Who said that?!?!?!?!? (I guess you gotta apply the proper tone of voice--meaning I cannot see you--in order for that to be a joke and not sound annoyed.)
No, there isn't. A family history of breast cancer in general may increase the risk of developing inflammatory breast cancer, but no specific genetic mutations or changes have been found for it.
I have read the opposite--any orgasms/ejaculation reduces the chance of prostate cancer to a point. I think I recall that the guys who had 3 or more ejaculations a week had the lowest rate of cancer.
That doesn't make sense, as the sperm doesn't come from the prostate, but the fluid carrying it--the majority anyway--does.
Yep, what is up for debate is "what is the right thing?" I too check most of the boxes, but that didn't keep me from cancer and the other disease that have tried to kill me. Yeah, I knew an old guy a few years ago that tried to convince me that I could save him from prostate cancer by having daily sex with him. Worse pickup line ever! Unless it is a medical text based on documented research, then believing what you read might lead to disappointment. Reviewing this thread, I think a few hours of self-banning may be in order for me.
The articles I read say 4+ times per week reduces risk by 20% compared to 1-2 times per week. But no one has posited that the physiology/chemistry causing the relatively lower drive might also be the physiology/chemistry causing higher risk...that it's not necessarily the frequency of the act itself that makes a difference.
Perhaps that was a general statement to illustrate that the general chemistry involve via sex is different than masturbation, versus stating that the difference is sperm count itself actually has some kind of effect. Perhaps.
I was told that all men, if they live long enough, will get prostate cancer, although most won't die from it.
I think that's true for aging and most cancers. The two biggest risk factors for breast cancer are 1) having breasts and 2) aging.
You made me go look (on the internet.) I was surprised to find this: By the time a man is 60 years old, it’s almost certain he has at least a low level of prostate cancer. Reassuringly, if men keep their immune systems functioning properly, this cancer stays at such a low level that malignancy never becomes a concern. I had no idea. 60 years old is a pretty young threshold. I had a biopsy a few years ago when I was 65 and it came back negative. So the level of cancer must be pretty low. I guess the tests are calibrated to only detect levels of concern, or you gotta have expensive research equipment to detect the minimal level that "all men have." I've mentioned in another thread that having a low PSA is no guarantee of not having prostate cancer, because there is one form that is accompanied by a low PSA...and it's pretty aggressive. But it's not common.
Ok, I have also read that we ALL have cancer cells in us. It is only when they get out of control of our immune systems that the become 'having cancer'. If you think about it, we are all dying the day we are born. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. If I feel I have an issue, I deal with it. Of course, You can still play with yourself but I would not dwell on all of this if I were a man.
Actually, that's why supplements and such are sold for their antioxidant properties, huh? You are correct...our immune systems manage things like that. The article making that statement regarding our immune systems and prostate cancer cells was really talking about our immune systems and most cancer cells in general.
https://www.healthline.com/health/does-everyone-have-cancer-cells#how-common-are-they Does everyone have cancer cells in their body? No, we don’t all have cancer cells in our bodies. Our bodies are constantly producing new cells, some of which have the potential to become cancerous. At any given moment, we may be producing cells that have damaged DNA, but that doesn’t mean they’re destined to become cancer. Most of the time, cells with damaged DNA either repair themselves or die off through apoptosis. The potential for cancer happens only when neither of those things happen.
That was one of the worries about the mRNA vaccine, as it has an immune system bypass built in to prevent the immune system from attacking the vaccine itself. It is a possible concern that the cancer cells removed by the immune system would no longer perform that function since a persistent bypass mechanism wa sput into the vaccine. Only time will tell.