costs of living, etc. I'm actually surprised depression, anxiety and other mental disorders aren't more common...but perhaps they will be.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
cjbgkagh 4y ago
[flagged]
dukeofdoom 4y ago
Sleep deficient seems to be connected to some cancers. Daily walking a lot seems to really be a key to longevity. Also to be healthy enough that you can ignore the pharmaceutical companies extensive and endless product line. Often you're just trading one problem for another, or just trading short term risk for long term risk or vice versa. And also have the mental strength to want to go on living with health problems. If you're in Canada and you get to old age, and up in an institution. Be prepared to be offered Euthanasia. 3% of Canadian deaths were that way last year.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sangnoir 4y ago
Wouldn't it be awful if unbridled capitalism turns out to be mankind's Great Filter? We'll be licky to become a Type I civilization after poisoning ourselves and the environment through exposure to chemicals and conditions we do not fully comprehend in return of some convenience, cheaper goods and making some a little richer.
- SamPatt 4y ago
  Pollution is bad. Pollution occurs in non-capitalist societies too. It's often much worse. Chernobyl-levels of incompetent and indifference towards environmental protection. Non-capitalist societies also do things like concentration camps and genocides and world wars and famines which don't seem to emerge as frequently in capitalist societies. Don't blame capitalism.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    Assuming everything you claim on the overall superiority of capitalism is correct, that doesn't still doesn't make it perfect. I am merely pointing out one of the imperfections - an unoriginal one at that: unbridled capitalism[1] does not correctly factor externalized costs, up to, and including mankind's long-term survival. 1. The "unbridled" qualification is deliberate, and very different from what I'm guessing is your idealized version.
  - 8note 4y ago
    That doesnt mean you can't blame capitalism. Capitalism rewards pollution, and that is a bad thing, even if a political/economic system built on nuking the planet every 5 minutes is also bad for different reasons
mihaic 4y ago
Anecdotally, I've found out in recent year about many women having serious thyroid issues. I'm sure more people being open about their health increases this, but the sheer frequency seems absurd. Whatever industrial chemicals we're ingesting need to be drastically controlled, and this poisoning needs to be branded so that the general population knows about it. I don't want years of my life to be an externality to a slightly cheaper industrial process.
- graaben 4y ago
  My wife (early 30s) was recently diagnosed with thyroid cancer and it's been absolutely shocking to hear how many other young women just in our social circle have also had it.
  - dham 4y ago
    I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer 6 years ago. I spontaneously developed hypothyroidism after a tetanus shot, so my thyroid was under supervision for 5 years prior. The main thing I took away from research and from my doctor, was that the imaging has advanced so much because people want to see high quality ultra sounds of their babies that it's simply just diagnosed more. It's also very slow spreading and not uncommon for someone to have thyroid cancer when they die. There's probably other environmental factors, radiation, diet, etc going on too.
- zackmorris 4y ago
  Not just women either. After going through a profound burnout in 2019 which caused me to develop chronic digestive issues, I worry that I injured my thyroid because I've had chills since even before having COVID. The proteins in gluten are similar to ones in the thyroid, so when the body becomes sensitized to something like wheat, it can also start attacking the thyroid (see autoimmune diseases like Hashimoto's). The problem is that flareups can by cyclical and not get detected by thyroid tests for years, until the damage is permanent. Also I've been researching how gluten sensitivity can destroy the lining of the small intestine in Crohn's disease. That damage can cause permanent loss of ability to absorb nutrients. It's unclear if the rise of the severe non-Crohn's gluten sensitivity we're seeing causes similar but smaller injuries, lumped into pseudo-science terms like leaky gut. The western high-sugar diet is highly inflammatory, disrupting the endocrine system and eventually leading to metabolic syndrome, neuropathy, possibly even multiple sclerosis (MS). The epidemiological studies aren't there to show that definitively, but I feel that's due to factory farm industry/pharmaceutical lobby suppression of government funding for those studies. I believe my issues started due to self-medicating my stress and depression with a finger of rye whiskey or cheap beer way too many nights of the week, chronic dehydration from working out, and not knowing how hard casein protein supplements and whole wheat/barley/rye are on the gut. Switching to half a glass of red wine with dinner each night, eating rice/corn instead of wheat, and avoiding all FODMAPs/milk/tree nuts for a year drastically improved my health to the point where I'm back at my old strength in the gym and consider my issues to be in remission as long as I avoid certain triggers. Anyway, I wasn't sure where to chime in on this, because the corruption of our food supply and rise of severe mental health issues are all connected. When I burned out, I lost the ability to take care of myself for about 6 months as bills started piling up. Burnout from anxiety can be devastating to neurodivergent thinkers like me who already struggle with ADHD and/or autistic symptoms. I didn't truly begin my healing journey until the pandemic. So simple tasks like getting insurance, going to the doctor or seeking counseling feel can feel insurmountable. I'm still trying to get ahead of the curve enough to take more tests and get some definitive answers. But I'm grateful beyond words to have gotten this far and be able to write this now. If anyone has experienced anything similar to what I'm saying, do you remember what year your symptoms started, or when your friends and family started reporting them? Edit: deleted my rant about globalization's affect on our food supply/climate/health.
mlindner 4y ago
Given that there's no accurate global historical measurements of cancer, anything of this sort is going to be heavily biased by the measurement. You can only look at this comparative historical thing in certain developed countries with long histories of detecting all cancers.
dev_throw 4y ago
My bet is on hormonal changes due to modern living and/or it's impact on the gut microbiome. I'm mid thirties with low body fat and somewhat athletic and got diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer last year with no history in the family. My support groups regularly get new people around my age. It's scary to think that in the next few years these cancers will no longer be an old person's illness because chemo is absolutely devastating.
- stevetesla 4y ago
  What were your symptoms if I may ask???
andrenotgiant 4y ago
Does Betteredge's law of headlines apply to academic papers?
wikitopian 4y ago
- mikedelago 4y ago
  Is there a source on this? My understanding is that current trends were lower now than what they were in the past as far as promiscuity goes
- rendang 4y ago
  Which ones aside from HPV?
  - wikitopian 4y ago
    Ankylosing Spondylitis is one example, though I believe the area is critically under-researched.
hammock 4y ago
How much is climate change to blame for this epidemic?
jah242 4y ago
For context, looking at UK data: 1. Yes incidence of cancer in 25-49 year olds has increased 22% from 1993 to 2018 - but that is 22% on a very low number which means it is still a very low number. When you account for increased screening, greater awareness, and better testing, the increase is likely even smaller. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age#heading-Three https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-... 2. Better treatment (and more effective screening) means mortality rates per 100k from all cancers in 25-49 has dropped c.40% over the same period (despite higher incidence). https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/mortality/age#heading-Three https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-... So whilst this is obviously important to study. At least the UK data doesn't seem too terrifying but I m no expert.
synergy20 4y ago
Could this be related to GMO food? or maybe just the industrialization of food in general? I also noticed for people born after 1995 there are 18% identify themselves as non-binary these days, I wonder this is also from the same cause, i.e. industrial food related, but I don't have concrete data to back this up. Longevity is improving slowly, hope one day we can fully catch cancel from onset, I'm aware of quite a few who were taken away by cancers in their 50s or early 60s, sadly.
- elevaet 4y ago
  > I also noticed for people born after 1995 there are 18% identify themselves as non-binary these days, I wonder this is also from the same cause I wonder about this too. We have a lot more PFAS chemicals in our environments (and bodies) these days and they are known to be endocrine disruptors. It seems plausible that these could be affecting sexual development/identity.
- api 4y ago
  Sauce needed for that percentage. It strains credulity. That’s almost one in five. Also have to point out that until very recently we had no reliable data. If you stop burning witches and then it seems like everyone is becoming a witch, that is probably not what is happening. What is happening is that people are admitting it. The best we have from the past are anonymous surveys and those tended to be done by colleges or by people like Kinsey. That is not going to give you a random sample even if we assume everyone on those surveys was fully aware of how they felt and 100% honest.
  - synergy20 4y ago
    https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup here is one source, if you google, there are plenty, many are quite authoritative. I have kids in k-12, and both them and I observed this trend over the years. There might be a biological reason behind it, further boosted by the culture wind these days.
enviclash 4y ago
Since when are we using so many chemicals in soap and deodorants? Since when is soap the mainstream thing for washing the body? I am just curious, I remember an ecotoxicologist detailing the interaction of deodorants with hormons, it was pretty scary.
- saurik 4y ago
  > Since when is soap the mainstream thing for washing the body? For soap, it sounds like maybe 3500 years ago? (Which is 1000 years after it was invented.) https://time.com/5831828/soap-origins/ https://time.com/5831828/soap-origins/

227 points by v4dok 4y ago

NhanH 4y ago

I can't find a source with the full paper at all. And I'm guessing that's why there is no comment here.

posterboy 4y ago
This is the source, the full article costs only $99 on a journal subscrption, all expenses paid by a university near you in case you have access
- wongarsu 4y ago
  If it isn't on sci-hub, does it even exist? (/s)

phkahler 4y ago

>> Increased use of screening programmes has contributed to this phenomenon to a certain extent, although a genuine increase in the incidence of early-onset forms of several cancer types also seems to have emerged. How do they separate these two. Early testing is becoming more common so you expect to see more cancer simply due to looking for it. Doc: Early screening has increased the 5-year survival rate for various cancers. Patient: Of course it has, but will I live any longer?

letsgo39 4y ago
You should be able to see the 'real' increase from death rates, assuming the cause of death is correctly identified as cancer pre or post mortem.
- importantbrian 4y ago
  This is the reason most medical studies look at all cause mortality. Cause of death reporting is prone to all kinds of medical judgement and human error that cause reporting specific causes of death to be problematic.
- SigmundA 4y ago
  Cancer death rates are going down [1], which to me means we are probably better at treating cancer but also probably finding it more often even when not life threatening and might have gone on unnoticed in an earlier time. Also we are getting better at treating other diseases and living longer, leading to being more likely to get cancer since if you live long enough you will almost certainly get some form of it. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-deaths/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-de...
  - cerol 4y ago
    It's slow progress, but we can dream of a day where getting a cancer diagnosis is not a death sentence, but rather something like HIV. Not really curable, but with the right treatment, you can live a fairly normal life. You die with cancer, but not of cancer.
Gatsky 4y ago
The only cancer routinely screened for in people under 50 is cervical cancer. Even then, the test detects precancerous lesions mainly. As such, ascertainment bias is not a major methodological concern.
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  Ok. Overall, though, there aren't a lot of cancer screenings otherwise either. You might get a colonoscopy, but you probably aren't checking for bone cancer either. But you would probably get an MRI of your brain if you were having headaches. An ultrasound to check for gallstones, a CT scan to see if that's your appendix that is hurting. And we are getting way more scans than we used to. A lot of tumors are found as a result of modern imaging technology. More are found by self-examination: We know to watch moles and to do breast or testicular exams at home, for example. When we find precancerous stuff, we can often keep an eye on it and/or do something about it, hopefully before it gets out of hand.
- copperx 4y ago
  Colon cancer guidelines have changed screenings to 45.
  - Gatsky 4y ago
    Yes, but that’s recent and after most of the data in the article was collected.
- smt88 4y ago
  Lots of cancers are screened in younger people outside of routine: melanoma, colon cancer, breast cancer, etc. are all things that doctors will test for if a person has certain signs (like a suspicious mole or rectal polyps).
  - Gatsky 4y ago
    That isn’t screening though, which by definition occurs in people without symptoms or signs. It is true that better access to healthcare or higher health literacy or more scans being done for other reasons will increase the early detection rate of cancers in younger people. But this almost certainly doesn’t explain the increasing incidence as the article talks about.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
Early-stage cancer survivorship rates are much higher, and early detection catches cancers at an earlier stage. Studies have been done that show the benefit of early screening, separate from the bias.
- throw_nbvc1234 4y ago
  Do those studies account for the (emotional and monetary) cost of false positives from those early detection?
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    I don't think monetary cost was accounted for, and I assume by emotional cost you don't mean the hits to someone's health due to emotions (which are accounted for). It's really hard to get diagnosed with a cancer, but early detection is very helpful for improving outcomes. In the US (in particular), there is a lot more monetary cost to someone's late-stage cancer treatment, and then eventual death, than there is to early-stage cancer treatment, so I would assume that early screening tests are monetarily net beneficial based on the reduction in cancer deaths.

daniel-cussen 4y ago

Free radicals in the water table. Pollution in general. Plastic in the rainwater. Doesn't just affect nature. Backs up up the water table, from ocean to river from the slums to the hills. Good that we're doing it less and less, in some respects. Pollution is poison. Although there is always some. Even very primitive societies eg in the Amazon Basin pollute a bit and after like ten years they move to a new place, and the go in circles in the long run, sustainable.

myth_drannon 4y ago
We can scale it to planets. We pollute this planet and then move to another, then another. Come back to Earth in 10 million years. The only small problem with that is that we are not that advanced to do it.
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  The problem is that there aren't any other planets. Venus is an inferno, Mars may as well be made of asbestos dust with a side of radiation and drought, those are the most hospitable ones in this solar system and we're not getting anywhere further anytime soon[1]. And the amount of rockets and environmental damage to launch billions of people and enough spaceships for billions of people is ... a lot. [1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high...
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    No it's not that much, it's water in the atmosphere, hypergolic fuels were before. Steam. It's fine. Although yes when metal vaporizes up in reentry that is pollution.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  That's funny because Elon Musk in his capacity as a vehicle entrepreneur has not only advanced the expansion to Mars, by leaps and bounds, hey if before we could get a million people there now we can get 100 million, or if we could get 100 million now we can get everybody out. Leaps and bounds. Costs the same as a college degree to get a rocket into orbit, in fuel terms. Yeah like $200000, well that's only if you get a scholarship and the price of fuel doesn't skyrocket, but similar. Similar. So what's contradictory is he also yes made good advances with batteries for cars (fixed everything honestly) but really got every other carmaker feeling real threatened right in the business model. A sensitive delicate place, you understand. He got everybody else putting eg 20 billion like Ford into researching electric cars, and partering up, making...making their thing, good cars too, but I would buy no other than a Tesla for a simple reason. Accidents. Fewer accidents is less pollution, yes Tesla allegedly pushes it as self-driving and sometimes it is (Elon gets lied to I saw it once), but really the really cool thing is an incredibly bad driver like me can drive a car while doing his best to pay attention together with the car's safety system. Not instead of. In tandem. Then you don't get all those cadavers filling up the graveyard which takes up land, no joke very expensive South SF...yes the human tragedy yes. But the media overlooks it like nothing so for purely the sake of argument I can focus on the pollution. Well maybe not, pollutes those people with something toxic, there's a debate in medicine eg punches are toxic, blunt force trauma is toxic. Think about that. Well then they're in the hospital for weeks, then the doctors pollute them perhaps [1]. Then, pollution, in the junkyard. Then, you need another car, pollution in the mines to purify the metal...lithium in Chile. So what's the ecological alternative? Basically horses, the original self-driving car, and very ecological. Ford said if he asked people they'd say they wanted faster horses, that is what Tesla makes. . [1] Change of subject: they did this to me twice, to figure out how to do poison you with no excuses, no loopholes, no fucking consent. Shut you up before you open your mouth. Wait wasn't it going to be just two vaccines and that'd be it? Shut up. Can I assay this vaccine? Shut up. Can I object on religious grounds? Ten years ago yes. Shut the fuck up. Like turns out I haven't met a single Covid death, not personally obviously, you neither, through an acquaintance only one, and he died because he went to a hospital, caught Covid in a hospital with an existing condition. Yes I do know how to bitch down to social expectations under the threat of being labeled as a stereotype, or like I used to, sorry, I knew too much it was lobotomized. Dude no excuses nothing don't take no for an answer (violers's slogan), oh there was an exception but you didn't qualify, learn to poison people on the schizos first, then the rest. Nazi playbook, literally. First they came for me man, they're coming for you now. Well didn't poison me twice, hundreds of times meaning two different pills, but second time, mostly dodged it. They provided no benefit and had serious side effects, second one required signatures for consent that were extorted out of 100% of the patients (Clozapine at Clínica Rayencura, full court press, tiered rewards in the Caribbean 10% you get a plane ticket 20% you get a hotel room 30% you get a boat ride to the secret island, shooting for that 100% consent, they got caught in fact biggest suit of its kind, not big enough did it again), doctors say first do no harm. No benefit just harm, poison. Dude just read the consent form (consent is code for rape), then recognized the name, said Oh that Abbott wants me to take this pill? Fuck that. So second time around I was wise and dodged, only guy in the rehab to dodge obesity and immune compromise, it gives you AIDS ["Te da SIDA" -- Juan Luis Lorca Tobar, like July 2018], Abbott--which I'm dying to take to court. Dying to take that Abbott to court. This close to giving me AIDS? What an Abbott. But due to torture that is their fault in part as well, I by design can't properly communicate with any lawyer within the hour I get for free, who'll take the case and ride to victory fucking them in the Federal Circuit...dude my dream. Someday I will get my day in court, evidently not within 13 years, maybe not even 20 years, someday. Dude combination of the 6th and 13th amendment. I can justify with exact mathematics the shrink industry is treating me like a slave. And you know my code compiles. Let that be known. That Abbott owes me money. Hey, Abbott, abbot, cleric right there in the name. Like there's no hot guys studying sixty years to get their degree as a cleric. They get work, or, in the club, get worked, women jumping them nonstop, me too but I think my libido is very damaged again lobotomy. Cleric is a pervy career path basically, come on no partying til 35 and then crazy? Women don't like doctors anymore, just like...eeegh. Yeah money yeah, literally blood money. And even then always beta. Alpha on the secret island? Yeah. Gray's Anatomy, yeah. Patrick Dempsey is handsome and an actor, as counterfactual as it gets, exact opposite career path, bleached his hair to look gray in fact. American Medicine subsidizes those shows for you to trust them. There's good doctors too, that's why they call them good doctors, like dumb blondes, why not just say doctors, why not just say blondes? I was blond, still considered blond in the modeling industry I would say dirty blond. But when I was small? Blond. Smart as fuck. [And in general blondes are only dumb insofar as jealousy first, secondly loss of innocence ie sex diminishes their fairness depending on whom it's with chimeric DNA goes everywhere, yellow felt-tip pen. Finally it's a trait indicating youth, apart from that I] Proved it hardcore, under a psychiatric handicap, beat the secretly nationally-ranked shrink at chess. They had to let me out at that point, but it was a bullshit thing it was an illusion to torture their patients, all I have to do is win this game (which is impossible) and I'm free. Even if you win they won't let you out any sooner. Not a good doctor, not a dumb blond. You can see the before and after on http://fgemm.com http://fgemm.com, my whole history before during and after the torture ward, which had HN access isn't that a nice perk? Another patient who was a lifer said, "cuatro estrellas.". Four star hotel. Lindsay Lohan that's five stars, Hollywood rehab, there's one in Chile nobody said a word about, a rumor among my favorite people. Great food for one, not niggardly with the calories, number one, you'd think if they pretended to understand milligrams they would need to understand calories, nope. Should lose their degrees just for that. Cept for the anorexics. . This where it gets interesting. . So one killer strategy--you really want the shrinktalk I got for you? First off you will remain inside until either your sponsor runs out of money or you stop insisting you're sane. Dude you want to get out (not always better on the outside though), dude shut the fuck up if you want to get released. Just shut the fuck up. Stop saying you're not insane, never accuse more than one person, play dumb because they won't stop til you are dumb. Amnestic drug lobotomy. . I read advice on reddit, Epic Shrinktalk, dude said 1) take shit and 2) ask if you're making progress. Dude playbook for May 12, 2012, right there! That was literally it! I owe him royalties...let me pay them by divulging the following. I took some shit (better than taking on a whole gang) and I asked if I was making progress. And I had signed in myself, that's when they roll out the red carpet if it's legit. Now I know if you're eg a psychiatrist considering treating me reading this you'll be like...the fuck? But bear in mind, lobotomized into divulging compulsively, lost my shit after the final third time of abduction, and second, come on doc you watched One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. You're a doctor, or a good doctor? White horses are not horses, as the Ancient Chinese, School of Names, said. Genius. I've had much more than my share of good doctors, I'm a lifer. I didn't look under a rock, I did a rock census. I know there's 950-998 psychs in Chile. I know what they can do and what they can't. I know the system. I bought the Law Book and read as far as I could, well like any book if there's five words you don't understand on the first page it's beyond your level. Fifteen laws broken in my gainst. OK, so here is something I did understand: If you like the medication (depends on the medication, Risperidone you don't have to) but if it's controlled pretend you hate it. Opioid? Say you're constipated. Oh stimulants uh, can I get something for my stomach ache with that? Do I have to take this pill every day, I'm getting sick in my throat...How do I swallow that down, like what yoghurt to mix it with? Research and complain about the side effects...dude literally swapping pills in the rehab, one man's trash is another man's treasure--outside the rehab, because inside there's no private property. Inside? One man's poison is another man's cure. We hated our shit. We were both flushing it. We wanted the other guy's. So trade. But like better than a trade, absolute gift in both directions. No yuck from saliva dude fuck it, did not care. This is coercion, this is Hell, get fat if you're uninformed because you didn't read this post. Dude your gut wis sticking out like a horse. And this is the right forum to talk about this. Look it all up, it's on http://fgemm.com http://fgemm.com

swader999 4y ago

Gee wonder what could have caused that.

plmpsu 4y ago
They're looking at the past several decades...

lebuffon 4y ago

I say this as often as I can. We have a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer with ~83% efficacy. Following the "bread-crumbs" seems like a good strategy to me. We have this little beasty in wild. Human T-lymphotropic virus type 1, but no vaccine. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-t-lymphotropic-virus-type-1 https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-t-lym... We have correlation with cancer with other viruses. Hep C for example. How many more clues do we need to expand research in this direction? Could the implications for the existing cancer "industry" preclude finding prophylactic methods? Asking for a friend.

myroon5 4y ago
Not even limited to cancer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32423720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32423720
Test0129 4y ago
I used to think this and I don't think so anymore. Consider a company who develops the de-facto cure for a cancer. Let's say a course of normal treatment to remission cost $200,000. There's no reason this company wouldn't release the cure. They would simple charge <COST_OF_NORMAL_TREATMENT> * <MARGIN> + <OPPORTUNITY_COST> for the drug. People would pay almost any amount for such a cure. The company would have no problem padding it's bottom line sufficiently.
- hirvi74 4y ago
  Devil's Advocate: What if these companies did find a cure, and after running the numbers, determined it was less profitable? Wouldn't 'death by a thousand costs' be more profitable a one-time cure (or limited rounds)? Just because people would be willing to pay almost any amount does not mean they can pay almost any amount. (Personally, I think they would release a cure if they could find one, but I have heard arguments as to why it would be less profitable, and I am curious about your opinions. These companies are evil, but it's not entirely their faults. I think they are a manifestation of a sick society -- with each answer to our hopes and prayers the Monkey Paw curls.)

notamy 4y ago

The most disturbing part, to me, is this: > The early-onset cancer epidemic might be one manifestation of increasing trends in the development of many chronic diseases in young and future generations. Why are chronic diseases trending upwards? Is it the obvious things (pollution, microplastics, obesity, massive drain on mental health from the modern lifestyle, etc.), or is there something else going on?

dani_german 4y ago
The past 50 years have seen a huge spike in life expectancy averages almost everywhere worldwide, so I’m just guessing that more people than ever with genetic tendencies to have early cancer onset are surviving and passing down those traits. There is also more people being screened for cancer than ever before so more cases are being detected when 70 years ago they would’ve just died and no one would know why
lambdaba 4y ago
The result of misguidance from health professionals, big food & big pharma marketing. Not acknowledging that health is largely a result of lifestyle choices, and that pharmaceuticals are mostly ineffective and often harmful. And now for the specifics: - lies/bad science about meat (particularly red meat) being unhealthy - lies/bad science about cholesterol & saturated fat being unhealthy - not attacking sugar and processed foods at the highest level; should be treated like smoking if not even more harshly I say this for experience, until I fell ill I had no idea about either of those things. Like many of my peers, grew up with tons of sugar, and many misconceptions about what is healthy (although thankfully to a lesser extent than what's common nowadays) I'd also add that these things compound over the generations. We are more sensitive than our parents. It checks out for me, every generation has worsening autoimmune symptoms.
- p886 4y ago
  plus: high-PUFA oils (seed / vegetable oils) being labelled as "heart-healthy"
  - 4y ago

aaron695 4y ago

illuminerdy 4y ago

samuelizdat 4y ago

I think a young Harvard math professor wrote about this in the 90's.

dr_hooo 4y ago
Sorry, but are we supposed to get this reference, or start Googling for math professor cancer?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vermilingua 4y ago
  Ted Kaczynski
  - calvinmorrison 4y ago
    Doctor Ted Kaczynski
  - thebigspacefuck 4y ago
    That’s what I thought originally but he wasn’t ever professor at Harvard and he was in his 50s in the 90s so it must be someone else.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jker 4y ago
Berkeley, not Harvard. He was a Harvard graduate, but taught at Berkeley, and in fact was the youngest math professor in Cal history.

bitwize 4y ago

rajamaka 4y ago
Source very much needed
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago

If we're going to throw out random theories for the cause like diet and pollution, what about all the volatile chemicals off-gassing from freshly manufactured goods?

Robotbeat 4y ago
I actually wonder if viral epidemics are to blame? Increased air travel means rare viruses can become widespread.
swayvil 4y ago
[flagged]
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
  Impossible. It is safe and effective.
  - coding123 4y ago
    It is telling that people are unwilling to even talk about that. Telling that people fall off science for their political ideologies.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      It's telling that people can't help but bring up some very-recent thing they're upset about for dubious reasons, when commenting on an article discussing a trend going back decades. People are "unwilling", in this thread, because it's irrelevant. Unless we're going for "all vaccines cause cancer", but from the context ("that vaccine", "It is safe and effective.") it seems we're talking about the Covid-19 vaccines. So, irrelevant. Whether they do or don't increase cancer risk (or even if they decrease it, which is also possible) has no bearing on the topic at hand.
      - swayvil 4y ago

dukeofdoom 4y ago

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
name checks out :)

photochemsyn 4y ago

> "However, the effects of individual exposures remain largely unknown. To study early-life exposures and their implications for multiple cancer types will require prospective cohort studies with dedicated biobanking and data collection technologies." What that means is analytical body-burden data collection should be a medical norm, for a variety of substances: polychlorinated biphenyls, triazine herbicides (atrazine), industrial solvents like trichloroethylene, brominated fire retardants, nitrosoamines, plastic-sourced phthalates, perchlorates, hydrazine, hexavalent chromium and so on. Collecting such individual data via blood & urine samples (possibly fat biopsies & breast milk as well) on a yearly basis should really be part of a standard medical checkup procedure. That would provide a dataset which could be used to address that question. This is hardly a new proposal, for example see this 2001 PBS report, in which journalist Bill Moyers got his body burden test results: https://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden.html https://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden.html The results are not unusual. Each of us has some load of industrial chemicals stored in or passing through our bodies. These chemical residues – termed the "chemical body burden" – can be detected in blood, urine and breast milk.

adamredwoods 4y ago
Even Nature stated microplastics are everywhere, yet we do not know what effects it will have. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01143-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01143-3
- istinetz 4y ago
  What do you mean, "even Nature"? They have no incentive to downplay the omnipresence of microplastics
  - krab 4y ago
    I understand it as "not only alarmist sources but also a reputable journal".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

oxff 4y ago

U relax the Malthusian selection, u get side effects, simple as.

honkler 4y ago
this. It's because of mutational load of not letting darwin do its thing

elektor 4y ago

Link to full text paper: https://docdro.id/BLOY55z https://docdro.id/BLOY55z

tinglymintyfrsh 4y ago

beebmam 4y ago
> Cancer is easily explained from an evolutionary optimization perspective Anything that "easily explains" cancer should be thrown right out as unscientific. Cancer is many diseases, many of which are profoundly different from the others in both mechanisms of action and causes. I kindly ask that you don't use such confident sounding language, either deluding yourself or others into believing your statements as true, when much of what you state is an untested (and probably unfalsifiable) hypothesis.
- cerol 4y ago
  > Anything that "easily explains" cancer should be thrown right out as unscientific. Thank you. As someone who's recently lost a loved one to cancer, I've lost count of how many times I've wanted to choke people for coming out with these "simple cancer theories".
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

uwagar 4y ago

[flagged]

jjcon 4y ago
Considering the trend started in the 90s and hasn't shown any particular jump in the past couple years that isn't supported by this research.
- uwagar 4y ago
  dont forget excess deaths.

irrational 4y ago

I feel like there has been a great increase in mental health issues: anxiety, depression, etc., especially among youth. I don’t recall these being major issues from when I was a youth in the late 80s and early 90s. I’m told that I’m wrong and people just didn’t talk about it so I wasn’t aware of it. But even amongst close family members and friends it wasn’t a thing. Now, I’ve seen some claim it is the post 9/11 world or social media, but I have to wonder if there is some chemical we are exposed to more that might be causing mental disorders in addition to early onset cancers.

TomSwirly 4y ago
Perhaps knowing that we aren't going to do anything significant about the climate crisis, and thus devastate our environment and the carrying capacity of the planet, might be what's making them a bit touchy.
dan_quixote 4y ago
What about constant stimuli fighting for our attention by exploiting our lizard-brain emotions every waking hour?
gnrlst 4y ago
> but I have to wonder if there is some chemical we are exposed to more that might be causing mental disorders in addition to early onset cancers. It's always easy to point the finger at a single cause, but the reality is that it's a series of factors that together act like a sophisticated, compound "attack" to the psyche: - Social media weakens your self-confidence and makes you feel in a constant state of inferiority, i.e. your present self. - The "post 9/11 world" you mention, is simply a result of a general worsening of Western political relations over time, which are becoming especially evident recently. That state of turmoil weakens your sense of stability and security, making the future look bleak - i.e. your future self. - Further blows for the knockout: climate change, pollution / micro-plastics / rising costs of living, etc. I'm actually surprised depression, anxiety and other mental disorders aren't more common...but perhaps they will be.
- whimsicalism 4y ago

cjbgkagh 4y ago

[flagged]

dukeofdoom 4y ago

Sleep deficient seems to be connected to some cancers. Daily walking a lot seems to really be a key to longevity. Also to be healthy enough that you can ignore the pharmaceutical companies extensive and endless product line. Often you're just trading one problem for another, or just trading short term risk for long term risk or vice versa. And also have the mental strength to want to go on living with health problems. If you're in Canada and you get to old age, and up in an institution. Be prepared to be offered Euthanasia. 3% of Canadian deaths were that way last year.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sangnoir 4y ago

Wouldn't it be awful if unbridled capitalism turns out to be mankind's Great Filter? We'll be licky to become a Type I civilization after poisoning ourselves and the environment through exposure to chemicals and conditions we do not fully comprehend in return of some convenience, cheaper goods and making some a little richer.

SamPatt 4y ago
Pollution is bad. Pollution occurs in non-capitalist societies too. It's often much worse. Chernobyl-levels of incompetent and indifference towards environmental protection. Non-capitalist societies also do things like concentration camps and genocides and world wars and famines which don't seem to emerge as frequently in capitalist societies. Don't blame capitalism.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  Assuming everything you claim on the overall superiority of capitalism is correct, that doesn't still doesn't make it perfect. I am merely pointing out one of the imperfections - an unoriginal one at that: unbridled capitalism[1] does not correctly factor externalized costs, up to, and including mankind's long-term survival. 1. The "unbridled" qualification is deliberate, and very different from what I'm guessing is your idealized version.
- 8note 4y ago
  That doesnt mean you can't blame capitalism. Capitalism rewards pollution, and that is a bad thing, even if a political/economic system built on nuking the planet every 5 minutes is also bad for different reasons

mihaic 4y ago

Anecdotally, I've found out in recent year about many women having serious thyroid issues. I'm sure more people being open about their health increases this, but the sheer frequency seems absurd. Whatever industrial chemicals we're ingesting need to be drastically controlled, and this poisoning needs to be branded so that the general population knows about it. I don't want years of my life to be an externality to a slightly cheaper industrial process.

graaben 4y ago
My wife (early 30s) was recently diagnosed with thyroid cancer and it's been absolutely shocking to hear how many other young women just in our social circle have also had it.
- dham 4y ago
  I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer 6 years ago. I spontaneously developed hypothyroidism after a tetanus shot, so my thyroid was under supervision for 5 years prior. The main thing I took away from research and from my doctor, was that the imaging has advanced so much because people want to see high quality ultra sounds of their babies that it's simply just diagnosed more. It's also very slow spreading and not uncommon for someone to have thyroid cancer when they die. There's probably other environmental factors, radiation, diet, etc going on too.
zackmorris 4y ago
Not just women either. After going through a profound burnout in 2019 which caused me to develop chronic digestive issues, I worry that I injured my thyroid because I've had chills since even before having COVID. The proteins in gluten are similar to ones in the thyroid, so when the body becomes sensitized to something like wheat, it can also start attacking the thyroid (see autoimmune diseases like Hashimoto's). The problem is that flareups can by cyclical and not get detected by thyroid tests for years, until the damage is permanent. Also I've been researching how gluten sensitivity can destroy the lining of the small intestine in Crohn's disease. That damage can cause permanent loss of ability to absorb nutrients. It's unclear if the rise of the severe non-Crohn's gluten sensitivity we're seeing causes similar but smaller injuries, lumped into pseudo-science terms like leaky gut. The western high-sugar diet is highly inflammatory, disrupting the endocrine system and eventually leading to metabolic syndrome, neuropathy, possibly even multiple sclerosis (MS). The epidemiological studies aren't there to show that definitively, but I feel that's due to factory farm industry/pharmaceutical lobby suppression of government funding for those studies. I believe my issues started due to self-medicating my stress and depression with a finger of rye whiskey or cheap beer way too many nights of the week, chronic dehydration from working out, and not knowing how hard casein protein supplements and whole wheat/barley/rye are on the gut. Switching to half a glass of red wine with dinner each night, eating rice/corn instead of wheat, and avoiding all FODMAPs/milk/tree nuts for a year drastically improved my health to the point where I'm back at my old strength in the gym and consider my issues to be in remission as long as I avoid certain triggers. Anyway, I wasn't sure where to chime in on this, because the corruption of our food supply and rise of severe mental health issues are all connected. When I burned out, I lost the ability to take care of myself for about 6 months as bills started piling up. Burnout from anxiety can be devastating to neurodivergent thinkers like me who already struggle with ADHD and/or autistic symptoms. I didn't truly begin my healing journey until the pandemic. So simple tasks like getting insurance, going to the doctor or seeking counseling feel can feel insurmountable. I'm still trying to get ahead of the curve enough to take more tests and get some definitive answers. But I'm grateful beyond words to have gotten this far and be able to write this now. If anyone has experienced anything similar to what I'm saying, do you remember what year your symptoms started, or when your friends and family started reporting them? Edit: deleted my rant about globalization's affect on our food supply/climate/health.

mlindner 4y ago

Given that there's no accurate global historical measurements of cancer, anything of this sort is going to be heavily biased by the measurement. You can only look at this comparative historical thing in certain developed countries with long histories of detecting all cancers.

dev_throw 4y ago

My bet is on hormonal changes due to modern living and/or it's impact on the gut microbiome. I'm mid thirties with low body fat and somewhat athletic and got diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer last year with no history in the family. My support groups regularly get new people around my age. It's scary to think that in the next few years these cancers will no longer be an old person's illness because chemo is absolutely devastating.

stevetesla 4y ago
What were your symptoms if I may ask???

andrenotgiant 4y ago

Does Betteredge's law of headlines apply to academic papers?

wikitopian 4y ago

mikedelago 4y ago
Is there a source on this? My understanding is that current trends were lower now than what they were in the past as far as promiscuity goes
rendang 4y ago
Which ones aside from HPV?
- wikitopian 4y ago
  Ankylosing Spondylitis is one example, though I believe the area is critically under-researched.

hammock 4y ago

How much is climate change to blame for this epidemic?

jah242 4y ago

For context, looking at UK data: 1. Yes incidence of cancer in 25-49 year olds has increased 22% from 1993 to 2018 - but that is 22% on a very low number which means it is still a very low number. When you account for increased screening, greater awareness, and better testing, the increase is likely even smaller. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age#heading-Three https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-... 2. Better treatment (and more effective screening) means mortality rates per 100k from all cancers in 25-49 has dropped c.40% over the same period (despite higher incidence). https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/mortality/age#heading-Three https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-... So whilst this is obviously important to study. At least the UK data doesn't seem too terrifying but I m no expert.

synergy20 4y ago

Could this be related to GMO food? or maybe just the industrialization of food in general? I also noticed for people born after 1995 there are 18% identify themselves as non-binary these days, I wonder this is also from the same cause, i.e. industrial food related, but I don't have concrete data to back this up. Longevity is improving slowly, hope one day we can fully catch cancel from onset, I'm aware of quite a few who were taken away by cancers in their 50s or early 60s, sadly.

elevaet 4y ago
> I also noticed for people born after 1995 there are 18% identify themselves as non-binary these days, I wonder this is also from the same cause I wonder about this too. We have a lot more PFAS chemicals in our environments (and bodies) these days and they are known to be endocrine disruptors. It seems plausible that these could be affecting sexual development/identity.
api 4y ago
Sauce needed for that percentage. It strains credulity. That’s almost one in five. Also have to point out that until very recently we had no reliable data. If you stop burning witches and then it seems like everyone is becoming a witch, that is probably not what is happening. What is happening is that people are admitting it. The best we have from the past are anonymous surveys and those tended to be done by colleges or by people like Kinsey. That is not going to give you a random sample even if we assume everyone on those surveys was fully aware of how they felt and 100% honest.
- synergy20 4y ago
  https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup here is one source, if you google, there are plenty, many are quite authoritative. I have kids in k-12, and both them and I observed this trend over the years. There might be a biological reason behind it, further boosted by the culture wind these days.

enviclash 4y ago

Since when are we using so many chemicals in soap and deodorants? Since when is soap the mainstream thing for washing the body? I am just curious, I remember an ecotoxicologist detailing the interaction of deodorants with hormons, it was pretty scary.

saurik 4y ago
> Since when is soap the mainstream thing for washing the body? For soap, it sounds like maybe 3500 years ago? (Which is 1000 years after it was invented.) https://time.com/5831828/soap-origins/ https://time.com/5831828/soap-origins/