I've wondered if the rise in friends and colleagues with sudden late stage cancers has just been a fluke of my circle or a symptom of a wider problem of an unknown cause.
My father died of esophageal cancer not long ago - as a man in his early 60s he followed a path similar to the first patient in the article. Two friends are currently battling similar cancers and headed down the path of more and more agressive or experimental treatment. A large part of that choice seems intrinsic. When my dad was told he was stage 4, he smiled and reflected on the life he had lived - at peace with his mortality. When my close friend was told the same, he was distraught that he'd never had the opportunity for children. I understand how those unstated biases about a life well lived enter the medical field - an important reminder that a life is not simply measured in years.
Artificial colors are known carcinogenic (lake 6, 40, etc) and absolutely unnecessary. Why don’t we start there. I recently stopped eating them and had to cut out a huge portion of convenience foods and candies simply because they are loaded with known-carcinogenic artificial coloring. It’s sad that children are the ones most targeted and most parents don’t seem to care.
Is the source of cancer usually something from 20 to 30 years ago? I can't imagine childhood food is causing cancer decades later? Don't our cells mostly turn over constantly?
Doesn't lung cancer risk basically drop off after quitting smoking? I thought skin cancer could be caused by just one burn?
>Is the source of cancer usually something from 20 to 30 years ago?
Oftentimes, yes. Quitting smoking reduces your risk of cancer but it is still higher than if you never smoked. Cancer is when a cell/cells mutate in specific ways that cause out of control growth, prevent the cells from self-destructing, prevent DNA repair inside the cells, etc. It is like playing a slot machine where all 4 reels have to come up “cancer mutation” for it to actually become a cancerous cell, otherwise the body processes fix or destroy the cell.
For the sake of argument, lets say each reel starts with 1,000 options and only 1 “cancer mutation”. Your inherited genetics could add a “cancer mutation”, solar radiation from a bad sunburn could add 3 “cancer mutation”, smoking could add 10, etc. It doesn’t mean that the next cell generation will have all 4 reels come up cancer, in fact it is incredibly unlikely. But as those mutations and damage build up, and as your cells divide and divide and divide over the years, it becomes more likely.
That change over time of your statistical likelihood is exactly why cancer almost never happens at the same time is the exposure (carcinogens, smoking, radiation) except in rare cases (rapidly dividing skin cells after massive solar radiation damage, extreme nuclear radiation exposure, etc.).
My father died of esophageal cancer not long ago - as a man in his early 60s he followed a path similar to the first patient in the article. Two friends are currently battling similar cancers and headed down the path of more and more agressive or experimental treatment. A large part of that choice seems intrinsic. When my dad was told he was stage 4, he smiled and reflected on the life he had lived - at peace with his mortality. When my close friend was told the same, he was distraught that he'd never had the opportunity for children. I understand how those unstated biases about a life well lived enter the medical field - an important reminder that a life is not simply measured in years.