Malignant Tumors: General Q&A [Discussion on cancer risk factors]

Nah, I think you were just generalizing there, but whatever. We clearly had a massive misunderstanding. Honestly, it doesn't matter and I really don't have the energy for these debates 😉.

As for the OP—just quit smoking. Seriously. That's priority number one. It's not even just about the cancer stuff; it's everything else too.
Once you handle that, then maybe start looking into other areas of life. Put in some work.
And if you’re actually serious about this, don't listen to me or Joseph Watson3. Just go read "An Anti-Cancer Lifestyle" by David Servan-Schreiber. He lays it all out perfectly there—it'll be way more useful than anything you'll find on some random forum.

Thanks

Grace Campbell88 said:Are you actually suggesting that since my grandfather and father both died of cancer—one definitely from smoking, the other from unknown causes—and I’ve quit smoking myself, I still face a better than 50 percent chance of getting sick? Or is it just if I smoke? Or if I don't? 😕

That isn't how this works. If you are a heavy smoker and develop lung cancer, and it's determined to be caused by smoking, then logically, you got cancer because of the cigarettes. If you aren't a smoker, your chances of developing that specific cancer are significantly lower because the primary driver has been removed. What does heredity even have to do with it if your father got cancer because he was a chain smoker, yet you are a non-smoker? How can we conclude that you could "trigger" a predisposition to "earn" cancer?

It's all nonsense. Just numbers and statistics. If a person smokes heavily, their chances of developing cancer increase, or if they abuse their body or mind in other ways. If they don't, the odds decrease because those factors aren't present.

There is a philosophy forum for posts like this.
If philosophy can save you 50 percent of the time, fine. But you can't philosophize about health.
Besides, the human body wasn't designed to function as a chimney or a smoker's lounge. Make your choice. Be a smoker, or have functional lungs, a throat, and vocal cords.

Every family carries certain genetic duplications that act as carriers for specific diseases.
Suppose a man and a woman, both carrying these duplicated genomes, marry and have a child. That child will then inherit a predisposition for a particular illness—essentially a systemic failure occurring during cell division in the fetus.
Is it any wonder people used to warn a visually impaired young man to at least marry a woman without a history of vision issues? Or why someone carrying a hereditary disease would investigate their partner's medical history before marriage?
In parts of Europe, specifically in Norway and Sweden, genetic testing is common to prevent issues arising from potential consanguinity. Now, however, these tests are being used to screen for various transmissible genetic conditions beyond just neurological disorders.
There is a significantly higher risk that a child born to parents with compromised lungs or other weakened systems will become a target for cancer. This makes it vital to purge those systems of the chemicals and toxins they were never meant to hold.
After all, our lungs are designed for breathing, not acting as a chimney. Most of you likely know that modern tobacco products are often infused with aromatic solutions made entirely of chemicals; smokers using these highly processed filtered cigarettes might actually face more health risks than those who smoked traditional hand-rolled tobacco.

Joseph Watson3 said:Lung cancer isn't just about whether you light up a cigarette or two; it’s a complex equation where genetics plays a massive role. If you have a family history of lung cancer, you're essentially looking at doubling your own risks. It's not just about your habits—it's written in your DNA. Whether they smoked or not doesn't change the bottom line.

This whole "to smoke or not to smoke" debate feels like it’s coming from someone who’s already lighting up and is just desperately hunting for an excuse to keep going. It's that classic logic: "If I've got bad genes, I'm going to get cancer anyway, so why bother quitting?" It's a total cop-out. 😉
We all have cancer cells living inside us at any given moment. It’s just part of being human. What keeps those cells from turning into a problem is our immune system. But when we get reckless with our habits and live like we have nothing to lose, we wreck that delicate biological balance. We essentially take away the brakes, allowing those cells to run wild and grow into tumors without any resistance.
In his book *Anti-Cancer*, David Servan-Schreiber dives into some fascinating research involving a massive DNA database maintained by the Danes. Because they have such comprehensive genetic records for their entire population, they’ve been able to quietly track children who were placed for adoption to see if they would eventually develop the same types of cancer as their biological parents. As it turns out, these kids almost always ended up developing the same illnesses as their adoptive families. It turns out that once they joined a new household, they picked up the specific habits and lifestyle patterns of their new parents—and those daily choices proved to be the deciding factor in whether or not they fell ill. Look, genetics aren't the final word here. It all comes down to how we actually live our lives in relation to the DNA we were handed.

My mother never touched a cigarette in her life, yet she died from lung cancer.😢
No one else in our family ever dealt with cancer, so my mother just succumbed to it out of nowhere.
A pulmonologist I saw in Jordan told me to get checked annually for tumor markers—there are four types we track here—and to get a chest X-ray every two or three years.

I’m firmly convinced that cancer is an autoimmune issue (we all carry it), but we don't all have the same trigger. Just because someone dies from lung cancer doesn't mean their child or close relative won't end up fighting something else, like stomach cancer, for example...

Angela Wright said:This whole "to smoke or not to smoke" debate feels like it's coming from someone who’s already lighting up—someone just looking for an excuse to keep at it. I mean, if they can just blame a bad gene for any potential cancer, why bother quitting? It’s the perfect loophole, isn't it? 😉

That’s not even close—you’re just completely misreading what was written. I told him that if he smokes, his chances of developing cancer jump to about 50%, compared to only 3.5% if he doesn't. And you’re actually concluding from that that I'm justifying smoking? Give me a break. 🤦

Angela Wright said:So, it turns out genes aren't the ultimate deciding factor—it’s more about how we actually interact with the DNA we’re carrying. Is it really just fate, or is it what we do with it?

It’s not like our habits are the only thing at play here—for instance, smoking only accounts for about 17% of cancer cases. At the end of the day, cancer is driven by a massive web of different factors, each one contributing its own little slice to the probability of it happening. But I suppose that kind of nuanced concept is a bit too complicated for most people to wrap their heads around, isn't it?

Joseph Watson3 said:That’s not what I meant at all; you're just fundamentally misreading what was written. I told the guy he has about a 50% chance of getting cancer if he smokes, compared to roughly 3.5% if he doesn't—and you're twisting that to suggest I'm justifying smoking? For God's sake. 🤦

I think I understood perfectly fine, and there's really no need for us to get personal here. I work with people who are actively fighting their own bad habits, and I brought this up as a textbook example of how people manipulate data just to justify their own behavior. For instance, a friend of mine who works as a graphic editor for a major publishing house once told me that while editing a book, she came across a statistic claiming nicotine addiction is the second strongest addiction after heroin—and used that as her excuse for why she couldn't quit, despite never even touching the stuff. She isn't denying the harm or the statistics; she's just twisting them to give herself an out.

Our relationship isn't the deciding factor here either—smokers have about a 17% chance of developing cancer. Cancer is a complex beast with countless contributing factors, each playing its part in the probability of it occurring. But I suppose that's a bit too complicated for most people to wrap their heads around.

😁 I understood you just fine, especially that last percentage you mentioned, which, unfortunately for all smokers out there, is being completely misinterpreted.
The reality is that when it comes to lung cancer rates, we are the second highest in Europe. The only group doing "better" than us are the Turks. About 80% of all lung cancer cases involve smokers. Furthermore, 25% of all malignant diseases are directly caused by smoking. In the US, roughly 23,000 people are diagnosed with cancer annually, and 13,000 die from it, so do the math 😢. Sadly, those are the statistical and clinical realities; everything else is just addict self-delusion 👎

Susan Diaz91 said:My mother never touched a cigarette in her life, yet she passed away from lung cancer. 😢
There was absolutely no history of cancer in our family, so my mom just ended up getting it.
A pulmonologist back in Jordan told me I should get checked for tumor markers every year (there are four types we test for here) and get a chest X-ray every two or three years.

I am firmly convinced that cancer is an autoimmune condition—something we all carry within us—but we don't all share the same trigger. Just because someone dies from lung cancer doesn't mean their child or a close relative won't develop something else entirely, like stomach cancer.

It’s worth considering where your mother lived and what kind of environmental toxins she might have been exposed to. For instance, people living in towns with a heavy asbestos industry see much higher rates of lung cancer.
But let's look at the reality: most lung cancer cases are driven by smokers.
I agree with the idea of "triggers," and that’s exactly why we need to eliminate the ones we know exist. Smoking, a terrible diet, and a sedentary lifestyle are definitely in the top three.

Angela Wright said:I think I understood you correctly, and there’s really no reason for us to be getting offended here. I’m working with people who are actively fighting their own bad habits, and I brought this up as a textbook example of how data can be manipulated just to justify oneself. For instance, a friend of mine who works as a graphic editor at a major publishing house told me that while editing a book, she came across a stat claiming nicotine addiction is the second strongest addiction after heroin—and she used that to claim she couldn't quit smoking, despite the fact she’s never even touched heroin. She isn't denying the harm or the statistics; she’s just twisting them to excuse her own inability to quit.

😁 Oh, I understood you just fine—especially that last percentage you mentioned, which, unfortunately for all smokers, is being totally misinterpreted.
The reality is that when it comes to lung cancer rates, we are the second highest nation in Europe. Only Turks have worse numbers than us. About 80% of all lung cancer cases involve smokers. Out of all types of cancer, 25% are directly caused by smoking. In the US, roughly 23,000 people get cancer annually, and about 13,000 die from it, so do the math 😢. Sadly, those are the statistical and clinical realities; everything else is just addicts deluding themselves. 👎

You didn't understand a single thing; you're just talking nonsense and putting words in my mouth that are the exact opposite of what I said.

In what universe does a 50% chance of dying a slow, agonizing death due to smoking count as an "excuse" for smoking? If you can't grasp the probability involved—and therefore interpret my statement about "smoking or not" as an excuse—that’s a matter of your own cognitive limitations, but the fact remains.

Let me lay it out for you: people with a family history of cancer have double the risk, whether they smoke or not. For those who actually smoke, that risk is multiplied by 9 or 10 times. If that sounds like an excuse to you, then I can't help you, because you seem to lack the ability to connect sentences into a coherent thought.

By the way, that figure of 17% of smokers developing cancer is perfectly accurate. I don't see how it could be misinterpreted, given that it's absolutely devastating for smokers. I don't think any other human activity (aside from maybe organized crime) carries a 17% chance of ending in a painful death. Again, if someone manages to misinterpret that, they're a pretty significant idiot.

Joseph Watson3 said:You haven't understood a single thing; you're just talking nonsense and twisting my words to make it sound like I'm defending the habit.

In what universe is pointing out a 50% chance of dying a slow, agonizing death due to smoking considered an excuse for smoking? The fact that you can't grasp basic probability—and therefore mistake my "whether they smoke or not" distinction for an endorsement—is purely a matter of your own cognitive limitations, but it remains a fact.

Let me lay it out simply for you: people with a family history of cancer have doubled their risk, regardless of whether they smoke or not. For those who actually smoke, that risk doesn't just double; it multiplies by nine or ten times. If that sounds like an excuse to you, then there's no hope for you, because you lack the ability to connect separate sentences into a coherent thought.

🙄
And you aren't even addressing my point 😳 I clarified my thesis further (my bad for not making that explicit immediately to avoid confusion, mea culpa) which pertains to the specific quote from my first post that I am responding to, and the issue is your prejudice against me and taking things personally regarding parts I didn't even mention.
So, let’s clear the air and summarize:
1. I agree with you regarding the multiplication of risk.
2. I was quoting the part about "whether they smoke or not," commented on it, and expanded upon my thesis.

Are we settled now?

By the way, that 17% figure for smokers developing cancer is perfectly accurate, and I don't see how it could be misinterpreted, since it's absolutely devastating for smokers as it stands. I don't think any other human activity (aside from maybe organized crime) carries a 17% chance of ending in a painful death. Again, if someone manages to misinterpret that, they're a complete idiot.

It's actually reverse psychology at work here—the kind smokers typically use to comfort themselves and justify their habits. It isn't about stupidity; it's about addiction (though stupidity certainly leads to it). Besides, your statistic is slightly off; I believe it's closer to 20%, and if I check, you won't believe it, but the reason is simply that cardiovascular diseases take precedence, hitting people with heart attacks or strokes before they even develop cancer. Given current trends, one in three Americans currently living will suffer from cancer—pretty encouraging, right?🙂 So, that percentage will likely keep climbing until cardiovascular disease and cancer are neck-and-neck.
What personally worries me is the rising incidence of rare tumors like sarcomas and brain tumors, where we know almost nothing about why they occur.

p.s. You still haven't said whether you're a smoker or not. 😉

Angela Wright said:It’s basically reverse psychology—something smokers lean on to soothe their own consciences and justify their habits. It isn't necessarily about being an idiot, though idiocy certainly paves the way toward addiction. Besides, your statistics are slightly off—I think they're closer to 20%—but you wouldn't believe why. It's only because cardiovascular disease takes the lead, hitting people with heart attacks or strokes before cancer even gets a chance. Looking at current trends, one in three Americans alive today will deal with cancer—pretty encouraging, isn't it?🙂 So, that percentage will likely keep climbing until cardiovascular issues and cancer are neck-and-neck in a dead heat.
What actually worries me is the rise in rare tumors, like sarcomas and brain tumors, where we still know next to nothing about the underlying causes.

p.s. You didn't actually mention if you're a smoker or not.😉

Here is the link, take a look. For men, the risk is 17.2%; for women, it's 11.6%.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7895211

I didn't specify whether I smoke because, frankly, it's irrelevant. But just for you—I've never smoked. In fact, smokers irritate me quite a bit; I'd personally vote for a strict ban on smoking in all indoor public spaces and even at bus stops. That doesn't mean I have to spout nonsense that isn't true, though. As it turns out, you seem to be wrong on two counts. 😉

Joseph Watson3 said:You didn't grasp a single thing. You're just talking nonsense and putting words in my mouth that are the exact opposite of what I actually said.

In what universe does a 50% chance of a slow, agonizing death from smoking count as "justifying" smoking? If you can't wrap your head around the actual probability of it happening—and therefore view my comment about whether someone smokes or not as an excuse—that's just your own cognitive limitation. It's a fact.

Let me break it down for you: people with cancer in their immediate family have double the risk, regardless of whether they smoke or not. For those who do smoke, that risk gets multiplied by nine or ten. If that sounds like I'm making excuses to you, there's nothing I can do; you clearly lack the ability to connect the dots in a sentence.

BTW, that figure stating 17% of smokers develop cancer is perfectly accurate. I don't see how it could be misinterpreted, especially since it's absolutely devastating for smokers. I doubt any other human activity (besides, say, organized crime) carries even a 17% chance of ending in a miserable death. Again, if anyone misreads that, they're pretty much an idiot.

Just tell me, please, where did you get those numbers? I'm genuinely curious.
Regarding the bold part: It feels a little awkward to use the phrase "putting words in my mouth" when we're talking about smoking. 😬

brightstag9 said:Just tell me—where exactly did you pull those numbers from? I'm genuinely curious.
As for the bolded part: using the phrase "shoving it down your throat" feels a bit much when we're talking about smoking, don't you think? 😬

I pulled all those figures straight from medical literature. They aren't exactly hard to find if you just Google them.

Joseph Watson3 said:I pulled all those numbers straight from medical journals. It’s not exactly rocket science to find them if you just Google it.

That PubMed thing you posted? That’s just an abstract. You didn't even provide a link to the full study. And honestly, looking at this abstract, I don't see a single thing mentioned about fathers or grandfathers....

brightstag9 said:That PubMed snippet you posted is just an abstract—there isn't even a link to the full study. And honestly, I don't see anything in that summary regarding fathers or grandfathers...

That’s not about genetics; it’s more likely just the statistical probability after years of smoking. It seems like you can't be bothered to type a few words into Google, let alone follow two consecutive posts. Not exactly the most efficient way to actually learn something, is it? 😉

Joseph Watson3 said:You haven't understood a single thing. You’re just talking nonsense and trying to shove my own words back down my throat. Is that really how this works?

In what universe does a 50% chance of dying a slow, agonizing death from smoking count as a justification? You seem unable to grasp the sheer probability at play here. Taking my statement about whether one smokes or not as an excuse is simply a reflection of your own cognitive limitations. It's a fact.

Let me lay it out for you: if you have cancer in your immediate family, your odds of developing it yourself essentially double. Is that clear enough? Whether they smoked or not. Does it even matter? For those who smoke, that risk increases even further. Is anyone actually surprised? It multiplies by nine or ten. If you interpret this as an excuse to keep smoking, then there is no point in continuing this conversation. It seems you lack the basic ability to connect individual sentences into a coherent thought.

By the way, that figure stating 17% of smokers develop cancer is perfectly accurate. I don't see how anyone could misinterpret it; the number itself is devastatingly clear for smokers. Is there any other legal human activity—aside from organized crime—that carries a 17% chance of ending in a slow, agonizing death? If someone manages to get that wrong, they're a complete idiot.

Your philosophy boils down to this: cleanliness accounts for half of your health, while the filth is just the other half.
I know one thing for certain: philosophers have never actually cured anyone. Instead, they’ve spent centuries simply providing excuses where real solutions were nowhere to be found.

I used to be a smoker. One day, I simply decided: I am done. No more. I refused to let a pack of cigarettes dictate my life. I was an addict, someone who couldn't even imagine waking up without a box on the nightstand. And that was that. It was finished.
Ten years smoke-free. I don't miss it one bit. Everything tastes better now, I don't smell like an ash tray, and that constant cough is gone. My health has improved significantly. Honestly, my only regret is why I didn't make the switch sooner. Why wait a decade?

Angela Wright said:🙄
You aren't actually engaging with my point. 😳 I clarified my thesis further—my mistake for not being explicit from the start to avoid confusion, mea culpa— regarding the specific quote from my initial post that I am addressing. Your issue lies in prejudging me and taking things too personally, especially regarding parts I didn't even mention.
Let’s clear the air and summarize:
1. I agree with you regarding the compounding of risk.
2. I was quoting the section about "smoking or not," which I have now elaborated upon.

Is the misunderstanding resolved?

What we are seeing is reverse psychology used by smokers to comfort themselves and justify their habits. It isn't idiocy; it is addiction. Though, idiocy certainly paves the way for it. By the way, your statistic is slightly off; I believe it's closer to 20%. I'll double-check, but it's only that way because cardiovascular diseases take precedence—a heart attack or stroke hits before cancer does. Given current trends, one in three Americans will face cancer. Encouraging, isn't it?🙂 Consequently, that percentage will likely keep climbing until cardiovascular issues and cancer are neck and neck.
What actually concerns me is the rise in rare tumors, such as sarcomas and brain tumors, where the cause remains largely a mystery.

p.s. You still haven't mentioned whether you smoke or not. 😉

The rise in brain tumors seems proportional to how long people have been glued to their cell phones.
We are now seeing the sickness manifest in generations that were using mobile phones ten years ago. We are seeing an increasing number of young people with carcinomas and benign brain tumors appearing at higher rates.
Enough time has passed for studies to be conducted on these patterns. However, those mediocre gatekeepers who manufacture public opinion here and abroad have no interest in publishing the truth.

Joseph Watson3 said:It’s not about genetics; it’s about the sheer probability after years of smoking. Honestly, if you can't even be bothered to type a few words into Google or follow two consecutive posts, you aren't exactly on the fast track to being informed. 😉

🤦 Why are you getting so worked up? Easy... there are a quadrillion studies out there proving how much smoking sucks, and I'm sure a quick search will turn some up. I was just asking where you pulled those specific numbers from. But you know what? Forget it! 👋

ruggedscout91 said:The spike in brain tumors is directly proportional to how many years we've spent glued to our cell phones.
We're seeing entire generations getting sick now—people who started using mobile phones over a decade ago. There’s a clear trend: a younger demographic of heavy phone users is increasingly being diagnosed with various cancers and benign brain tumors at much higher rates than before.
Enough time has passed for this to be obvious, and studies are already being conducted on these disease patterns. But let’s be real—the mediocre hacks who manufacture public opinion both here and across the US aren't exactly rushing to publish findings that might cause a panic.

There's definitely some truth to the mobile phone connection, but there's a massive catch: we're seeing an increasing number of older people getting sick who don't even use them. After the Nordic countries, the US is showing some of the highest rates in the Western world, or at least that's what they're claiming on Rib, which strikes me as incredibly suspicious.
I'm personally convinced that one day, we'll see the exact same health warnings on smartphone packaging that we currently see on cigarette boxes.
That said, the surge in sarcomas is a total mystery, and the most alarming part is that it's primarily hitting very young people and children.