Flagged. Why is every article about cancer submitted to HN completely devoid of any links to studies? Doesn't that immediately throw a red flag to the submitter

Flagged. Why is every article about cancer submitted to HN completely devoid of any links to studies? Doesn't that immediately throw a red flag to the submitter? Isn't it obvious that, over a 30 year period, we would naturally get better at screening for and diagnosing cancers earlier in peoples' lives? The study I'm guessing this article is referring to (linked by jl6) uses the misleading term "incidence" which implies (to an untrained reader) that younger people are actually getting cancer at a higher rate. The more accurate term for layperson understanding would be that "discovery" of cancer has increased in younger people. In that case, the study is welcome news - when you discover cancer earlier in life, you can deal with it before it become metastatic (in some cases). There are some studies which do suggest a real problem here with specific types of cancers - like colon cancer, which really does seem to be increasing in incidence because more young people are actually dying from it as a percentage of the population. But this linked article is mostly clickbait.