The Cancer Epidemic That Doesn't Exist

We've all read the headlines, the news articles, and heard people, often people we know, repeat the claim that cancer rates are increasing for young people. Anecdotally, when I think back to my childhood in the '90s, I recall a few kids in the schools I attended having cancer. My daughter reports a similar number. While anecdote doesn't mean much by itself, it was a good motivator for me to consider what is the actual evidence for the supposed "cancer epidemic"?

The Genetic Literacy Project's Science Facts and Fallacies podcast recently had an episode devoted to it:

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2025/10/02/glp-podcast-media-keeps-hyping-the-youth-cancer-epidemic-problem-its-a-myth/

In fact, their summary for the episode is so on-point and succinct that I will quote it here:

Buoyed by sensationalist reporters eager to write alarming headlines, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly hyped a dramatic “epidemic” of cancer among children and young people, asserting that rates have soared by nearly 50% since the 1970s thanks to growing exposure to environmental “toxins.” He describes this as part of a broader “chronic disease crisis” in youth. The media, despite its near-universal opposition to Kennedy’s agenda, has breathlessly repeated his claims about a youth cancer epidemic.
In reality, no such epidemic exists. Childhood cancer (ages 0-14) remains rare, with about 9,550 new U.S. cases projected for 2025—stable at roughly 15 per 100,000 children annually. Incidence rates have slightly declined by 0.8% per year from 2015-2021, driven by drops in brain tumors. For adolescents (15-19), rates rose modestly by 0.7% annually, and for young adults (15-39), by just 0.3% from 2013-2022—far from “soaring.”

Cancer mortality tells an even clearer success story: Death rates have plummeted 70% in children and 63% in adolescents since 1970 (p 11), thanks to better treatments—now at approximately 1% of all cancer deaths. Survival exceeds 86% for young patients. While specific cancers like colorectal and breast show slight upticks in people under 50 (1-2% annually), these are tiny increases, and they aren’t occurring in an age group anybody typically describes as young.

Scapegoating chemical exposure for these rare cancer cases lacks evidence and obscures the fact that child health has improved dramatically, with overall mortality halved since the 1960s. It’s time for reporters, social media influencers and public health officials to focus on evidence and quit exaggerating risk.

To me, the evidence they present is a strong counter argument to the idea that there is a cancer epidemic. Cancer is scary. However, fear by itself is probably not enough to explain why so many people today push the false claim that there is a cancer epidemic. Guilt caused by a loved one who died of cancer (e.g., "I wish I had done more to help them"), might explain some of it, but probably only a small number.

Some of the people pushing the claim probably have very different motives which revolve around career stature, money, and power. Some journalists may be ideologically (e.g., natural is better; get rid of toxic chemicals) or selfishly (e.g., fear gets more clicks and shares) motivated to promote it. Of course, some journalists may simply be misled themselves and don't understand the science or insist on false balance.

Influencers, lawyers, and politicians, on the other hand, tend to have a lot more on the line: money and power. If you look just a little bit closer at these groups of people who are pushing the cancer epidemic falsehood, you'll find paid promotions, vitamin supplement sales, and expensive lawsuits. Of course, you'll also find RFK, Jr. with a degree of power and influence that will literally shape American health culture for years to come.

These people rely on the fear and uncertainty in cancer to sell you things and remain in power. This might sound like a conspiracy theory, but the scientific data on cancer and environmental toxins simply doesn't support their claims. So how else can we explain why they cling to such claims, and often double down on them in the face of evidence to the contrary?

The de-toxifying wellness industry is a multi-billion dollar market. Furthermore, mobilizing people and the government against companies that produce so-called "toxic" chemicals opens the door to numerous lawsuits, which certain lawyers are happy to partake in regardless of the evidence.

In some sense, RFK, Jr and his pals in the government and his lawyer pals outside of government see a great opportunity at this point in America: cut preventative care like vaccines and health insurance subsidies for the poor, to save the government money and cut taxes. Cover it up to look like you're saving the American people from toxins. Meanwhile, suggest supplements and other dubious and discredited wellness "cures" as a replacement for the "toxic" vaccines and mainstream medicines. It's a win-win for Republicans as well as RFK, Jr's cronies in the lawsuit space and in the supplements/wellness industry.

Actually, Mao Zedong took a somewhat similar course of action during the Cultural Revolution. He directed the party to promote "traditional" medicine instead of modern medicine. This was because the country was in such disarray that the government couldn't ensure modern medical care in rural parts of the country. While America today is a far cry from China during the Cultural Revolution, it is a fascinating comparison as we go through a government shutdown over health insurance subsidies and read headlines about rural hospitals closing, all while RFK, Jr promotes quack cures and work requirements.

Well, the Republican and wellness industry win-win will only last until people wise-up and realize what's going on here. Unfortunately, we don't know how long that will take or how many people will be harmed by not getting the evidence-based medical care they need.