> Diagnosis rates in the U.S. rose in 2019 to 107.8 cases per 100,000 people under 50, up 12.8% from 95.6 in 2000, federal data show. A study in BMJ Oncology last year reported a sharp global rise in cancers in people under 50, with the highest rates in North America, Australia and Western Europe.<p>This is a relatively small increase over ~25 years. How much of it is due to cases like the highlighted one (which is tragic, but clearly driven by symptoms), vs <i>increased screening</i>?<p>The US "standard" age for colonoscopy, for example, was recently dropped from 50 to 45...without really good evidence (essentially, just "updated models") [1]. This inevitably leads to higher rates of false positives in younger people. Over-treatment is a real risk in places like the US, where there are financial incentives to treat.<p>[1] old guidelines: <a href="https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/colorectal-cancer-screening-2002" rel="nofollow">https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recomme...</a><p>new guidelines: <a href="https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/colorectal-cancer-screening" rel="nofollow">https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recomme...</a>
This and all the other food additives combined together, in our modern Western diet. Yes, discovered while trying to make an insecticide.<p><a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/a-chemical-found-in-common-artificial-sweetener-may-cause-dna-damage-cancer" rel="nofollow">https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/a-chemical-found-i...</a><p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903" rel="nofollow">https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2...</a><p>Article about Sucralose:<p><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/goings-on/sweet-nothings" rel="nofollow">https://www.newyorker.com/culture/goings-on/sweet-nothings</a><p>"Over the next year, Hough and Phadnis worked with the British sugar company Tate & Lyle to make more than a hundred chlorinated sugars, finally settling on one that had three chlorine atoms and was about six hundred times as sweet as sugar. “It isn’t of any use as an insecticide,” Hough told me recently. “That was tested.” But it has proved useful as a food. In its pure form, it is known as sucralose. When mixed with fillers and sold in bright-yellow sachets, it’s known as Splenda, the best-selling artificial sweetener in America."
As an oncologist, the cause is unknown. But it's not so simple to point fingers at one cause. For example someone who is a heavy smoker (ie. a pack a day) gets cancer at a rate of 25% in their lifetime should they live to age 80. It's a delicate interplay between genetics, development, and environment. We should identify all modifiable risk factors and change our behavior to reduce exposure to them.
Someone here wrote "dysgenic breeding and medical progression" and was immediately so heavily downvoted that he removed that comment quickly.<p>Breeding sounds horrible, and I first needed to google dysgenic, which really makes that term even worse.. but still I wondered not only once:<p>We as civilization with our medical advances (about that I am totally happy) remove or at least change selection pressure, so isn't it inevitable that we partly also "downgrade"?<p>Further, given an illness that kills with lets say 50%, and that is influenced also by genetics: If we can now cure that, so make more people survive and reproduce with this, while factors and genetics stay: isn't it expected we may see this illness raise in the population?<p>Really seriously interested about answers.. there must be a way to properly discuss this? What's the right terms for this?<p>(Besides personally, my gut reaction would also be that change of environment and our lifestyle here is likely most significant factor).
Microplastics in every cell in our bodies, more and more food is made of lab chemical non-food substances. These are not controversial ideas. why is this baffling doctors again?<p>But let's talk about the things that are controversial, but really shouldn't be. Pesticides are carcinogenic. Landmark cases are making headlines but quickly sinking below the radar. Meat and diary consumption, despite the drum beat of evidence and recommendations, is accelerating at a rate that even experts find alarming. These foods are known carcinogens.<p>I went to a trendy bar recently and their bloody mary has skewers of smoked sausage and bacon. Sure, on one hand, yummm, bacon. On the other hand, there are whole continents of data proving without a doubt these foods cause cancer.
Interesting that colorectal, kidney and stomach cancers are some of the largest increases which could point to something in the food supply.<p>It's surprising that the rates increased in Western Europe that also have more stringent standards on food additives. This could mean something wide spread like microplastics rather than food dyes.
Baffled, lol. Micro plastics, hormones, preservatives, the capitalization of food production (food "product"). What is sold in major American grocery stores barely classifies as food.<p>Americans are being poisoned by the food we eat, how it's produced, packaged, distributed.<p>The only people baffled by it are those old enough that they were raised on actual food and don't understand what has happened the last few decades.
35 y/o male with stage 4 colon cancer here. You can creep my past comments on this site. Hopefully I can get down to MDAnderson for some clinical trials later this year.<p>I don't buy the "we're just better at detecting it" argument entirely. No millenial is getting routine colonoscopies. I don't know what the solutions are, but I hope they come pretty fucking quick.
The more I’ve learned over the years about health has now lead me down the path to practice periods of fasting.<p>Anyone trying to eat a perfect Whole Foods diet may also still consume the occasional garbage food. I feel like fasting is a missing tool in the toolbox we don’t hear about enough.<p>Doing periods of 2 to 5 day fasts just seems to kind of reset things. Give organs a break that would otherwise never have a break. Many benefits to speak of..<p>But excited to see what the science shows in the coming decades.<p>There just seems to be something inherently natural feeling about feast and fast. Human ancestors were probably not eating 3 good size meals every single day forever without EVER giving there systems a break. The body seems to benefit from having a break from the constant toxin ingestion.
We can make jokes and theorize all we like but <a href="https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Cut-Me-Own-Throat_Dibbler" rel="nofollow">https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Cut-Me-Own-Throat_Dibbler</a> continues to enjoy his permanent residency in our supply chains.<p>Maybe evicting him won't solve all the issues but, given past outcomes, we may be surprised just how many it does?<p>…and maybe, we're getting tired of occupying a position where we need to exhaustively refute Dibbler every time he makes a claim about the crap he's selling?
What is the most effective and cost/time efficient method of detecting cancers? I'm thinking some sort of general blood test that looks for a wide variety of markers.<p>I want to just get one of those every year like clockwork, the same way I have to do my taxes or regenerate my human skin, just so I don't get blindsided by some late stage diagnoses a few years down the road.
Many people blaming the usual suspects: microplastics and general pollution. These things no doubt contribute significantly.<p>Sedentism is likely another cause. Seems kids are more sedentary these days. Sitting still and consuming phone/video entertainment.<p>But another, perhaps even more serious suspect: stress & depression.<p>It's unbelievable just how physically damaging emotional stress can be.<p>I think that people want to stay baffled and stay blaming material exogenous causes, rather than look at themselves, their culture, and what they're doing (and not doing) to their youth.<p>Increasing surveillance & "safety" culture. Talk of rights, but not responsbilities, not purpose. Abandonment of religion and the deep traditional values, purpose. The massive increase in population and competition. Pressure to work hard and earn. But no matter how much you do, how hard you work, you'll still never be able to afford that house. You're just living to support the elderly, the lucker generations. Feels just like being born into servitude. No dreams to follow, no passions, even simple ones, like just wanting a place to live and a family. Can't even have that. We see our futures, and it's grim. We're resigned to the grim darkness, and our bodies resigns with us.
These "puzzled and alarmed" Doctors need to watch the Netflix documentaries: "What the Health" and "Game Changers". There are others too, including 'Forks and Knives".
They will realize what the big pharma and animal products industries are up to.
I can't read the article because of the paywall, but as someone diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer at 36, please fight to get screened if you show any of the symptoms. For me, it felt like IBS in the beginning. Don't end up like me.
These "puzzled and alarmed" Doctors need to watch the Netflix documentaries: "What the Health" and "Game Changers". There are others too, including 'Forks and Knives".
They will realize what the big pharma and animal products industries are up to.
Plant-based diets save health and lives. Wish I knew this much earlier on.
"DOCTORS BAFFLED" - It's not that they are baffled, they know what's going on. They just can't say anything about it due to politics.
If there was any real desire to understand causes, comprehensive yearly body burden screening for industrial, agricultural, and food additives as a standard medical practice. Then look to see if there's any strong correlations with cancer in young people. See this from 2001:<p><a href="https://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/problem/bodyburden.html</a><p>> "...samples of Bill Moyers' blood and urine were analyzed. Eighty-four distinct chemicals were found. His test results – much like a chemical fingerprint – revealed evidence of hazardous chemicals in common use – as well as compounds banned for more than a quarter century – and others so obscure that almost no public information is available to identify what products might have resulted in Moyers' exposure."<p>As far as why such an obvious program isn't being carried out, it's because politicians wouldn't fund it due to lobbying pressure by the guilty parties. I don't think even the East Palestine victims of the train bomb that was set off there are getting regular body burden screens right now, for example.