Age threshold for cancer risk lowered to 30

The age threshold for cancer diagnosis has dropped to just 30 years old
Last year, 1.7 million Europeans lost their lives to cancer, while another 2.9 million people across Europe were diagnosed with the disease, according to reports from USA Today. We’re seeing this upward trend in the US as well, where the typical age of onset has shifted significantly—dropping from 50 down to 30, particularly when it comes to breast cancer. Every year in Europe, there's a 1% increase in the number of children facing cancer diagnoses, though thankfully, medical breakthroughs have helped improve survival rates.

So, Americans just crunched the numbers, and apparently, if we could somehow fix our bloated, overactive consciousness and get it back to a normal baseline, we’d tack on another 4 years to our lives.

And get this—if we actually managed to wipe out all cancer, we'd probably squeeze out an extra 2 years too.😉

Cancer isn't some bug you catch from shaking hands with someone; it’s more like the inevitable bill coming due for a lifetime of poor choices, a diet that lacks balance, missing nutrients, chronic stress, and all the other ways we wear ourselves down.

Real prevention isn't just about "early detection" like they always pitch when talking about breast cancer; it’s actually about fueling your body with vitamins, minerals, proteins, fiber, and every other macro and micronutrient required to stay functional. Of course, staying active and drinking enough water matters just as much. 😉

The age at which people start getting diagnosed is dropping fast, and fortunately, more people are realizing that dietary supplements have become pretty much essential nowadays—even the WHO suggests as much—so everyone can make their own call. Personally, I don't need any more warnings to snap out of it when I see what's happening around me; people are dying younger every year, often clinging to the hope that it won't happen to them, only to act shocked when it finally does, asking how it happened "all of a sudden." Nothing happens overnight, and cancer certainly isn't one of them. 😢

Folks, what are we even talking about here?

What kind of "age limit for cancer" are you referring to?

That concept doesn't exist. There are malignant diseases that can strike at any stage of life, unfortunately....
Anyone with even a basic understanding of medicine knows that certain tumors are specific to infancy and childhood, others are most common during adolescence, some during adulthood, and others primarily affect the elderly....

There is no such thing as a generalization here....

And mistybear4... there are certain cancers that are spread through personal contact—just look up the epidemiology of cervical cancer.😈

Sure, you might have a point there... but (there's always that one "but") 😉

"Researchers believe there are other variables, often referred to as contributing factors, involved in the development of malignant tumors. One such factor is smoking. Tobacco use compromises the immune system and hinders the body's ability to fight off HPV infections in the cervix, while early sexual activity, having multiple partners, or being with someone who has multiple partners increases the risk of cervical carcinoma."

http://www.pfizer.com/?section...esti&bid=63-88

If the immune system is functioning perfectly, the probability drops significantly, which tells you everything you need to know... 😉

The whole idea of an "age threshold" is just a way to highlight how rising mortality rates from these "malignant diseases" among younger people are likely signaling something deeper... 😲 🙄 😎

mistybear4, stop selling snake oil😁

It’s long been established that the immune system plays a key role in oncogenesis (ever heard of natural killer cells acting as the body's "cleanup crew" for faulty cells, apoptosis, or other mechanisms?)...

And as we already know, cervical cancer is categorized as an STD, or a sexually transmitted disease.😈

Also, when it comes to vital statistics, don't confusemorbidity (incidence) withmortality (death rates). .

Take a look at the U.S. Census Bureau report from 2004, for instance, before making claims like that....

In recent years, almost all cancers have shown adownward trend in mortality rates, particularly regarding breast, stomach, and colorectal cancers....
To anyone with even basic knowledge, that indicates these diseases are being caught earlier while they are still in a treatable stage...
The rise in morbidity might also just be an illusion caused by better diagnostic tools...

All things considered, you might want to stick to construction statistics rather than vital statistics; you'd probably be more competent in that field.😎

By the way, the Pfizer health portal isn't exactly the most reliable data source, and neither are those various Spark forums. 😈

nimbleskipper13 said:Take a look at the U.S. Census Bureau reports from 2004 before you start making claims like that....

Most cancers have shown a downward trend in mortality rates lately, especially when you look at breast, stomach, and colorectal cancer....
Even someone without a medical degree can see that the disease is being caught earlier while it's still in a treatable stage...
As for the spike in morbidity, it might just be an illusion caused by better diagnostic tools...

I'm not making a claim, I'm just commenting on the numbers..

The 2003 stats for breast cancer show that America was number one in Europe for the INCREASE in cases, though whether that leads to higher death rates or just means we're catching it sooner isn't really my business..
But that’s not nearly as vital as knowing how to actually prevent it—by consuming soy protein daily.
(Early detection isn't prevention; it's just finding the problem sooner.)

nimbleskipper13 said:Since it's been known for ages that cervical cancer is an STD, or a sexually transmitted disease...

Fair enough, you're probably right, just don't get worked up about it.. 😁 😉

For a woman carrying the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, there is an 86% probability of developing breast cancer, regardless of whether she lives on a diet of soy, sleeps in a soy field, or carries a soy-based toy... 😠

I am not against healthy eating, but let’s be realistic: SOY HAS NOT CURED A SINGLE 😠 WOMAN SUFFERING FROM BREAST CANCER!!!
Believe me, I work with these women every single day... many have turned to holistic healers or strictly followed macrobiotic diets, but if the tumor is caught in a late, advanced stage, none of it matters...

According to the WHO, breast cancer prevention consists of:
1. Primary prevention :
- A healthy lifestyle (not smoking, moderate alcohol consumption, a nutritious diet focused on a MEDITERRANEAN DIET rich in olive oil and fiber, maintaining a healthy weight, and regular physical activity)
2. Secondary prevention or early detection:
- Self-examinations
- Regular checkups and ultrasounds
- Population-wide screening (mammograms),
the goal of which is to detect the tumor while it is still under 1 cm!

Therefore, early detection IS prevention... unless the people at the WHO don't have a clue? 😈

nimbleskipper13, how can someone go about finding out if they carry the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes?

What kind of "age limit for cancer" are we even talking about here?

It’s just not a thing... I mean, malignant diseases can strike at absolutely any stage of life, unfortunately.
Anyone with even a basic understanding of medicine knows that there are certain types of tumors that specifically target infants and children, others that mostly show up during adolescence, some that hit during middle age, and then those that tend to surface in the elderly....
__________________________________________________ __

I'm with you on this one.

mistybear4, I feel like you're just playing philosopher and trying to sound smart by throwing around all these statistics, but we aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet—at least I don't think so... we're talking about actual human beings, not just data points.......

nimbleskipper13 said:If a woman carries the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, she faces an 86% chance of developing breast cancer, regardless of whether she lives on a diet of soy, sleeps in a soybean field, or uses a soy-based toy... 😠

That’s just your take, but I’ve heard quite different things from people who have been working in this field much longer than you have... 😉
And did it ever occur to you why they say there's an 86% probability instead of 100%? According to your logic, it sounds like a total certainty. 😁
I’m telling you that genetic predisposition isn't the only factor in developing cancer, so believe whatever you want. 😎

nimbleskipper13 said:I'm not against healthy eating, but wake up: SOY HASN'T CURED A SINGLE 😠 WOMAN WITH BREAST CANCER!!!
Trust me, I work with these women every single day... many turned to holistic healers or stuck to strict macrobiotic diets, but if the tumor was caught at a late, advanced stage, none of it mattered.

Don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say; I never claimed soy would cure them, I simply said:
"but that's not nearly as vital as knowing how it can be PREVENTED... by consuming soy protein daily."

ps: In the end, some very respected American gynecologists featured on major US health shows have made claims similar to mine—I can't recall their names off the top of my head. 😉

ps2: Soy protein is generally great for women, though we don't know yet if it helps with nerves; for starters, maybe try taking a bit more Vitamin B complex. 😉

William Booth2 said:mistybear4, you’re just playing philosopher here, trying to outsmart us with those endless statistics, but we aren't just digits on a spreadsheet—certainly not me—because at the end of the day, we're talking about actual human beings, not just data points.

I don't spend much time staring at data, though looking at the numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau can give you a grim little glimpse into how easily things can spiral if you aren't careful. It’s easy to look at a chart and think it couldn't happen to you, but nothing significant ever happens overnight—it’s a slow burn, you know? I’m mostly talking about proactive health through diet; I’ve seen plenty of people, everyone from blue-collar laborers to surgeons, realize that changing what they eat was the only way out. Now, they feel incredible and have pretty much forgotten what it’s like to sit in a doctor's waiting room. 🙂

Once people start respecting their own biology as much as they respect their doctors, things might actually change; your body is quite literally the only place you ever truly live, after all. If we treated our nutrition with that kind of reverence, we wouldn't be dealing with so many chronic issues caused by lifestyle choices—those little habits we quietly cultivate until they eventually come back to haunt us. 😢

If you aren't looking for the root cause now, you're just waiting around to be killed by the consequences later.

Here comes our esteemed Mac Gregor again, someone who’s clearly a huge authority in his field (Herbalife, obviously). 🙄

mistybear4, I don't usually resort to being rude, but you’ve crossed a line this time.
You’re constantly talking nonsense, and frankly, I am tired of dealing with your ego.

First off, how can you lecture me on my own career? I have spent years working directly with cancer patients, and unlike you, I am a trained professional. I know what I'm talking about; I don't peddle pseudo-science or baseless guesses.

Second, whatever "information" you think you've stumbled upon doesn't hold a candle to my PhD.

Third, seriously, drop the "alpha male" act. Go back to Spark and maybe you'll actually find someone who wants you 😈 ...because hanging around here is mostly just causing statistically significant diarrhea in the population, at a level of P=0.005 (sorry, there isn't a poop emoji available, but this will do
🙂 )

nimbleskipper13 said:Mac Gregor, I don't usually resort to being rude, but you've really crossed a line this time.
You won't shut up, and frankly, I'm exhausted by your constant ego trips.

First off, how can you lecture me on my own career? I've spent years working directly with cancer patients, so unlike you, I actually have the professional expertise to back up what I say. I'm not out here peddling pseudo-scientific nonsense or just making things up as I go.

Second, whatever "info" you think you've stumbled upon doesn't even come close to the depth of my PhD.

Third, please, drop the "alpha male" act and get back onto Spark. Maybe you'll actually find someone there who's interested in you 😈 ...around here, you're mostly just causing statistically significant gastrointestinal distress, at a level of P=0.005 (sorry, I wish there was a diarrhea emoji, but this will do
🙂 )

nimbleskipper13, I like you!
Plus, we're from the same city.

Frank Alvarez8 said:nimbleskipper13, I think you're great!
Plus, we actually grew up in the same city!

Me too, me too!
Seriously, I really like nimbleskipper13.
Even though I'm a local from New York City myself!

Mac, honey, you really need to step off your high horse.
It's obvious nobody is taking you seriously.
You haven't managed to sell a single Herbalife product on this forum. You're just a total amateur.

nimbleskipper13, thank God for people like you...

I truly hope that little lecture of yours regarding those BRCA genes actually managed to clear some heads—though, if I'm being honest, I have my doubts, but hey, one can dream, right?

Best, the molecular guy

😁

jadesailor14 said:...with plants.

What on earth are people even saying these days?😬

A woman from Rijeka said:First off, how can you possibly claim to know my years of experience working with cancer patients well enough to lecture me? Unlike you, I am a professional who actually knows what they're talking about; I don't deal in pseudo-scientific nonsense or baseless guesswork.

Secondly, those "facts" you think you've stumbled upon don't hold a candle to my PhD.

I wouldn't suggest interfering with your expertise, and I respect your knowledge and that PhD of yours, but please, just drop the attitude and bring that ego back down to earth for a second; the information I’m discussing comes from researchers who are fundamentally reshaping the very philosophy you were taught in medical school—if you can even wrap your head around that concept. 😛

And yeah, you're right, not every single tumor is linked to poor lifestyle choices or diet, but more than 70% of them truly are... yet you're clinging to a single detail like a person refusing to see the forest for the trees because your pride won't let you look any further.

As for your comments about "pseudo-scientific nonsense," you clearly have no idea what you're talking about; maybe try actually looking into the subject matter before you start spitting venom, because honestly, you're coming off like a total elitist. 😁

You're fixating on soy protein while completely missing its role in cancer prevention—or perhaps you just haven't been educated enough to see it yet—and if you think I'm not a "professional" worth listening to, then take a look at where I actually get my data:

Heber (Director of the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute)
Dr. Heber's primary research focuses on obesity treatments, nutritional strategies for cancer prevention, and related therapies. He serves as the director of the UCLA Center for Human Nutrition at the University of California, Los Angeles. ... 😁

(His research is focused on the relationship among obesity, nutrition and common forms of cancer including breast and prostate cancer.)

http://www.nrg-fit.com/david_herber.asp

http://www.cure.med.ucla.edu/PDF/Heber.pdf

http://www.mbcrc.med.ucla.edu/MemberBios/MmbrHeber.htm

http://cancerresources.mednet.ucla.e...0605_heber.htm

And yes, I've actually met him in person. 🙂



🙂 👋