Shocking Scientific Link Between Hair Loss and Cancer!

[WanderingOracle]

This is absolutely shocking news, and it affects nearly every man who is suffering from hair loss and using any type of treatment(even natural, organic treatments).
And this doesn't just apply to men suffering from hair loss. It applies to ALL men, and even women.

It turns conventional wisdom on its head and forces us to re-examine what we took for granted before.

The results of the study are so shocking, many people are left reeling and unsure what to make of it. Many of them will even deny it, in order to hold onto their existing beliefs. They will cling to the hope that their are exceptions. Especially when it comes to hair loss treatments and cancer. Some people need to believe.

This is the study.
As you can see, the results are quite shocking.

Over the last 60 years, when controlled for age, there has been NO increase in the rate of cancer among the population as a whole.

This shocking study leads to absolutely horrifying conclusions. When someone wonders if Rogaine or Propecia or Stinging Nettle, or Hair Tattoos cause cancer, the almost certain answer is "No, it doesn't. At all". Only age, sun exposure, obesity, and smoking seem to have any impact.

What is so terrible about this study, is it almost denies fear and feeling like you can control your risk of cancer by avoiding random things. It denies you the ability to blame sicknesses on specific things. Now I can't eat 14 bananas one week, be diagnosed with prostate cancer the following week, and blame bananas, wtf?

I'm angry right now. I want to blame things, and it seems as though cancer is mostly just a product of random DNA misfire, and I had literally no control over it, based on any of my actions.

Now what am I supposed to do? Start eating GMOs, drink city water, and start vaccinating my children? Start getting tattoos, freely use electricity, and take propecia, and just have the exact same risk of cancer as someone avoiding all of those things? Totally unacceptable!

[Artista]

You should bring this up on Spencer's Live Show WanderingOracle!

Where did you find this information at?
I personally do not agree with this information.

With all medications in life, there are always a percentage of a chance that a small % of people MIGHT experience negative side effects with all types of meds.

My very experienced and good doctor, of whom had prescribed Finasteride to me back in 2013,
had also shown to me that all of his other patients that he has prescribed Finasteride to
(approx 100+ of his patients) have NOT experienced ANY major bad side effects
from the use Finasteride...none at all.
Most all of those patients HAVE BEEN experiencing POSITIVE improvements of their hair due to Finasteride.

Im just giving you my side of this medicine usage. No one under my doctors care has ever had cancer from the use of Finasteride.

[WanderingOracle]

Most all of those patients HAVE BEEN experiencing POSITIVE improvements of their hair due to Finasteride.

Im just giving you my side of this medicine usage. No one under my doctors care has ever had cancer from the use of Finasteride.

Exactly. Isn't it infuriating?

We have almost no personal control over our cancer risk! Only UV damage, age, obesity, and smoking appear to have any effect. So eating organic food, using aromatherapy and avoiding prescription drugs has literally NO impact on getting cancer. It's very frustrating to think that there are only about four things you can even do to reduce(or not increase your risk) of cancer. And beyond that, it's all genes and luck. Wtf?

Everyone keeps saying cancer rates are on the rise, but when controlled for age, they're not rising at all. So if I get cancer, it's basically just because of genes or chance. I can't blame propecia, or my tattoos, or pesticides from Monsanto. I could go live on a mountain and have exactly the same risk of cancer as if I lived in the heart of NYC and took prescription drugs, and used cell phones and had doctors shoot me up with every vaccine known to man. My risk of cancer at a given age is identical to my great-great grandfather, who did none of those things!

Nothing I do basically has any impact on my risk, aside from basic self-maintence like not smoking, not getting fat and not laying out in the sun all day.

[jamesst11]

What the hell is this graph? It makes no sense... why are only certain age ranges included for certain years? where are the incidences of cancer for 30, 40, 50 years old in the more recent years?

[WanderingOracle]

What the hell is this graph? It makes no sense... why are only certain age ranges included for certain years? where are the incidences of cancer for 30, 40, 50 years old in the more recent years?

Those years on the bottom are birth years. The data spans 1960-2005. You can't have data on a 4 year old in 1935, because these stats begin in 1960(which is 45 years before the study).
Every single age group is listed here. Some of them(especially 75+ and < 15) closely overlap, so you may be overlooking them.
Why no data on more recent years? It spans 40 years for each group. The study is from 1960-2005 which is 45 years at the time. Each dot represents one decade. It can't have 50 years(and certainly not MORE than 50 years of data).
The way you read it is:
People born in 1965 at age 35. People born in 1975 at age 35. People born in 1985 at age 35. With their cancer rates on the left(based on height).

As you see, there is basically just slight, random movement.
If you click the link to the study, they go into deep detail on how they calculated all of this.

[unbalding]

Interesting, but I don't think you can conclude that we have no control over our cancer risk. The fact that cancer rates have remained steady despite better detection means that the real rate has actually fallen. It's hard to make any comparisons though because well we have reduced or eliminated many risk factors, we have also developed new ones. Less people smoke or work in coal mines today, but now we have cell phones and pesticides.

[Ahab]

Over the last 60 years, when controlled for age, there has been NO increase in the rate of cancer among the population as a whole.

This shocking study leads to absolutely horrifying conclusions. When someone wonders if Rogaine or Propecia or Stinging Nettle, or Hair Tattoos cause cancer, the almost certain answer is "No, it doesn't. At all". Only age, sun exposure, obesity, and smoking seem to have any impact.

What is so terrible about this study, is it almost denies fear and feeling like you can control your risk of cancer by avoiding random things. It denies you the ability to blame sicknesses on specific things. Now I can't eat 14 bananas one week, be diagnosed with prostate cancer the following week, and blame bananas, wtf?

I'm angry right now. I want to blame things, and it seems as though cancer is mostly just a product of random DNA misfire, and I had literally no control over it, based on any of my actions.

Now what am I supposed to do? Start eating GMOs, drink city water, and start vaccinating my children? Start getting tattoos, freely use electricity, and take propecia, and just have the exact same risk of cancer as someone avoiding all of those things? Totally unacceptable!

Simply because there has been no increase in cancer rates for the past 60 years, it doesn't necessarily follow that Rogaine, Propecia, Stinging Nettle, or Hair Tattoos do not cause cancer.

Because the cancer rate could have remained the same even if Rogaine, Propecia, Stinging Nettle, or Hair Tattoos do cause cancer.

If, for example, the cancer rate among those who didn't take Rogaine, Propecia, Stinging Nettle, or get Hair Tattoos fell at the same time that the cancer rate among those who received those treatments rose.

And so the effect of the rise and fall of the two groups combined could cancel each other out, resulting in no cancer increase in the population as a whole.