Cancer. Why are more younger people getting this 'old age' disease?

And is the Conventional Medical Establishment really serious about looking at the reasons?

The BBC (and other mainstream media platforms) seem to be convinced that it is, as evidence in their article “11 cancers on the rise in young people - scientists find first clue why it’s happening”. So the issue is being raised, but is the conventional medical establishment seriously investigating the reasons.

The article refers to a study published in BMJ Oncology, “Temporal trends in behavioural risk factors for cancers with rising incidence in younger adults: an analysis of population-based data in England”. The objective of the study was “to assess whether changes in behavioural risk factors could explain rising cancer incidence in younger adults in England, and to evaluate the extent to which established and suspected risk factors contribute to these trends”. The study was conducted by The Institute of Cancer Research and Imperial College London, and the study says it looked at various life-style factors, including:

• Physical activity.

• Obesity (maintaining a healthy weight).

• Consumption of Ultra-processed foods.

• Forever chemicals (or PFAS).

• Antibiotic use.

• Consumption of sweetened drinks.

• Air pollution.

• Gut bacteria.

• Pesticides.

The study admitted that there “was a lot we don’t know”. So we must believe, then, that the study authors were not aware that cancer is a well-known side effect of most pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Antibiotic drugs were mentioned - but even this is virtually dismissed! Instead they focused on Obesity.

          “The report said the only data that aligned with the increase in cancer was levels of overweight and obesity, which has been on the rise since the 1990s.”

What this means is that we have been presented with yet another ‘scientific’ study that is “selective” about what it prepared to investigate. There is no doubt that conventional medicine is fully aware of the link between cancer and pharmaceutical drugs (for people of all ages). The knowledge is contained within their own literature. The link is routinely published in the British National Formulary, and websites such as drugs.com.

I have listed the main drugs that are know to cause cancer, here, Iatrogenic Diease. The pharmaceutical drugs known to cause cancer. They include psychiatric drugs, Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), the contraceptive pill, Statin drugs, antibiotics, Proton Pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors, most vaccines, and many, many more. So why was this well known, well documented cause of cancer omitted from the study? I hazard a guess.

If you don’t investigate you cannot implicate.

I hazard another guess: that the organisations that set up and conducted this research are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. So it was not so much that the authors were not aware of the link - it was that they were not permitted to included pharma drugs in the study. It would be bad for business. And bad for the funding that Pharma provides to universities, and ‘medical science’!

One of the problem that arises from such studies (and there are many) is that it sends conventional medicine on a wild goose chase. Their attention becomes focused on obesity. And worse, that it leads to treatment that involves patients taking more cancer-causing drugs that target obesity.

In this case, singling out ‘obesity’ will almost undoubtedly lead to the increased prescription of Pharma’s new ‘wonder drug’, GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wygovy, et al. At the moment, as part of the promotion of these drugs, medical science is suggesting that they might actually reduce cancer. I have serious doubts about this, not least because there are already early signs that GLP-1 drugs can cause cancer, see for example here, “Can Weight-Loss Drugs Cause Cancer?

Even in these early days of GLP-1 use, the drugs.com website is already giving this warning.

          “Additionally, animal studies suggest Ozempic has the potential to cause thyroid cancer, which may lead to lumps in the throat and dysphagia”.

It is likely that the link is yet to be made!

So watch this space!

Big Pharma is allowed to sell patients harmful drugs, doctors are allowed to prescribe them, even when known to be dangerous to our health.

Drug Regulation does not work! When it discovers a harmful drug it does little/nothing. It is failing to address its primary purpose - to safeguard patients from harm

This is Medscape’s headline. “FDA Issues Alert on Liver Injuries Linked to Vasculitis Drug, Following Withdrawal Request”.

The FDA is the USA’s Drug Regulator, but its decisions are widely influential with drug regulators around the world. So its decisions affect all of us. It issued an alert about liver injury, including fatal cases, that have been linked to avacopan (Tavneos), a drug used for a rare autoimmune disease “that the agency had already asked to be voluntarily removed from the market”

Dangerous enough, you might think, for it to be withdrawn by the drug company, and/or banned by the regulator?

The Medscape article went on to say that on 31st March 2026 the FDA issued a public notice outlining their serious concerns about post-marketing cases of drug-induced liver injury that have been associated with avacopan. However, this seems to have carried little weight with Amgen, the drug’s manufacturer, who

          “..announced in January that it intended to continue to market this drug even though the FDA requested a voluntary withdrawal of avacopan. Separately, European regulators in January announced a safety review of the drug”.

The article goes on to state that the problem about this drug had been known for over 5 years.

          “In 2021, FDA staff expressed deep concern about liver risk even while approving avacopan for a serious and sometimes fatal autoimmune condition, severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis. The FDA required a special safety study focused on liver risk as part of this approval.

So, 5 years on, what does the drug regulator do to fulfil its main function - to protect patients from a drug that causes patient harm, and is known to cause fatalities?

          “In the new alert, the FDA recommends that patients talk to their healthcare professional about safety risks associated with avacopan and to discuss whether to continue therapy or switch to alternative treatments” especially if “they develop any signs or symptoms of liver injury, including nausea, vomiting, unusual itching, light-colored stools, yellowing of skin or eyes, dark urine, swelling in the stomach or abdomen, or pain in the right upper abdomen. The FDA also advised clinicians who have patients taking avacopan to conduct liver panel testing every 2 weeks in the first month of treatment, monthly for the next 5 months, and thereafter as clinically indicated”.

The FDA continues to state that avacopan should be discontinued promptly, and alternative treatments considered, in certain circumstances.

So there is a difference of opinion. The company is clearly confident that avacopan is both “effective and safe”, based, it says, on “robust clinical data and real-world evidence demonstrating the effectiveness and favorable benefit-risk profile”. And it is committed to continue marketing the drug.

However, the FDA says it has identified 76 cases of drug-induced liver injury “with reasonable evidence of a causal association with avacopan use … that comes from reviews of postmarketing data, medical literature, and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System ... Of these 76 cases, 74 reported a serious outcome, including 54 hospitalizations and eight deaths”.

These clinical outcomes might be considered adequate grounds for taking more robust protective action for patients in addition to “discussing” the issues with a doctor. But no. One comment outlined in the Medscape article states that:

          “The FDA’s Drug Safety Communication about avacopan highlighting the eight fatal cases of drug-induced liver injury is important, but insufficient”.

So, a drug that causes 8 deaths is not sufficient reason to withdraw, or ban it. How many more drugs are drug regulators approving, drug companies selling, and doctors prescribing, that are causing this level of patient harm?

Even Medscape raises this question. It asks why, if the FDA has requested the drug be voluntarily withdrawn from the US market, the agency not making this request publicly, and pushing back against the company for not having already withdrawn the drug? Why does the prescribing information for avacopan not include a boxed warning for the risk of fatal liver disease?

These are urgent questions for the FDA to answer. Yet the FDA has failed to do so, and so confirms that no pharmaceutical drug should be considered “safe and effective”, that drug regulators are failing to act decisively to protect patients, that doctors will therefore continue to prescribe harmful drugs to patients.

Avacopan is a small drug. But it represents a good example of how conventional medicine now treats the issue of patient safety. It demonstrates a medical system that is prepared to “discuss” how many patients it is allowed to kill, how much chronic disease it is allowed to cause, before any robust action is taken to protect us. It shows h

ow patient safety takes second place to pharmaceutical profits.

I would suggest that the only sensible solution for everyone is to develop a healthy mistrust, and to studiously avoid a medical system that is clearly failing to protect us.