/sci/ Cancer in England has DOUBLED in 12 years 2010-2023

795x687

_132872524_cancer....jpg

🧵 Cancer in England has DOUBLED in 12 years 2010-2023

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:34:01 UTC No. 16068065

Why?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 13:50:29 UTC No. 16068083

>>16068065
Usually it's 3 primary things,
1. Detection improvements
2. Age
3. Health

#3 can be particularly important after, say, a pandemic where a virus wrecks your immune system such that a segment of the vulnerable get that statistical needle tipped toward oncogenesis. Primary mechanism of course being immunological damage leading to many downstream effects, such as impaired clearance of senescent cells.

Or just backlogs from people putting off seeing a doctor, or having their seeing one be put off, due to medical backlogs from said pandemic. There's some of that going on too.
>muh antivaxxer propaganda bullshit
Yeah well cancer rates for the never-vaccinated for same age group are considerably higher.
>muh vaccine not totally perfect
No shit dumbass. Stacked comorbidities to the moon and vaccines maybe kept you alive just long enough to enjoy getting cancer instead. Or not. Probabilities and all that. It's far worse for the unvaccinated.
>muh nuh-uh muh conspiracy muh worldwide cabaal muh /pol/tardery
Yes yes and earth is flat ran by goblins or whatever you people believe to be edgy and contrarian during [insert week here].

That about cover it or do you want to circlejerk while repeating this dance like you have the past ~3 years?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:21:34 UTC No. 16068117

>>16068083
>1. Detection improvements
Can you name a new screening implenented in the last 3 years? We're probably going to see a big spike with new lungcancer screenings soon but I can't really think of some new screening method implemented since 2019, there might be but I'm genuienly not aware of one

>say, a pandemic where a virus wrecks your immune system such that a segment of the vulnerable get that statistical needle tipped toward oncogenesis
Appart from ocogenic pathogens, chronic infections and severe infections resulting in organ damage, acute infections and injuries do not increase cancer risk they lower it, initial cell depletion is followed by heightend immunological surveilance. Severe covid cases with lasting damage would hit people who already had comorbidities/were immunocompromised and would fall into the cancer-risk group anyways. Long-covid in previously healthy adults is still fundamentally a constructed diagnosis of exclusion, making predictions on cancer-risk based on that would be reaching to say the least.

>Or just backlogs from people putting off seeing a doctor, or having their seeing one be put off, due to medical backlogs from said pandemic
Beyond not seeing a doctor, lockdowns reinforced a sedentary lifestyle and weight gain, shifting just a small percentage of the population into an unhealthier lifestyle will give you a pretty substantial spike in morbidity down the road

>cancer rates for the never-vaccinated for same age group are considerably higher.
alltogether non-vaccinated or just not vaccinated against covid? What's the source for that?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:22:38 UTC No. 16068120

>>16068065
the sex addicted drug addled generations are getting older thats why

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:31:51 UTC No. 16068129

>>16068083
OP's chart isn't related to his question, though. The fact of cancer doubling is not established by it.
I look at OP's chart and don't conclude that the number of diagnosed patients has doubled just because there are more cancer appointments than ever.
The longer existing patients live the more appointments they'll have, for example.
In conclusion, OP can suck my cock.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:35:36 UTC No. 16068135

>>16068083
>disease only goes up because we test for it
Okay trump

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:49:30 UTC No. 16068158

>>16068129
the graph is showing per year how many cancer treatments started in a timely fashion vs how many didn't. so each cancer is only counted once here. it's not every single appointment that patient has for that cancer.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:00:29 UTC No. 16068169

>>16068117
>Can you name a new screening implenented in the last 3 years?
These occur on an ongoing basis progressively, not staged major discoveries. Sometimes new lab tests, sometimes better lab tests, sometimes just progressively better computers and algorithms. You're asking a ridiculously overbroad question that seems to treat diagnostics like staged rollouts of miracles when it's largely incremental as matters of cost/benefit. Yes, I do have a point. Particularly given covid, there's been a massive influx of funding and equipment all around even in a more privatized system like the USA. You would have to find some kind of system analysis relevant to England for a particular breakdown of it there. My knowledge is primarily U.S. based.
>Severe covid cases with lasting damage would hit people who already had comorbidities/were immunocompromised and would fall into the cancer-risk group anyways
In acute exposure, but as long covid suggests we're not dealing with only acute exposure effects. Given what's preliminarily showing up I wager it amounts to aging some segment of the population into a risk window earlier than otherwise would've been. Not universally, of course, but that long covid neuronal damage and autoimmunity stuff is greatly concerning.
>shifting just a small percentage of the population into an unhealthier lifestyle will give you a pretty substantial spike in morbidity down the road
So might impaired lung function unhelpfully reinforcing unhealthier lifestyle habits due to habituation to exertion avoidance?
>What's the source for that?
Follows from all the papers analyzing covid and oncogenesis e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10518417/
The unvaccinated have statistically far higher rates of hospitalization, severe infection, etc, and stands to reason therefore any cancer related risks are substantially higher in proportion. Unless you think it reasonable to believe it magically isn't because....?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:03:10 UTC No. 16068171

>>16068129
While it's true that OP is always a faggot (especially /pol/tards), the fact is that covid is a demonstrable cancer risk and most especially in the unvaccinated.

So regardless I can just accept the claim at face value and the fact remains we've a pretty good idea why those rates would be higher, if in fact they are. Detection, age, and health. Provides an opportunity to discuss epidemiology a bit.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:59:34 UTC No. 16068257

You can thank the completely useless and catastrophic covid policies your government imposed, that you likely supported, for years on end. These are the natural consequences that some of us warned about, and here we are.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:46:33 UTC No. 16068548

>>16068169
>Seems to treat diagnostics like staged rollouts of miracles when it's largely incremental as matters of cost/benefit
Those things don't just happen in increments, they happen in 10+ year long studies whose conclusions allow for ethics comittes, medical associations and insurances to approve screenings for millions of patients. Hence why physicians get to do screening colonoscopies and occult blood tests for colon cancer, despite the risks associated with them. Now can you think of a new screening method or better/new lab tests for cancer that was approved recently?

>Particularly given covid, there's been a massive influx of funding and equipment all around even in a more privatized system like the USA
The point? More diagnostics = more cancer?

>Not universally, of course, but that long covid neuronal damage and autoimmunity stuff is greatly concerning.
Fair point. I just see it from a sceptical euro perspective as we already have offical bodies tasked with funding and expanding it's research in place, which isn't a necessarily a bad thing, but comes with the usual risk of putting a bias on research groups to come up with anything they can to secure more funding.

>So might impaired lung function unhelpfully reinforcing unhealthier lifestyle habits due to habituation to exertion avoidance?
In severe cases sure, which are an absolute minority, compared to the millions of people affected by the lockdown. Just in terms of raw numbers, one has the potential to be far more significant

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10518417/
>therefore any cancer related risks are substantially higher in proportion. Unless you think it reasonable to believe it magically isn't because....?
That reasoning stands for the subset of severe cases with comorbities, the RR for young healthy vaccinated and unvaccinated isn't that different. To get a grasp on the broder effect you'd still need actual studies, not just inductive reasoning.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:33:32 UTC No. 16068675

>>16068548
>Those things don't just happen in increments
Unless there's a motivating impetus (covid). In the USA, covid plus tens of millions getting healthcare for the first time on continued rollout of medicaid expansion. YMMV.
>The point? More diagnostics = more cancer?
Yes? Rates jumped with medicaid expansion in the USA, for example. There are a number of medical papers over the decades about this, but this article is far more readable than any of those. https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/08/01/cancer-progress-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/

There's a kind of incidence-diagnostic-accessibility etc relationship that goes on here. Particularly when it comes to slow cancers, like prostate cancers. Something that kills you in a week will *probably* not skew your data over years, but something like prostate cancer lumped into "generalized cancer rate" will skew your rates to hell. It's complicated.
>In severe cases sure, which are an absolute minority,
Pulmonary functioning declines long-term occur with mild to moderate infection severity, from what I generally recall and see, around 1/4th of the time and can persist at least a year. e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10495003/

If we're talking middle aged or older already obese individuals as in the western world, and there are many monitoring studies coming out on this, declines in function are quite long term without "severe cases" particularly in the unvaccinated (a concern for the USA in particular). I don't know if you're familiar with impairment habituation but it easily becomes a chicken-egg problem, especially without preventative medicine and intervention.
>compared to the millions of people affected by the lockdown
As noted, not true.
>RR for young healthy vaccinated and unvaccinated isn't that different.
The U.S. median age is ~38. The median BMI is 27.3 (overweight). Most of America is not "young and healthy", same for most of the western world even accepting your (false) premise.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 18:35:47 UTC No. 16068683

>>16068083
>muh covid
Lol

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 20:17:15 UTC No. 16068824

>>16068548
took time to look over some recent large scale results, in addition to the aforementioned around rates and whether something is considered precancerous or not >>16068675. Epidemiological rates of autoimmunity and their associations are concerning.

You could go with the whole "it's just the flu" thing all you like but considering how old and unhealthy much of the population is all those facts together ought give you cause to worry even so. Add to that the following,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10067-023-06670-0
>Incident autoimmune diseases in association with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a matched cohort study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00512-0/fulltext
>Risk of autoimmune diseases in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

Few things,
1. First onset IRR 1.43 with additional 1.23 (study #1, table 2)
2. Younger ages had higher risks (study #1, fig 2,) or the similar (Study #2, fig 5)
3. outpatient risk was worse (study #2, supplement table 5; study #1 fig 7)

Combine that with with the earlier mentioned details. Are you seeing my concern here, yet? If not, consider the following, https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj-2022-072529
>Long covid outcomes at one year after mild SARS-CoV-2 infection: nationwide cohort study
What you see is, for unvaccinated, much higher rates of persistent cardiopulmonary and immune dysfunction related indicators even in the 19-40 age range.
The supplementary tables are worrying too, especially for delta. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/suppl/2023/01/11/bmj-2022-072529.DC1/mizb072529.ww1.pdf

The issue isn't even as single factor. The issue is the overall effect on homeostatic equilibrium in conjunction with already worsening health in young adults who are already at higher risks of cancer. Add to that sometimes a year or more of indications of protracted immune system dysfunction, particularly in the unvaccinated. This may be a problem.