What is really causing the massive increase in cancer rates? (3 minute read)

What does Sasha Latypova think? Is it VACCINES?

One of my favorite medical freedom warriors, Sasha Latypova, recently penned an article about the cancer explosion. In her opinion, all signals point to vaccines as the main culprit for the growing cancer and chronic illness epidemic. Her article is fairly long, so I am writing a summary for those of you who lead very busy lives and have limited time to read.

Sasha’s article makes the case that, rather than helping to reduce cancer, modern medicine, public health policies, and scientific institutions have actually overseen a dramatic rise in cancer rates over the last 150 to 175 years. She draws much of her evidence from the 1915 Hoffman Prudential Report—an exhaustive 826‑page actuarial study of cancer mortality. According to Sasha, this report shows that cancer rates in the U.S. and Europe were already climbing steadily, long before factors like advanced diagnostic tools, an aging population, or widespread industrial pollution could be blamed. The article points out that Hoffman documented cancer mortality rising by 1–2% every year, and this trend couldn’t simply be chalked up to better detection or demographic changes. Sasha also highlights that these findings suggest deeper, systemic factors at play—ones that challenge the common explanations we hear today.

The article points out that cancer patterns in the early 20th century were dramatically different from what we see today. Drawing on Hoffman’s data, it explains that back then, cancer was mostly found among white, upper-class women, while Black Americans and so-called “primitive peoples” experienced extremely low rates of the disease. This historical pattern, Sasha argues, doesn’t fit with the typical explanations we hear today—such as genetics, personal habits, or environmental exposures. Interestingly, the article also emphasizes that people who worked in occupations with known risks, like handling soot, tar, or heavy metals, had much lower cancer rates in the early 1900s than today’s young adults, many of whom have never been exposed to such hazards. These details raise important questions about what’s really behind the rise in cancer and suggest there may be deeper, overlooked factors at play.

Sasha argues that the increase in cancer rates can’t simply be chalked up to aging, racial differences, or poor access to healthcare. According to Hoffman’s report, cancer was “exceptionally rare among ‘primitive peoples,” and it only began to show up among African Americans after the end of slavery—even though there were no major changes in their genetics or diets. She takes this as a sign that cancer isn’t just a natural disease, but rather a manufactured, induced illness. They suggest that the rise in cancer rates has ultimately benefited the medical and insurance industries, hinting at deeper, systemic causes behind the epidemic.

The Hoffman Report doesn’t mention vaccines at all, which Sasha describes as a “glaring” omission. She points out that by the late 1800s, many doctors believed there was a link between vaccines and cancer, based on medical writings from that time. Sasha also suggests that the insurance and medical industries may have ignored vaccines as a possible cause because the widespread fear of cancer turned out to be profitable for selling life insurance and medical treatments.

Sasha Latypova’s central claim is that vaccination is the primary driver of the long‑term rise in cancer rates. She states her position explicitly: “You know my working theory — ‘it’s the vaccines, stupid!’ (ITVS!)” and argues that the omission of vaccines from the Hoffman Report “speaks louder than anything else.” She asserts that universal vaccination was already widespread by the late 1800s and that increases in cancer rates correlate with the rollout of vaccination rather than with aging, toxins, or socioeconomic factors.

She also argues that cancer is “manufactured, induced” and that its rise served institutional interests—particularly the insurance and medical industries, which she believes benefited from promoting cancer as a mysterious, frightening disease. In her view, the historical data show that cancer was rare before widespread vaccination and that no other demographic or environmental explanation fits the long‑term trends.

What do you think? I think Sasha is close to the truth, and time will tell.

Here’s a link to Sasha’s article:

175+ Years of Cancer: The Big Picture the Establishment Doesn't Want You to See

Don’t tread on us, and don’t shed on us!

Mark Bishofsky & T Gunnar Balstad Esq