It’s not the multiple hundreds of atmospheric nuclear test in the 1950s and 60s... It’s not the chemically created pampers kids have been wearing since the 1970s, and it’s not the Covid shot...
It’s better screening... Ah huh... If you say so.
My youngest son was diagnosed with Stage 3 colon cancer in 2019 at the age of 48. The surgeon told him he’d wished he’d come to see him 10 years earlier, but then they weren’t doing colonoscopies on 38 year olds at that time. After two resections, the removal of approximately 70 lymph nodes and 6 months of chemo, he is six years cancer free.
“Researchers suggest increase does not necessarily reflect a rise in clinically meaningful cancers”
What a bunch of gobbledygook!
https://covid19.onedaymd.com/2025/10/all-covid-vaccines-increase-cancer-risk.html
I'm not sure I buy the "overdiagnosis" claim. What, exactly, does that mean? If a person has cancer confirmed by advanced testing (e.g. biopsy) once the screening showed there might be a problem, they have cancer. How is that "overdiagnosis"? If a person comes up positive during a screening, but further testing shows no cancer, then that is not a cancer diagnosis.
When I see the word "overdiagnosis" used, I get the impression that those using the word are trying to cut costs by reducing screening, because reduced screening means reduced advanced testing and fewer false positives from screening. I think the calculation is that reducing the number of false positives saves more money than it costs to treat an advanced cancer.
And there is information missing here. What I would expect to see if cancers are being diagnosed earlier is a drop in cancers that are diagnosed later, assuming that the rate of developing cancer is stable over time. The article said nothing about the rate of diagnosis of later stage cancers. It only said that the death rate is unchanged or has dropped. An unchanged or falling death rate is not surprising if more cancers are caught earlier. People don't die of early stage cancer, but of late stage cancer.
The information given is not adequate to really make any conclusions about cancer diagnoses.
Anything but acknowledging the clot shot.
>> The increase [in cancer] may be due to increased diagnostic
notwithstanding the fact that nearly all trade journals are no longer independent, we know that extensive diagnoses have been in place for many decades in order to mitigate malpractice lawsuits — so the premise is BS