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

Joseph Watson3 said:Here’s the link, take a look. Risk stands at 17.2% for men and 11.6% for women.

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

I didn't mention whether I smoke because frankly, it's irrelevant. But, since you seem so keen—I've never touched a cigarette in my life. In fact, smokers irritate me enough that I’d personally vote to ban smoking from all indoor public spaces and transit hubs. That being said, just because I hate the habit doesn't mean I'm going to spout nonsense. It looks like you're wrong on two different counts here. 😉

Look, I wouldn't throw percentages around as casually as you are based on some random websites. Whether it's 17.2% or 20% isn't the point; the reality is that those numbers are climbing. And that percentage isn't "positive" because smoking is somehow less harmful; it's high because smokers often succumb to other ailments before they even have the chance to develop cancer.
I don't think I'm off base here, because what I'm discussing is literally my profession. As part of my job, I'm required to know more than the average person on the street. If you're actually interested in learning more, feel free to click on my profile. 😉

p.s. There's really no need to approach this debate with that level of arrogance or condescension. It's pointless and, honestly, quite rude, especially since I haven't said anything intended to offend you. At the end of the day, I actually agree with the core of what you wrote. 🤷

Anyway, I’m just curious about this one thing (and if someone wants to tell me to go join a philosophy forum, fine, whatever, who cares☕):

So, let's look at someone who died from lung cancer caused strictly by smoking or maybe working in a coal mine—doesn't really matter which. Basically, we have a clear cause for the disease.
Let’s assume that, because there was a specific cause, if that person had never smoked (not even secondhand) or hadn't worked near a mine, they would never have gotten lung cancer in the first place.

Does that mean his grandson—say, someone who has never touched a cigarette and has never been near a mine—now carries those genetic predispositions mentioned by JPK or ruggedscout91, or at least has doubled his chances of getting lung cancer?

Grace Campbell88 said:Look, I’m just curious here (and if someone wants to kick me off to some philosophy forum, fine, who cares☕):

Let's take a guy who dies from lung cancer caused strictly by smoking or, say, working in a coal mine—doesn't matter. Okay, we have a clear cause for the disease.
Let's assume that because there was a specific cause, if that man had never smoked (not even secondhand) or had never been anywhere near a mine, he would never have developed lung cancer.

Does that mean his grandson, for instance, who has never smoked or worked near a mine in his life, carries genetic predispositions in those percentages mentioned by JPK or ruggedscout91, or at least has doubled chances of getting lung cancer?

We all have genetic predispositions for cancer simply by being human. What actually makes the difference is how you handle your lifestyle, your diet, and avoiding risky behaviors that are proven triggers.
Listen, when you're talking about cancer, or honestly anything in life, there are no guarantees. Even if someone has a confirmed gene mutation—like women whose mothers had a known mutation that causes breast cancer—there's just a statistical probability that they might get it. It doesn't mean it's a done deal.
The whole point is to cut out everything you know is bad and acts as a trigger. Basically, act preventatively.
To make this easier to swallow, here is a quote from my friend Vanda, a molecular biologist, who gave a great explanation of all this on another forum:

How does cancer actually start? Every single day, we're exposed to countless substances that damage our DNA and proteins. UV rays, ionizing radiation, chemicals... living is inherently risky! In most cases, a cell will either repair the damage or undergo apoptosis. But occasionally, damage occurs in such a way or in such a spot that the cell fails to recognize it as a threat. For example, a mutation (a change in the DNA) might occur right in a proto-oncogene. If that happens, it can become an oncogene, which has the potential to turn a perfectly healthy cell into a malignant one. An oncogene can do this in several ways. Due to dysregulation, it might overproduce certain signals, causing all the surrounding cells to divide like crazy. The faster and more frequently cells divide, the higher the chance of a mistake occurring. You could also have damage to a tumor suppressor gene—meaning there's nothing left to balance out the proto-oncogene, so the "stop dividing" signal is gone, and cells just go into a frenzy. Some substances can even cause chromosomal breaks. A broken piece of a chromosome might accidentally fuse to another, messing up gene functions and triggering the production of faulty proteins (synovial sarcoma, for instance, is a result of chromosomal breakage). Even viral infections—even something like the flu—can be a factor. A flu virus integrates itself into our genome; if it lands in an unlucky spot, like a proto-oncogene, it can activate it. The Epstein-Barr virus (one of the culprits behind mono) is linked to about 50% of Hodgkin lymphoma cases (I'm EBV positive myself). It settles into your B lymphocytes and, while it's hanging out there like an unwanted guest, it accidentally messes things up and—boom—you've got lymphoma.

Cell damage like this happens all the time—honestly, probably daily—but we don't just wake up with cancer. We’re lucky because our immune system is basically a high-tech security detail specifically trained to spot these mutated cells and take them out. If it weren't for that, none of us would even make it to adulthood. Patients who lack what we call "killer cells" (NK cells, a specific subset of lymphocytes) that act as the front-line defense against viruses and tumors, face a much higher risk of developing malignancies. But here’s the catch: sometimes these transformed cells are so damn good at camouflage that our immune system's soldiers don't even realize they're looking at an enemy. Some tumors actually go out of their way to gaslight the immune system. Take my own lymphoma as an example—Hodgkin's lymphoma is a disease where B lymphocytes (one of our immune system's primary soldiers) essentially go rogue. They lose all the characteristics of an adult B cell, yet they don't look threatening—I mean, who looks at a child and thinks "danger"? Along with going rogue, they lose the ability to function independently, so they resort to lying and simulating inflammation by pumping out cytokine signaling proteins just to lure other immune cells toward them. Then, they hijack those misled cells, using them to ensure their own survival. The real tragedy is that the "good" immune cells end up completely exhausted and preoccupied with these liars, leaving them unable to do their actual job of protecting the body. And let's not even get started on how these deceptive, transformed B cells have zero chill; they consume far more resources than a normal cell ever would, effectively starving the host.

To put it bluntly, tumor cells are cells that have lost their internal compass. They no longer understand that the individual cell's well-being is secondary to the organism's survival. They become pure narcissists, hoarding resources and essentially starving the rest of the body—which is actually the exact principle behind a PET/CT scan, which tracks where the body is burning through the most sugar. It’s a lot like how Washington D.C. operates. But the massive hurdle is that they look similar enough to healthy cells that our own immune system fails to recognize them as infiltrators. That’s the core challenge in oncology: most chemicals that kill cancer cells also wreck healthy ones. The goal is to find those microscopic differences between a normal cell and a transformed one, then develop a substance that exploits those specific flaws to target only the cancer. That is incredibly difficult. One of those "smart" drugs is Gleevec, which selectively targets a specific oncogene caused by a chromosomal break and fusion (in chronic myeloid leukemia). Unfortunately, in some patients, certain tumor cells eventually figure out how to build resistance.

Furthermore, the damage we rack up throughout our lives has a cumulative effect—which is why cancer is much more common in older people. On top of that, they generally have a diminished capacity for regeneration and a weakened immune system.

Source:

Grace Campbell88 said:Look, I’m just curious about this—and honestly, if anyone wants to tell me to go join a philosophy forum, fine, whatever, who cares☕:

So, let's take a hypothetical scenario... say someone passes away from lung cancer caused strictly by smoking or maybe working in a coal mine, doesn't really matter. The point is, we have a clear cause for the illness.
Let's assume that because there was such a specific trigger, if that person had never smoked—not even secondhand smoke—and had never stepped foot near a mine, they wouldn't have developed lung cancer at all.

Does that mean their grandson, for example—someone who has never touched a cigarette and has never been near any industrial sites—now carries a genetic predisposition within those percentage ranges mentioned by JPK or ruggedscout91, or perhaps even double the risk of developing lung cancer?

Don't get too caught up in the deep philosophy of it; you don't inherit the disease itself directly, at least not in a case like this. Instead, it's a predisposition toward it developing. You see, the human genome is significantly influenced by our environment and how we live our lives. What’s actually more critical when looking at the same type of malignancy appearing in a family line is the inheritance of lifestyle habits, simply because parents are the ones we learn from, and later in life, we unconsciously mimic them.
I recall reading about a study that supports this... it showed that the disease was just as prevalent in adopted children, which suggests there wasn't a direct genetic predisposition involved.

Regarding the repeated discussion on carcinomas and the immune system, one could argue that the real benefit lies in resolving all those minor inflammatory issues within the body. Even something as simple as a problematic tooth can constantly drain and exhaust the immune system's resources. Then there are bacterial pathologies that are easily treated, or the various trivial viral illnesses we can simply avoid through basic precaution.

I recall someone once suggesting that even cancer cells can contract the flu, essentially acting as hosts for viral production. However, once the flu passes, everything returns to its previous state.

Therefore, the focus should be on the careful preservation of the immune system and the consumption of optimal nutrients required to sustain all bodily functions.
Maintaining immunity isn't just about loading up on vitamin supplements—which aren't always harmless when overused. True maintenance involves timely rest, quality sleep, a balanced diet, fresh air, and activities that stimulate circulation and systemic function.
After all, cancer is an immune system disease.

Angela Wright said:It’s hard to say where her mother lived or what kind of chemicals she was exposed to. For instance, people living near old asbestos plants have much higher lung cancer rates.
But let's be real—most lung cancer cases come from smoking.
I agree about triggers—that's exactly why we need to cut out the ones we know exist. Smoking, a garbage diet, and being sedentary are definitely in the top three.

Where did she live?
In Santa Barbara, right next to a Thalassotherapy center (ironic, considering it's a clinic for bronchial issues)
Chemical exposure? Her whole life was spent as a school professor—not a single trace of chemical contact...

Honestly, I don't believe in much anymore, except for the theory that we all carry cancer within us and the idea of environmental triggers.

A good friend of mine... hasn't even hit 30 yet, someone who has never been sick a day in her life... gets diagnosed with stomach cancer...

Susan Diaz91 said:Where did she live?
She lived in Santa Barbara, right next door to the Thalassotherapy center (ironic, considering it’s a facility meant for respiratory issues)
The connections... spent her entire life as a school professor—not a single clue in those chemical bonds...

Honestly, I don't believe in much anymore, except for the theory that we all carry cancer within us and it just needs a trigger.

A good friend of mine... hasn't even hit 30, never been sick a day in her life... ends up with stomach cancer...

My mother lived the exact same way—healthy lifestyle, ate clean, never touched a drop of alcohol, never smoked, let alone used drugs—and then she gets a brain tumor. It turns out when she was just a 6-month-old baby, she caught encephalitis. I only just found out from her aunt that it was actually viral, not bacterial like they thought back then, because she spent a whole year in the hospital being pumped full of antibiotics 😳. It likely left some kind of "scar" (the tumor formed right on the surface of the brain near the meninges). Her whole life, she suffered from debilitating headaches during her PMS; she couldn't stand bright lights or strong scents. She actually had to drop her chemistry major because whenever they started the lab work, she’d practically pass out during certain organic compound experiments. So, she switched to economics and ended up working in accounting at a tire factory where the offices were located right above the production floor. Then she hit menopause, lost her natural hormonal shield, and everything went south. Not to mention how much she stressed over everything, being such a perfectionist.
When you sit down and really look at the pieces, things start to align. It's been five years since this all began, and I'm still digging through it, piecing together these theories.

We’ve conveniently wiped the Chernobyl disaster from our collective memory, yet the mutagenic and teratogenic consequences are only just surfacing now, decades after the initial explosion.
That explains why we saw such an overwhelming surge in thyroid cancer among children exposed back in 1986, or those born in the immediate aftermath.
The bill is still coming due today.
There is a fascinating parallel to be drawn here between our situation and what happened in Norway regarding brain tumor rates.
One could certainly dig deeper into the similarities in exposure—whether it’s environmental toxins, diet, climate, or other factors.

Someone who smokes an entire pack a day... man, they've really got themselves a situation on their hands. I was reading this study from the Cancer Research Institute the other day—total rabbit hole, by the way—and it really makes you think about the sheer volume of what's going into the body. It’s heavy stuff. Just sitting there, thinking about that level of daily intake. It's a lot to process. Twenty times. Twenty whole times! I mean, honestly, can you even imagine? It’s just... wow. Sometimes life just keeps hitting that same note over and over again, doesn't it? Just twenty times in a row. I was sitting there thinking about it earlier—kind of like when you realize you've walked into a room and completely forgotten why you went in there, only instead of once, it happens twenty times. It's exhausting, really. Just relentless. The risk of developing lung cancer compared to a non-smoker is over 80%. In fact, if you look at the numbers, probably upwards of 90% of all lung cancers are caused by smoking. And that’s not even counting how other factors don't just add up with smoking—they actually amplify the danger. I'm talking about genetics; once you factor that in, you have to be absolutely insane to keep lighting up. If this statistic is accurate—that 17% of smokers will eventually get sick and die from lung cancer—then it is truly devastating. That is a massive percentage. It’s like being at an airport where there are six planes waiting to board, and you know for a fact that one of them has a bomb on it that's going to explode mid-air... honestly, who would ever gamble on that? Who would step onto that plane hoping they just happened to pick one of the five safe ones? The math doesn't lie: 90% of those who die from lung cancer were smokers. That's easy enough to track. The remaining 10%? That's down to genetics, environmental pollution, secondhand smoke, and things like that. People love to try and debunk this by citing their own "scientific data," usually something like, "Oh, my grandpa smoked for 80 years and died in a car accident," or "My mother never touched a cigarette in her life and still died of lung cancer." Sure, those cases exist, but they are the outliers, not the rule. Smoking has been the single greatest evil of the last century. It reminds me of something I read recently—there was this prominent surgeon, I believe his name was Adler, and in his surgical textbook dating back to 1908, he actually wrote a chapter on lung cancer. He literally quoted, "Is it even worth writing about such a rare disease as lung cancer?" Just think about how much things have changed since then.

So, I was reading somewhere that if you manage to kick the habit before you hit 35, it takes about eight years for your lungs to fully clear out and get back to looking ALMOST identical to a non-smoker's.
Then today, I hear some other statistic claiming that regardless of how old you are, you actually need twice as many years to recover.
Basically, I smoked for about ten years. I'm 31 now and just quit recently. So what's the deal? Am I stuck waiting until I'm 50 just to have clean lungs again?
😢

Found this too:

Researchers at the Cancer Research Institute have basically debunked the idea that once you quit smoking, your body just resets to factory settings. It’s not that simple.

Their study shows that even after a decade of being smoke-free, the cells in the respiratory tracts of former smokers still carry the scars. Apparently, the genetic damage is permanent.

On top of that, smoking messes with the genes responsible for synthesizing key proteins. Based on what they found, while quitting definitely saves you from heart disease, it doesn't magically wipe out the risk for other nasty illnesses either.

"Quitting smoking doesn't mean your chances of getting a fatal disease drop to zero, but it certainly helps," said one of the lead researchers, Radz, according to Ria News.

While some genes in former smokers do return to normal, there are about 124 others that are permanently altered. They'll never be the way they were before.

One of the group members, Ven Lem, pointed out that this research definitely isn't suggesting that quitting is a waste of time.

Keeping the habit just causes more damage to the lung tissue cells. Period.

So, yeah, you should quit, but doctors are basically saying it's much better if you never start in the first place.

Zachary Kern6 said:Someone smoking a pack a day essentially faces a twenty times higher risk of developing lung cancer compared to a non-smoker. If you consider that over 80%, and quite likely even over 90%, of all lung cancer cases are directly linked to smoking—especially when you factor in other variables that don't just add up with smoking but actually amplify the danger, like genetics—I suppose one would have to be truly irrational to keep going with it. Even if this specific statistic is accurate (that 17% of smokers eventually succumb to lung cancer), which I suspect it is, the numbers are honestly quite devastating because that is such a massive percentage. It’s a bit like standing at an airport where there are six planes waiting to board, and you know for a fact that one of them has a bomb on it that will detonate mid-flight... I can't imagine who would actually gamble on that by boarding, hoping they just happen to pick one of the other five. The math seems pretty clear: if 90% of lung cancer deaths are attributed to smokers, that’s a fairly easy figure to track, leaving that remaining 10% to things like genetics, environmental pollution, or secondhand smoke. People tend to lean on anecdotal "evidence," like saying, "Well, my grandfather smoked for eighty years and died in a car accident," or "My mother never touched a cigarette and still got lung cancer." Sure, those outliers exist, but they really are the exception rather than the rule. Smoking has arguably been the single greatest scourge of the last century. In fact, I believe a prominent surgeon named Adler wrote a chapter on lung cancer in his 1908 surgical textbook where he actually questioned whether it was even worth mentioning such a "rare disease."

Allen Carr 🙂

Angela Wright said:My mother lived a perfectly healthy lifestyle her whole life—eating clean, sticking to a Mediterranean diet, never touching alcohol, let alone smoking or drugs—and she still ended up with a brain tumor. It turns out she had encephalitis when she was just six months old, something I only recently discovered through an aunt. Back then, they thought it was bacterial and treated her with antibiotics for a year in the hospital, but it was actually viral 😳. That likely left a "scar," as the tumor formed right on the surface of the brain near the meninges. She dealt with chronic headaches during her PMS her entire life and couldn't stand bright lights or strong scents. She actually had to abandon her chemistry studies because the organic compound experiments would frequently cause her to pass out. She eventually pivoted to economics and worked in accounting for a tire factory, with offices located right above the production floor. Once she hit menopause and lost that natural hormonal shield, everything went downhill. Not to mention her perfectionism; she tended to get stressed over just about everything.
When you take a moment to reflect, certain things start to make sense. It’s been five years since this all began, and I’m still digging through the details and forming new theories.

In my view, mental health is just as vital as physical health. So, while she ate well and didn't smoke, that doesn't change much. The risk is always there, even if you follow every rule in the book.

I mean, honestly... just a total manchild. It’s one of those things that you just can't quite wrap your head around sometimes, you know? I guess I'm just being overly critical, maybe, but there's something about that specific type of behavior that feels so incredibly draining to be around. It’s like they’re perpetually stuck in this loop of avoiding any real responsibility, constantly looking for someone else to pick up the slack—which, let's face it, usually ends up being you. It’s exhausting. Truly. kaže:
If both your grandfather and your father have dealt with cancer, I guess there’s a pretty significant chance that you might be facing that same road ahead. It’s a heavy thing to think about, really... the idea that genetics could play such a massive role in your own health. It's definitely something worth keeping on your radar.

It’s heavy, isn't it? I completely understand why you're feeling this way. Losing both your mom and your grandma to cancer—especially when they were battling different types—is an incredibly heavy burden to carry. It makes sense that you'd look at that history and feel like you're just waiting for the other shoe to drop. But, if I can offer some perspective, it doesn't necessarily mean your fate is already written in stone. I guess... well, maybe it's more complicated than a direct line from them to you. While genetics definitely play a role in certain things, cancer isn't always a single, inherited "on/off" switch. There are so many factors involved—lifestyle, environment, and even just plain old luck. Having that family history is important, though. It doesn't mean you're doomed, but it does mean you have a reason to be proactive. It might be worth having a really thorough conversation with your doctor about what you know, just so you can stay ahead of things with regular screenings or whatever else they recommend. Knowledge is power, I suppose. Hang in there.

I mean, honestly... how? I'm just sitting here wondering, like, how is that even possible? It's wild. Truly. Maybe I'm overthinking it, I guess, but there's just no way. Just... wow. 🙄

Angela Wright said:It turns out, as it were, that they generally ended up facing the exact same health struggles as their adoptive parents. It’s a bit of a striking pattern, really. Since they were stepping into an entirely new family dynamic, they essentially picked up all those specific daily habits and lifestyle choices along the way. And honestly, I guess that turned out to be the deciding factor when it came to developing certain types of cancer. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that our genes aren't necessarily the whole story here... it’s more about how we actually relate to them, you know? It's less about the code itself and more about our relationship with those genetic traits we carry around. Maybe that's the real key.

That’s just how I see things, I guess. Maybe it’s a bit of a stretch, but that’s my take on the whole situation.
It’s possible, I suppose... but then again, it might not be. It really just depends, don't you think? Maybe. Or maybe not.
I can't help but feel that I’m living a much higher quality of life than the two generations of women who came before me, really. It’s quite a leap, isn't it? And because of that, I suppose I find myself investing more heavily into my own well-being—trying to proactively lower those risks and just... better my chances for the future, I guess.

Nathan Kelly5 said:In my book, mental health isn't some secondary concern compared to physical health—it’s just as vital. So, saying she ate well or didn't smoke? That doesn't settle the matter. There's always a risk, even when someone follows every medical recommendation to the letter.

Absolutely. That’s exactly why I wrote my previous post. Once you actually sit down and process things, a lot of what happened becomes glaringly obvious.

I heard there's a study coming out soon that backs up the title of this thread, so I was wondering if there's any truth to it. Basically, the idea is that since our mouth tissue regenerates so fast, constantly biting at it out of habit might trigger cancer because the cells are working overtime to repair themselves. I'm definitely no expert here, but apparently, the research is right around the corner, so we'll see!

I'd love it if some pros could weigh in and let me know if this actually holds water...

Look, this probably isn't the right venue for a thread like this... maybe it would be better suited for the alternative subforum, but let's just wait and see what the moderators have to say about it. 🙂

So, I guess I can just expect cancer then☕

I’ve had two questions rattling around my head for quite some time now...
- How does cancer—say, colon cancer—just show up in someone who's young, doesn't smoke, avoids alcohol, eats clean, and stays active?
- And if someone actually has a tumor or cancer, is it possible for their lab results—like blood counts or ESR—to look completely normal?
This isn't about me, personally; I'm just genuinely curious...

Peter Taylor3 said:I've had two questions on my mind for a while now...
- How does cancer (like colon cancer) just show up in someone who's young, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, eats healthy, and stays active?
- If someone actually has a tumor or cancer, is it possible for their lab results (like blood work or ESR) to look completely normal?
It's not about me personally, I'm just curious...

1. We know there’s definitely a genetic component to cancer. In some families, there's a higher frequency of colon polyps that can eventually turn into carcinoma.
Some families have various members dealing with different types of cancer, which points directly to a genetic predisposition.
2. With certain types of cancer, it is absolutely possible for blood counts to come back totally normal.