I saw a rather alarmist video on Twitter about the numbers of cancers reported in females under the age of 50. He claimed that in 2022 cancers for these younger women had risen from a pre-pandemic count of 26,600 to an alarming 47,550. I went searching and sure enough it’s there. Is it real, a type-o. How do you account for it?
The 2019 figures break at 45 years of age, while 2022 break at 50. So of course there's a big increase. They also say "estimates should not be compared with those from previous years;" one hopes there's clarifying text somewhere to explain why this is so.
For "younger than 65" as a whole, breast cancer decreased.
@taxpayer ~ Just wondering: are you suggesting there's a realistic chance that the 5-year increase in age from 45-50 between 2019 and 2022 would be sufficient alone to account for this sudden and astonishing increase in cancer rates?
I do know that breast cancer rates increase with age. Somebody somewhere has data by single year of age, which could help evaluate whether this is a realistic explanation.
I also wonder whether some of the 2022 cases would have been discovered in 2021, had not the scamdemic shut things down.
@taxpayer ~ There is a growing body of data clearly indicating there were deleterious effects from lockdown-related delays in treatment for non-COVID illnesses and disease:
However, increases in cancer rates, and the rates of rare and rapidly growing "turbo" cancers, *after* the vaccine rollout has been absolutely astonishing:
I agree: it is a reasonable question. However, this is a common challenge with many of the available databases.
Even more importantly, though, the stunning rate in the increase of cancer (especially "turbo" cancers) following the vaccine roll-out, has been absolutely staggering:
If this info is legit, why isn't it the Page 1 story in America right now?
Oh, we all know the answer to that one.
What's a bigger story - breast cancer increasing by 79 percent ... or 100 percent of the "watchdog" press refusing to report or investigate major stories and scandals?
Evidently, slow death from our contaminated, unnatural food supply and environmental carcinogens wasn't fast enough for our medical establishment, bankers, and our WEF shadow government.
The real difference is actually in the > 65 band. If you look at the column, they changed the stratification from < 45 to < 50. But the big jump in the overall numbers is in the oldest category.
The greater than 65 category went from ~120k to ~144k. That’s where the real concern is. That population is heavily Covid vax’d
These are projected cases. US cancer incidence data are only available through 2020 at this point, but for that year, actual cases were much lower than the cancer.org projection (240k actual vs 276k projected). Projected and actual were much closer in 2019 (270k actual vs 268k projected). The actuals are based on CDC numbers (https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/#/Trends/).
Does the lack of detection and reporting over the lockdown months attest to this? (In other words, far fewer numbers in 2020/21 than the 2019 numbers.)
The 2019 figures break at 45 years of age, while 2022 break at 50. So of course there's a big increase. They also say "estimates should not be compared with those from previous years;" one hopes there's clarifying text somewhere to explain why this is so.
For "younger than 65" as a whole, breast cancer decreased.
If we trust these figures.
wouldn't it be so much simpler if they stuck to the same cut offs every year?
@taxpayer ~ Just wondering: are you suggesting there's a realistic chance that the 5-year increase in age from 45-50 between 2019 and 2022 would be sufficient alone to account for this sudden and astonishing increase in cancer rates?
I do know that breast cancer rates increase with age. Somebody somewhere has data by single year of age, which could help evaluate whether this is a realistic explanation.
I also wonder whether some of the 2022 cases would have been discovered in 2021, had not the scamdemic shut things down.
@taxpayer ~ There is a growing body of data clearly indicating there were deleterious effects from lockdown-related delays in treatment for non-COVID illnesses and disease:
> https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/c66b7bf1d3a6
However, increases in cancer rates, and the rates of rare and rapidly growing "turbo" cancers, *after* the vaccine rollout has been absolutely astonishing:
> Cancer: https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/e9a9592ddb2b
> Turbo Cancer: https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/cbb96ffd210a
Moreover, the mechanism for triggering tumorigenisis (cancer growth) was identified within less than 3 months of the launch of the vaxx campaign:
> https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/a06bf3abca59
It's certainly reasonable to ask why the five year difference in the age stratification? Why not compare apples to apples?
I agree: it is a reasonable question. However, this is a common challenge with many of the available databases.
Even more importantly, though, the stunning rate in the increase of cancer (especially "turbo" cancers) following the vaccine roll-out, has been absolutely staggering:
> https://covidreason.substack.com/p/breast-cancer-for-50-up-2x-in-2022/comment/18076187
More profits for big pharma since they missed murdering people with mRNA poisons and can now murder them with poison cancer drugs.
Big Harma's gravy train thunders on:
> https://workflowy.com/s/beyond-covid-19/SoQPdY75WJteLUYx#/04c1303bcade
Estimated male cancers increased by 110,000. About 15% from 2019.
If this info is legit, why isn't it the Page 1 story in America right now?
Oh, we all know the answer to that one.
What's a bigger story - breast cancer increasing by 79 percent ... or 100 percent of the "watchdog" press refusing to report or investigate major stories and scandals?
They aren't watchdogs - they are lapdogs.
Other interesting surges in that data:
- Males increased far more than females, focused on prostate
- 65+ also had a huge absolute increase in breast, albeit lower in % terms.A
Evidently, slow death from our contaminated, unnatural food supply and environmental carcinogens wasn't fast enough for our medical establishment, bankers, and our WEF shadow government.
The real difference is actually in the > 65 band. If you look at the column, they changed the stratification from < 45 to < 50. But the big jump in the overall numbers is in the oldest category.
The greater than 65 category went from ~120k to ~144k. That’s where the real concern is. That population is heavily Covid vax’d
These are projected cases. US cancer incidence data are only available through 2020 at this point, but for that year, actual cases were much lower than the cancer.org projection (240k actual vs 276k projected). Projected and actual were much closer in 2019 (270k actual vs 268k projected). The actuals are based on CDC numbers (https://gis.cdc.gov/Cancer/USCS/#/Trends/).
These are projected cases. Why are they projecting that and who decided this was going to happen?
Thank you, Justin, for sharing. Just wondering: Do you still have the link to the original Twitter video?
Does the lack of detection and reporting over the lockdown months attest to this? (In other words, far fewer numbers in 2020/21 than the 2019 numbers.)