SILENCED BY GOVERNMENT!

"Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying"

Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying - Onevsp

NUCLEAR WAR IS COMING!

NUCLEAR WAR IS COMING! - Onevsp

Banned from YouTube and other platforms, Dr. Vernon Coleman transferred to BITCHUTE. Now because of the British Internet regime introduced by the British Government, BITCHUTE has been forced to withdraw from Britain, so Coleman's challenging videos are no longer available to an English audience on this platform. It appears Britain continues to slide down the 'slippery slope' of zionist-controlled totalitarianism that supports genocide and controls and criminalises free speech and discussion on vaccines and other issues! 

Introducing Team ONEVSP.COM - Phase One

12 minutes in ....  Introducing Team ONEVSP.COM - Phase One - Onevsp

Dr Vernon Coleman’s Warnings, Forecasts and Predictions

Dr Vernon Coleman’s track record of spotting health dangers is second to none. Since the 1970s, when his first two ground breaking books (The Medicine Men and Paper Doctors) were published, Dr Coleman has been gaining friends among patients and enemies among doctors and drug companies.

In The Medicine Men (1975), Vernon Coleman drew attention to the dangerously close relationship between the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry. In Paper Doctors (1977) he argued that most medical research is done for the benefit of researchers (and drug companies) and that the money would be better spent on using the information we already have and encouraging the public to avoid known health hazards.

Vernon Coleman, a Sunday Times bestselling author, is one of the few medically qualified authors writing on medical matters without bias and without any professional or commercial commitments or allegiances. His honesty has made him many enemies among the medical establishment and the establishment’s commercial alliances. His predictions, forecasts and warnings have often been made years (and, in many cases, decades) before anyone else has unearthed and understood the evidence or had the courage to speak out. In addition, in many of his medical books and thousands of newspaper and magazine articles he has drawn attention to the dangers of using specific over the counter and prescription drugs.

The list below is based on the list first published in Vernon Coleman’s international bestselling book How to Stop Your Doctor Killing You in 1996. Many of these warnings were issued between 20 and 40 years ago.

Dr Vernon Coleman was the first writer to:

1) Warn about the dangers of benzodiazepine tranquillisers
2) Warn that passive smoking causes cancer
3) Warn that mobile phones (and masts) may cause cancer
4) Warn that tap water contains harmful drug residues
5) Point out that genetic engineering (in all its forms) can be a threat to human health
6) Claim that high blood pressure can be controlled without drugs
7) Warn about the risk of mad cow disease
8) Warn that deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a serious threat to air travellers
9) Warn of the return of tuberculosis
10) Explain why medical screening programmes are of more benefit to doctors than to patients
11) Warn that the threat of AIDS was wildly exaggerated for commercial reasons
12) Warn that the overuse of antibiotics was creating drug resistant infections
13) Warn that doctors were over-diagnosing asthma
14) Draw attention to the value of generic drugs (as opposed to branded drugs)
15) Warn that ADHD was being over-diagnosed and treated with dangerous drugs
16) Point out that the incidence of diabetes is rising out of control
17) Warn that prostate screening does more harm than good
18) Warn that breast screening is of doubtful value
19) Warn of the dangers of over exercising
20) Warn of the damage that jogging can do to the spine and joints
21) Warn that vaccines are neither as safe nor as effective as the establishment claims
22) Explain that stress causes or exacerbates 90% of all illnesses
23) Explain the facts about irritable bowel syndrome
24) Explain why removing breasts from healthy women is unnecessary
25) Warn that chemotherapy often does more harm than good
26) Draw attention to the self-healing powers of the human body
27) Warn that the drug tamoxifen (used to prevent cancer) can cause cancer
28) Warn of the dangers of hormone replacement therapy
29) Expose the link between a high fat diet and breast cancer
30) Warn that depression was being over-diagnosed and over treated
31) Point out the importance of the immune system in defending against cancer
32) Provide evidence showing that meat causes more cancer than tobacco
33) Explain how antiperspirants may be a health hazard
34) Warn of the danger of using microwave ovens
35) Draw attention to the danger of radiotherapy
36) Warn that doctors are now as big a cause of death as cancer or heart disease
37) Draw attention to the ability of the mind to heal the body
38) Explain how and why air conditioning systems can be dangerous
39) Warn of the hazard of superbugs
40) Warn that tests and investigations are often unnecessary and dangerous
41) Point out that one in six hospital patients is there because he or she has been made ill by doctors
42) Explain why women will not live longer than men in the 21st century
43) Warn of the dangers of paraquat (and associated products such as Roundup)
44) Point out that increased longevity is a myth and a result of reduced infant mortality
45) Why and how too many X-rays are done – and cause cancer
46) Draw attention to the value of TENS machines in the treatment of pain
47) Warn of the increase in the size of our ageing population
48) Warn that obesity leads to an increased cancer risk
49) Explain how experiments on animals mislead researchers
50) Explain that many patients with dementia can be cured (because they have NPH and not Alzheimer’s disease)

And there have been many, many more accurate predictions and forecasts made between 1970 and today.

Vernon Coleman has for many years promoted the use of computers in medicine. In 1983, he co-wrote the world's first computer software on health for public use. The software was the Home Doctor series for Sinclair and Commodore computers.

BITCHUTE PLATFORM

UPDATE 2025-MAY-7 - Due to what we view as ongoing harassment from Ofcom, as well as our unwillingness to cooperate with a regime we view as hostile to our values and principles, we have disabled all remaining comment access entirely for UK video creators.

To our valued users in the United Kingdom,

After careful review and ongoing evaluation of the regulatory landscape in the United Kingdom, we regret to inform you that BitChute will be discontinuing its video sharing service for UK residents.

The introduction of the UK Online Safety Act of 2023 has brought about significant changes in the regulatory framework governing online content and community interactions. Notably, the Act contains sweeping provisions and onerous corrective measures with respect to content moderation and enforcement. In particular, the broad enforcement powers granted to the regulator of communication services, Ofcom, have raised concerns regarding the open-ended and unpredictable nature of regulatory compliance for our platform.

The BitChute platform has always operated on principles of freedom of speech, expression and association, and strived to foster an open and inclusive environment for content creators and audiences alike. However, the evolving regulatory pressures—including strict enforcement mechanisms and potential liabilities—have created an operational landscape in which continuing to serve the UK market exposes our company to unacceptable legal and compliance risks. Despite our best efforts to navigate these challenges, the uncertainty surrounding the OSA’s enforcement by Ofcom and its far-reaching implications leaves us no viable alternative but to cease normal operations in the UK.

Therefore, effective immediately, BitChute platform users in the UK will no longer be available to view content produced by any other BitChute user. Because the OSA’s primary concern is that members of the public will view content deemed unsafe, however, we will permit UK BitChute users to continue to post content. The significant change will be that this UK user-posted content will not be viewable by any other UK user, but will be visible to other users outside of the UK. Users outside the UK may comment on that content, which the creator will continue to be able to read, delete, block, reply and flag. Users outside the UK may share UK-user produced content to other users outside of the UK as normal. In other words, for users in the UK, including content creators, the BitChute platform is no longer a user-to-UK user video sharing service.

We deeply regret the inconvenience and disappointment this decision may cause to our UK users and partners. This decision was not taken lightly. It reflects our commitment to maintaining the highest standards of compliance, protecting our community, and ensuring that our platform remains a safe and sustainable space for creative expression globally. We recognize the value of our UK community and extend our sincerest apologies for the disruption caused by this necessary step. Our support team remains available to answer any queries or concerns regarding this transition.

We appreciate the support and engagement of our community around the world and remain dedicated to providing a platform that champions free expression and innovative content sharing in an environment of regulatory certainty.

Thank you for your understanding.

Coleman's old videos can still be accessed on 'ONEVSP' here:

DrVernonColeman - Onevsp 

Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying

Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying - Onevsp

For your sanity and survival, they are well worth checking out.

Monday, 21 September 2026

Yet another example of the personal cost and the likely medical complications of the criminal Covid vaccination policy.

SEE:  Veater Ecosan: "The World About Us"

Yet another example of the personal cost and the likely medical complications of the criminal Covid vaccination policy.

From:  BREAKING NEWS: 36 year old Toronto Model Jess Grossman, who reacted to her Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine within 3 minutes, now has aggressive Stage 4 Rectal Cancer.

Ed. - Anecdotal reports of illness, however dramatic or tragic, are not a reliable basis on which to base epidemiological policy. However  if they occur more often, or exhibit distinctive features that are repeated, they should never be ignored. They are part of the mix and may indicate a pattern or trend related to some environmental or medicinal cause. 

Anecdotally I get the impression, that since the introduction of the experimental Covid vaccine, there has been an increase in fatal heart conditions and tumours at various sites in the body. Medical statistics appear to support this impression (See below: 7.25% increase  2021 to 2026.) Despite healthy life styles, improved nutrition, less poverty, less dangerous and dirty work, cancer rates are on the UP NOT DOWN! 

It is a long time since the famous Willian Farr (1807 - 1883) pioneered medical statistics in England, with the public health and social objective of identifying causes of disease in order to be able to tackle and eradicate them. To a large extent the next hundred years proved the approach successful, with increased life expectancy the result long after Farr had passed away. Since that time, advanced societies have almost drowned in medical statistics, yet perversely they can also be ignored.

This was certainly the case with the British Covid vaccination programme. Despite spending, some would say wasting, half a TRILLION pounds, virtually no steps were taken to monitor the after-effects or adverse effects, and even the information provided by its own 'Yellow Card' GP system was studiously ignored or put down to other causes. There has been virtually no follow-up of death and disease rates in the vaccinated population as compared to the much smaller unvaccinated group. 

One cannot help thinking that this had an entrenched political, commercial and medical reason behind it. The Government did not want to admit to a huge policy mistake with devastating consequences for tens of thousands. Pharmaceutical firms did not want to accept responsibility, even though they were outrageously indemnified by government and made billions out of it. The medical establishment refused to allow even the suggestion that its shibboleth of universal vaccination, could in some circumstances be neither 'safe or effective' - but indeed be positively dangerous.

So the programme continued un-monitored, un-analysed, ignoring all the risk indicators and even to this day, refusing to acknowledge both increased death rates and disease incidence post 2020, may be related to the vaccine roll-out. Given the anecdotal case of Jess Grossman - and untold thousands of others - she may beg to differ.  (TTV)

"BREAKING NEWS: 36 year old Toronto Model Jess Grossman, who reacted to her Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine within 3 minutes, now has aggressive Stage 4 Rectal Cancer."

In Apr.2021 she had her 1st Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine and reacted within first 3 minutes.

In Nov.2025 she was diagnosed with Rectal Cancer which rapidly spread to Stage 4

Her 6 cycles of MFOLFOX6 chemo and 25 rounds of radiation didn't work.

She was deemed operable, but while her mainstream Oncologists fumbled, this happened:

"My tumor has spread way too far and she can no longer operate"

Listen, I've seen this happen thousands of times now, to the point where it becomes painful to watch yet another train-wreck tragedy unfold.

1. As a Crohn's Disease patient, Jess should have NEVER been given any COVID-19 Vaccine

2. Once diagnosed with Cancer, she should have been presumed to have mRNA Induced Turbo Cancer

3. With mRNA Induced Turbo Cancer, if you can operate, you operate immediately, you DO NOT WAIT.

4. mRNA Induced Turbo Cancers usually don't respond to chemo or radiation, her doctors should have recognized this IMMEDIATELY.

I can honestly end the careers of every doctor involved in Jess Grossman's tragic case.

Learn from these sad cases. There are thousands of them. They happen daily.

Jess can't believe what's happened to her and she sees that she is a victim of the Canadian healthcare system.

But it's much, much worse than that.

It isn't the 3 months that she was without any cancer treatment while her doctors fumbled her care.

She is a victim of her own doctors since 2021.

They did this to her...with the very first Pfizer injection she never should have gotten." END QUOTE.

Do covid vaccines cause turbo cancers

Executive summary

The claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause a new entity called “turbo cancer” is not supported by the bulk of scientific and public‑health reporting: major cancer organizations and multiple fact‑checks say there is no credible evidence that vaccines increase cancer risk or accelerate tumor growth [1] [2]. A handful of reviews and sensational articles have been promoted by critics and some researchers, but close reading shows methodological limits, misinterpreted animal data, and unverified case compilations rather than causal proof [3] [4] [5].

1. What people mean by “turbo cancer” and where the claim came from

“Turbo cancer” is a folk term coined online to describe allegedly unusually aggressive, fast‑growing cancers that some have tried to link temporally to COVID‑19 vaccination; the phrase has no clinical definition and is repeatedly identified as a made‑up phenomenon in mainstream fact checks [1] [2] [5]. The narrative re‑emerged after isolated reports, a few review articles that speculate on possible mechanisms, and a small number of high‑profile researchers and commentators repeating those hypotheses outside typical peer‑review scrutiny [4] [6].

2. What peer‑reviewed studies and cancer authorities actually report

Public‑facing summaries from the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and multiple fact‑check organizations state there is currently no evidence that COVID‑19 vaccines increase cancer risk or accelerate tumor growth; vaccines have been studied in millions of people worldwide and no population‑level signal of vaccine‑caused cancer has been established [1] [2] [7]. Some laboratory and animal studies invoked by critics have been misread: for example, a mouse study cited to imply the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine causes cancer actually reported one lymphoma death among 14 high‑dose vaccinated mice and overall immune responses that varied with mRNA modifications—findings that experts say were misinterpreted and are not evidence of human risk [3] [2].

3. How specific scientific details have been distorted into a causal narrative

A recurring line of attack alleges that fragments of SV40 DNA or residual plasmid DNA in mRNA vaccine preparations could be oncogenic; independent reporting and domain experts explain that fragments or promoters reported in some contexts are not the intact, infectious virus and do not provide a plausible mechanistic path to widespread cancers as claimed [1] [5]. Reviews that raise hypothetical pathways—such as altered gene expression or DNA contamination—often rely on selective citation, non‑causal case reports, or authors with histories of promoting unconventional interpretations, and have been criticized for leapfrogging from laboratory signals to population‑level causation [8] [9] [4].

4. Why the alarm keeps returning: data, bias, and real‑world confounders

Studies that report an increased rate of cancer diagnoses soon after vaccination have several alternate explanations: vaccinated cohorts may skew older or sicker and thus have higher baseline cancer incidence, pandemic‑era shifts in screening and diagnosis altered temporal patterns, and short follow‑up windows are inadequate to attribute causation for cancers that take years to develop—points emphasized by public‑health commentators debunking recent claims [10] [5]. Simultaneously, politically motivated actors and some scientists with contrarian reputations amplify preliminary or flawed findings; that amplification, coupled with internet virality, sustains the myth even when mainstream experts call for cautious interpretation [4] [6].

5. Gaps, ongoing work, and the practical bottom line

Open scientific questions remain about long‑term follow up for any large‑scale medical intervention, and some researchers have called for rigorous surveillance and transparent data sharing—requests that are scientifically reasonable and distinct from asserting causation without evidence [4] [10]. However, current authoritative reviews, fact checks, and cancer authorities conclude there is no validated link between COVID‑19 vaccination and “turbo cancer,” and claims to the contrary rely on misread animal experiments, non‑causal case lists, or politically charged reporting rather than reproducible epidemiology [1] [3] [2] [5]. For clinicians and patients, the prevailing guidance from cancer and infectious‑disease groups—vaccination reduces the risk of severe COVID and remains recommended for many people, including those with cancer—is the operational stance reflected in available sources [11] [12].

Cancer rates in the UK (Totally unrelated to vaccine policy of course)

Following from: Cancer Statistics in UK 2026 | Incidence, By Year & Facts – The Global Statistics

Cancer in the United Kingdom 2026

Cancer has officially become a national milestone crisis in the United Kingdom, with Cancer Research UK confirming that the number of new cancer diagnoses each year has passed 400,000 for the first time in history. Combined data from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales shows 423,884 cancer cases in the most recent reporting year, a 7.25% increase compared with 2021 figures. With roughly 1 in 2 people born in the UK expected to be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lifetime, this disease remains the country’s single leading cause of death, responsible for one in four of all deaths in the UK as of 2024.

This report lays out the most current, verified cancer statistics for the United Kingdom in 2026, sourced exclusively from Cancer Research UK, the World Cancer Research Fund, and Macmillan Cancer Support. Readers will find figures on national incidence and mortality trends, survival rates, the most common cancer types, future projections to 2040, and the risk factors driving this rising disease burden. Every number reflects the latest published data, giving patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers a single reliable reference point on cancer in the UK today.

Understanding this data matters more than ever as the UK government rolls out its new National Cancer Plan for England, alongside separate strategies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, all aimed at addressing a disease that Cancer Research UK explicitly calls the UK’s leading cause of death. With cancer waiting times across all four nations falling to among the worst on record in 2023 and 2024, and only partial improvement reported through 2025, the statistics below provide essential context for evaluating whether these new national strategies are making a genuine difference.

Metric	Figure
New cancer cases per year (UK-wide)	423,884 (first time above 400,000)
Increase in cases since 2021	+7.25% (~28,700 more cases)
Cancer deaths per year	168,000+ (460 per day)
Share of all UK deaths caused by cancer	1 in 4 (25%)
Lifetime risk of a cancer diagnosis	1 in 2 people
10-year survival rate (2018 diagnoses)	49.8%
10-year survival rate, 1970s	23.7%
People living with a cancer diagnosis in the UK	2,273,200+
Preventable cancer cases annually	~40% (158,000 cases)
Cases diagnosed in people aged 75+	37%

Source: World Cancer Research Fund, “UK Cancer Statistics,” compiled 2026; Cancer Research UK, “All Cancers Combined Statistics,” 2026.

These figures capture a genuine paradox at the heart of UK cancer care: more people are being diagnosed than ever before, yet survival outcomes have also never been better. The 423,884 cases recorded represent a 7.25% jump from 2021, with male cases rising 11% and female cases rising 3.4% over the same period, driven largely by the country’s aging population combined with improved diagnostic capacity. At the same time, the 10-year survival rate of 49.8% has more than doubled since the 1970s, when just 23.7% of patients survived a decade after diagnosis.

Despite this progress, cancer remains firmly entrenched as the UK’s leading cause of death, claiming 168,000+ lives annually, an average of 460 people every day, and accounting for a full quarter of all deaths nationwide. With an estimated 40% of cases, roughly 158,000 diagnoses per year, considered preventable through lifestyle factors like smoking cessation, healthy diet, physical activity, and weight management, a substantial share of this growing burden remains within reach of public health intervention, a theme closely connected to the broader health service pressures tracked in our NHS Workforce Statistics coverage.

Incidence Metric	Figure
Total new cancer cases (most recent year)	423,884
Male cases	222,874 (+11% vs. 2021)
Female cases	201,010 (+3.4% vs. 2021)
Cases diagnosed daily (UK average)	~1,100
Incidence rate increase since early 1990s	+15%
Female incidence rate increase since 1990s	+18%
Male incidence rate increase since 1990s	+4%
Incidence increase, 2012 to 2022	+19%

Source: Cancer Research UK, “All Cancers Combined Incidence Statistics,” 2026; Macmillan Cancer Support, “Cancer Statistics Fact Sheet,” February 2026.

The long-term incidence trend shows cancer diagnoses climbing steadily across every recent measurement period. Overall incidence rates have risen 15% since the early 1990s, though this growth has been sharply unequal by sex: female incidence rates rose 18% over that period compared with just 4% among men, a divergence researchers link to changing patterns in smoking history, alcohol consumption, obesity, and reproductive factors specific to cancers more common in women. More recently, Macmillan Cancer Support’s analysis found the number of people diagnosed with cancer increased 19% between 2012 and 2022 alone, a pace of growth attributed primarily to the country’s aging and expanding population combined with improved early detection initiatives.

Age remains the single strongest driver of cancer risk in the UK. Each year, almost two-fifths (37%) of all new cancer cases are diagnosed in people aged 75 and over, and incidence rates peak in the 85-to-89 age bracket, where more than 7% of all cases are recorded. This concentration of diagnoses among older adults means that as the UK’s population continues to age, overall case numbers are highly likely to keep climbing even if age-specific risk rates themselves remain stable, a demographic reality that mirrors patterns explored in our Death Statistics in the UK coverage of the country’s broader mortality trends.

Cancer mortality in the UK has grown far more slowly than incidence, rising just 5% between 2012 and 2022, compared with the 19% jump in new diagnoses over the same decade. This gap between rising case numbers and much more modestly rising deaths is the clearest quantitative evidence of improving cancer care, reflecting earlier diagnosis, better treatment protocols, and more effective management of the disease even as more people are being diagnosed than ever before.

Looking ahead, Cancer Research UK’s own modelling forecasts a genuinely positive long-term trajectory: while annual deaths are projected to rise in raw numbers to around 208,000 by 2038-2040 due to population growth and aging, the underlying mortality rate is expected to fall 6% over that same period. Encouragingly, current UK cancer mortality already ranks lower than two-thirds of European countries, positioning Britain reasonably well internationally even as it continues working to close the gap with the highest-performing health systems in the world.

Survival Metric	Figure
10-year survival rate, 2018 diagnoses	49.8%
10-year survival rate, 1970s	23.7%
Survival rate by gender	Higher in females than males
Highest-survival cancer type (testicular)	98%
Lowest-survival cancer type (pancreatic)	1%
Government’s 2035 target (5-year survival)	3 in 4 patients (75%)
Early-stage diagnosis rate, England (2022)	55% of known-stage cases

Source: Cancer Research UK, “All Cancers Combined Statistics,” 2026; “Cancer in the UK: Overview” report, April 2026.

Survival outcomes for UK cancer patients have improved dramatically over the past half-century, with the 10-year survival rate more than doubling from 23.7% in the 1970s to 49.8% for patients diagnosed in 2018, meaning roughly 1 in 2 people diagnosed today can now expect to survive a decade or longer. This improvement, however, varies enormously depending on cancer type: testicular cancer patients enjoy a 98% survival rate, among the best outcomes of any cancer worldwide, while pancreatic cancer survival remains stuck at just 1%, virtually unchanged despite decades of broader oncological progress.

Cancer Research UK’s own reporting cautions that the overall rate of survival improvement has slowed in recent years, with long-term survival trends in most cancer types now plateauing or even declining slightly, a concerning shift after decades of steady gains. In response, the UK government’s new National Cancer Plan for England has set an ambitious target: for three in four patients diagnosed in 2035 to survive their disease for five years or more, a goal that will require sustained investment and faster early diagnosis rates, since only 55% of English cases with a known stage were currently caught at the earlier, more treatable Stage I or II as of 2022.

This plateau in survival gains has prompted growing concern among patients themselves. A Macmillan/YouGov survey of over 2,000 people diagnosed with cancer found that as of January 2025, half of respondents (50%) reported being worried that general pressures on the NHS could affect their own chances of survival, a striking indicator of how closely patients are tracking the health system’s capacity constraints. Performance against official cancer waiting time targets across all four UK nations fell to among the worst levels on record in 2023 and 2024, with only a mixed and partial improvement reported through 2025, underscoring why closing the survival-improvement gap will likely depend as much on health system capacity as on clinical or scientific advances alone.

Cancer Type Metric	Figure
Top 4 cancer types’ share of all new cases	54% (of 15 most common types)
Top 4 cancer types’ share of all cancer deaths	45% (lung, bowel, breast, prostate)
Lung cancer’s share of all cancer deaths	~20% (around 1 in 5)
Fastest-rising cancer types (incidence, last decade)	Thyroid and melanoma skin cancer
Fastest-decreasing cancer mortality (decade trend)	Stomach cancer
Fastest-increasing cancer mortality (decade trend)	Liver cancer
Cancer type projected to grow most by 2040	Eye cancer (~45% increase)

Source: Cancer Research UK, “Cancer Types Compared Statistics,” 2026.

Just four cancer types, lung, bowel, breast, and prostate, account for a striking 54% of all new UK cancer cases and 45% of all cancer deaths, making them by far the most significant contributors to the country’s overall cancer burden. Lung cancer alone is responsible for roughly one in five cancer deaths, the single largest share of any individual cancer type, reflecting both its high incidence and comparatively poor survival outcomes relative to more treatable cancers.

Looking at trends within the broader cancer landscape, thyroid cancer and melanoma skin cancer have posted the fastest-rising incidence rates of any major cancer type over the past decade in both men and women, while stomach cancer mortality has fallen faster than any other type over the same period. Conversely, liver cancer mortality has risen faster than any other cancer type for both sexes, a trend researchers link to increasing rates of liver disease linked to alcohol consumption and metabolic conditions, underscoring how shifting lifestyle and health patterns continue to reshape which cancers pose the greatest emerging threat.

Cancer Risk Factors and Prevention in the UK 2026

Modifiable risk factors remain central to the UK’s cancer prevention strategy, with Cancer Research UK estimating that around 40% of all cancer cases, roughly 158,000 diagnoses every year, could be prevented through lifestyle changes alone. Smoking has fallen dramatically, from 20% of adults in 2011 down to just 11% today, representing genuine public health progress, though around 5.3 million people in the UK continue to smoke, keeping tobacco the single largest preventable cause of cancer nationally.

Obesity presents a starkly different trajectory, with two-thirds (66%) of UK adults now living with overweight or obesity, and the specific share living with obesity climbing from 25% to 30% since 2012, making excess weight the country’s second-biggest preventable cancer cause after smoking. HPV vaccination coverage, meanwhile, has actually declined since the programme’s launch, with coverage now ranging from 76% to 86% among girls and 71% to 80% among boys by age 15 across the four UK nations, a worrying trend given the vaccine’s proven effectiveness at preventing cervical and other HPV-related cancers, and one that public health officials continue working to reverse through renewed school-based vaccination outreach.

Deprivation also plays a measurable role in cancer incidence across England, with roughly 16,800 cases each year directly linked to socioeconomic deprivation, split between around 9,800 cases in men and 9,100 in women. Incidence rates in the most deprived areas run 19% higher in men and 16% higher in women compared with the least deprived areas, a disparity researchers attribute to higher smoking rates, poorer diet quality, and reduced access to preventive healthcare services in lower-income communities. Early detection remains the other critical lever for improving outcomes, since catching cancer at Stage I or II dramatically improves survival odds regardless of type, a link that makes national screening programme performance, tracked closely in our Cancer Screening Statistics in UK coverage, one of the most consequential levers available for improving the nation’s long-term cancer outlook.

Disclaimer: The data research report we present here is based on information found from various sources. We are not liable for any financial loss, errors, or damages of any kind that may result from the use of the information herein. We acknowledge that though we try to report accurately, we cannot verify the absolute facts of everything that has been represented.END QUOTE