Huge rise in cancer in friends

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not borne out by the data. Just because you feel this does not make it true. People are living longer than ever despite cancer.

Cancer rates among those under 50 are up significantly over the past three decades. OP isn’t imagining it.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/05/cancer-cases-in-under-50s-worldwide-up-nearly-80-in-three-decades-study-finds#:~:text=The%20authors%20of%20the%20study,globally%2C”%20the%20report%20says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of colon cancer in mid-30s to early 40s. 4 cases in the last year.

This was me.

We knew three people who died of colon cancer in their early forties. (We were the same age at the time). Now in our fifties, yes we know several family members and friends with cancer which have included prostate, lymphoma, myeloma, and head and neck (caused by hpv). All the current people with cancers listed except the one caused by hpv, are doing well. The friend who had cancer caused by hpv and had an optimistic prognosis, is in stage iv. It's devastating to our friend group and very very difficult to understand and accept.

[Anonymous]

Poster above...everyone diagnosed that we know are under 60. The outlier is my brother in law with myeloma diagnosed at 65

[Anonymous]

I have 7 friends in their 40s who have had cancer - 2 breast cancer, sarcoma on the kidney, one cervical, two colon, one leukemia. First four listed were women and last was a man. All are currently living, but the first two are in ongoing treatment.

All of these people except one are healthy weight, active, non-smokers. It's scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have 7 friends in their 40s who have had cancer - 2 breast cancer, sarcoma on the kidney, one cervical, two colon, one leukemia. First four listed were women and last was a man. All are currently living, but the first two are in ongoing treatment.

All of these people except one are healthy weight, active, non-smokers. It's scary.

very few of those are caused by smoking to begin with. BC and cervical are largely hormonally driven.

i do think we need more preventative screenings earlier. ofc we have for cervical (dont know your friend's details there) but moving colonoscopies and mammos earlier might be smart.

hoping immunotherapy is impactful sooner rather than later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The increase in tattoos. I have no idea why so many people think forcing their lymphatic system to continually fight with badly regulated ink injected into sensitive skin cells is a good idea.

I’ve never heard this but it’s interesting.

There have been studies showing a discrepancy between actual content and labeling of tattoo inks, and some have carcinogens. The black inks in particular can have high levels of benzo(a)pyrene. Some also contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which are considered carcinogenic. Inks are almost entirely unregulated.

As the tattoos break down (eg the fading or blurring), what is really happening internally is that the body is breaking down the pigment particles and carrying them off elsewhere via the lymphatic system. I do not understand how people can think this is benign and I don’t think it is a coincidence that rates of cancer in young people are sharply increasing at the same time young people are getting heavily tattooed.

Obviously it’s not the only cause but it is nuts to me how this isn’t discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The increase in tattoos. I have no idea why so many people think forcing their lymphatic system to continually fight with badly regulated ink injected into sensitive skin cells is a good idea.

I’ve never heard this but it’s interesting.

There have been studies showing a discrepancy between actual content and labeling of tattoo inks, and some have carcinogens. The black inks in particular can have high levels of benzo(a)pyrene. Some also contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which are considered carcinogenic. Inks are almost entirely unregulated.

As the tattoos break down (eg the fading or blurring), what is really happening internally is that the body is breaking down the pigment particles and carrying them off elsewhere via the lymphatic system. I do not understand how people can think this is benign and I don’t think it is a coincidence that rates of cancer in young people are sharply increasing at the same time young people are getting heavily tattooed.

Obviously it’s not the only cause but it is nuts to me how this isn’t discussed.

Very thought-provoking. Thank you for contributing this view

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The increase in tattoos. I have no idea why so many people think forcing their lymphatic system to continually fight with badly regulated ink injected into sensitive skin cells is a good idea.

I’ve never heard this but it’s interesting.

There have been studies showing a discrepancy between actual content and labeling of tattoo inks, and some have carcinogens. The black inks in particular can have high levels of benzo(a)pyrene. Some also contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which are considered carcinogenic. Inks are almost entirely unregulated.

As the tattoos break down (eg the fading or blurring), what is really happening internally is that the body is breaking down the pigment particles and carrying them off elsewhere via the lymphatic system. I do not understand how people can think this is benign and I don’t think it is a coincidence that rates of cancer in young people are sharply increasing at the same time young people are getting heavily tattooed.

Obviously it’s not the only cause but it is nuts to me how this isn’t discussed.

Very thought-provoking. Thank you for contributing this view

I just think it is crazy that nobody is willing to look at the coincident timeline in the sharp increase in cancer in young people and the sharp increase in tattooing in young people. The graphs match almost exactly.

[Anonymous]

I suspect it’s your age, OP.

[Anonymous]

Stage 0 Breast Cancer
is one reason

[Anonymous]

yes certain cancers have become more common among young people

https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/whats-news/us-cancer-rates-are-rising-and-striking-younger-people/b4b28334-da22-49c6-8903-e347fd3b4a8b

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but we’re now in our late 50s+. Also, fatal strokes.

+100

People are dropping like flies.

Yes. I lost a friend to breast cancer and one to a stroke in recent years. They were 55. It really shocked me to my core.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of colon cancer in mid-30s to early 40s. 4 cases in the last year.

This was me.

I kind of feel like there maybe needs to be a screening colonoscopy at 30.

And they have moved the rec to 45 but the prep is so unpleasant that I have tons of friends who still have not done it as closer to 50. Like getting a mammo, sure no problem, slight discomfort for a couple of minutes, colonoscopy, no thanks. (I had mine.)

[Anonymous]

A friend was diagnosed with colon cancer in her 20s. She was a competitive runner and had just learned she was pregnant. Unfortunately she didn’t make it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of colon cancer in mid-30s to early 40s. 4 cases in the last year.

This was me.

I kind of feel like there maybe needs to be a screening colonoscopy at 30.

And they have moved the rec to 45 but the prep is so unpleasant that I have tons of friends who still have not done it as closer to 50. Like getting a mammo, sure no problem, slight discomfort for a couple of minutes, colonoscopy, no thanks. (I had mine.)

Honestly with what I have seen when I see people online complain about the prep it kind of turns my stomach.

The mild inconvenience is nothing. Our bff has stage 4 in early 40s. Dh and I both had our first colonoscopy early having seen what he’s going through and dh had 3 precancerous polyps.