Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle. (read what causes it)

Is that the best you can come back with, a stupid face?

If you look then you will see the cohesiveness of the two statements, they are both correct. There are different factors that cause cancer. And if you do not do the specific things listed on here, (and seeing as how people don't seem to follow debates I shall list them- alcohol, smoking and an unhealthy diet), you can still get cancer! So obviously there is not a very strong link between the two otherwise this wouldn't be the case.

Yes we do, anything that causes damage to the genes controlling promotion of cell proliferation, genes controlling suppression of cell proliferation, or genes controlling cell apoptosis (pre-programmed cell death).

Right so, basically you are saying that genes are the cause of cancer.

Not alcohol, smoking and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Hearing that is all I needed. Thanks dude, because my point from the start is now backed scientific evidence.

If you jump out in front on a bus you might not get hit - there clearly isn't a very strong link! Why don't you try it...

Right so, basically you are saying that genes are the cause of cancer.

Not alcohol, smoking and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Hearing that is all I needed. Thanks dude, because my point from the start is now backed scientific evidence.

If you jump out in front of a bus you are bound to get hit because they are all polish drivers.

Oh dear goodness....

OK, listen to this ad dont be so arrogant or ignorant.

Alcohol, smoking etc CAUSE DAMAGE TO THESE GENES!

You think just touching cigarette smoke or lots of bacon will give you cancer? NO!

The agents in these substances cause direct damage to the DNA, and the cell cannot control how it divides and divides uncontrollably, forming a cancer.

Actually it doesn't say "environmental factors" - it says "avoidable lifestyle choices". I suggest you read a little more closely in the future.

So why do people who don't smoke, don't drink alcohol and are vegetarians get cancer then? Surely the 'agents in these substances' have not actually entered in their body? For example children who develop cancer. In another case, I am not the ignorant one here, I am here I am sticking to what I know independently and not what is in the lying media from the government. As for being arrogant, is having a difference of opinion seen as arrogance now? Because that really is pitiful

You're right - they should really keep their eyes on the road rather than doing all that polishing.

At least the windshield will be clean when it hits you

So why do people who don't smoke, don't drink alcohol and are vegetarians get cancer then? Surely the 'agents in these substances' have not actually entered in their body? For example children who develop cancer. In another case, I am not the ignorant one here, I am here I am sticking to what I know independently and not what is in the lying media from the government. As for being arrogant, is having a difference of opinion seen as arrogance now? Because that really is pitiful

Because mutations also happen randomly. Usually mutated cells are destroyed by the immune system, but in immunocomprimised people they can be missed.



What you know is clearly wrong and you have been misinformed.

Actually, the article says "In total, 14 lifestyle and environmental factors, such as where you live and the job you do, combine to cause 134,000 cancers in the UK each year." I believe it said lifestyle accounts for around a third.

I suggest you actually read a report instead of just taking media headlines as gospel...

You know nothing, you certainly are the ignorant one.

Being shot can kill you yes? Does it therefore follow that you cannot die unless you are shot? Think it through...

I might as well talk to a child. I would probably get more sense out of them. You have said "mutations also happen randomly" so you are admitting that cancer happens even when you do not smoke, drink or eat unhealthily. Which I have been saying. Also if you are judging by what this says, it causes 40%, so therefore the majority of the percent is caused by something else. So if its caused purely by genes then the main cause would be mutated genes like I said before after your first comment to me.

This does not mean that the other 60% are due to genetic causes, does it?

The review was specifically about lifestyle choices (yes, including site of living and job). Just because they use the words 'environmental factor' doesn't mean they have accounted for all environmental factors. You could also tell this as, funnily enough, there are greater than 14 factors involved in the development of cancers.

I hope that has cleared some things up for you.

If you are using that as an example, then you can be shot and not die.

Great points, I believe the person you quoted (bellow) is one of the idiots that disagreed with me about cancer and now its proven even more.
This forum is filled with ignorant people.

I call troll on this.