Can 21 Ejaculations Per Month Stop Cancer?

Should you ejaculate 21 times a month in order to protect against prostate cancer? This soundbite has been doing the rounds for years, encouraging men of all types to bust off more. Science says it's good for you to jerk off! But where did this often quoted headline come from? Why is it said? Is it actually true? As with all mainstream health advice, you have to look deeper than the one line that is fed to you through the mainstream media. In this video, I'm going to go into the details of the studies that generated this soundbite, exposing the issues with them, disproving this mainstream perspective. Then I'll talk about my understandings of these topics and more intuitive points that go against this must ejaculate narrative of the modern world. It is related to the degradation of humankind that you should just watch porn, order Uber Eats, just relax, man. And that in itself is a condemnation of the information and the justification coming from these studies. What you'll find is that scientific studies that present a simple answer are worth thinking critically about, researching yourself, because often underneath the claim, the headline, you will find dubious methods, assumptions that paint an ideological picture. So there are two main studies that this claim is made from, one American run by Harvard's Health Professionals Follow-up Study and one Australian published in the early 2000s. Something I accidentally noticed from the main author of the first study: he has a bio page on the International Agency for Research on Cancer with the World Health Organization. Hmm. Now I'm going to let you guys draw your own conclusions. Maybe he's a good guy, who knows? That's just what I found. The Harvard study: Ejaculation Frequency and Subsequent Risk of Prostate Cancer. The results were published in 2004. The study followed 29,342 male health professionals ages 46 to 81 in 1992, from 1992 through 2000. Over 8 years, participants self-reported their average monthly ejaculation frequency at 3 life stages: young adulthood, midlife, and the recent past year, which was 1991. Importantly, ejaculations counted all types: sexual intercourse, masturbation, and nocturnal emissions—wet dreams. No obvious industry funding, which is always something you want to look for when looking at scientific studies, uh, but it was still a publicly funded research project supported by U.S. public health agencies. Which aren't always the best people to push a, let's say, scientific, purely exploring health narrative, but that's who funded it. This is what the study found. Remember, this is just what the study is claiming. It does not mean it is factual. Their findings overall, the researchers found no evidence that frequent ejaculation increases prostate cancer risk. Higher frequency was associated with lower risk. Men who ejaculated 21 more— 21 or more times per month had a lower incidence of prostate cancer by the end of the study. For example, among men in their 40s, those reporting 21 ejaculations per month had about a 32% lower relative risk of developing prostate cancer compared to those reporting 4 to 7 per month. In that age range. So that's also a big difference in ejaculation frequency. When looking at lifetime averages, 21 per month was associated with roughly a 30% lower risk than the low frequency group. High frequency during the younger decades did not show a significant effect. In the follow-up, a 2016 follow-up analysis extended the tracking through 2010, increasing the total cases to 3,839 prostate cancers among 32,000 men. This update reported that 21 times per month at ages 20 to 29 was associated with a 19% lower risk of prostate cancer. So it's going down. And at ages 40 to 49 with a 22% lower risk compared to 4 to 7 times per month reference group. So it's a modest but significant, statistically significant protective Association. The authors concluded that these results provide additional evidence of a beneficial role of more frequent ejaculation throughout adult life and prostate cancer. A key nuance: notably, the reduction in risk that they claim was driven mainly by low-risk, early-stage prostate cancers, not the aggressive forms, not the fatal forms. And in the, in the 2016 analysis higher frequency had no significant association with high-grade or advanced prostate cancers. So they're the ones you actually need to worry about. My views on cancer, separate to this topic of this video, but that is an important point, that everything that they were doing, they found the association between early risk, early detection, and it had no effect if someone was actually really far gone. In their journey. So important to think about. So the potential protective effect was essentially confined to localized low-risk tumors, and the data suggested that while overall diagnoses were fewer in the high-frequency group, the most dangerous cancers did not occur less often as a function of ejaculation habits. So now I'm going to go through the Australian case study and then my thoughts on it all. So the Australian study, they compared 2,338 men under age 70. I think it was about 1,000 prostate cancer patients and then 1,200 healthy controls approximately. And then they gathered detailed histories of their sexual behavior, including number of sexual partners, average ejaculation frequency in each decade of adult life. Uh, this was funded again by local Australian research and Cancer Council funding. They found a significant association with ejaculation frequency, particularly ejaculation frequency in early adulthood. Men on average, allegedly, ejaculated 5 or more times per week in their 20s had an approximately 34% lower risk of developing prostate cancer before age 70, compared to men who ejaculated less than 2 to 3 times per week in their 20s. The protective trend in this study was strongest for ejaculations in their 20s. Even though the prostate cancers were diagnosed in their 50s or 60s. So like the Harvard study, the Australian data suggested, or it looks like, early life ejaculation frequency was the protective effect. Now it's worth noting that this was an observational case-control study reliant on people recalling their past behaviors. The consistency of its headline results with the Harvard group, it helped to popularize this meme message that we now see in our culture and what people have heard. So those were the two main studies that inspired the meme soundbite that you hear and the headlines. Let's talk about the issues with them because it's important. Firstly, let's just consider the claims at an intuitive level. Does ejaculating in your 20s really prevent cancer? 30 to 50 years later. The notion, it stretches intuition that there would be any kind of protective effect there. How, how can you isolate this one thing and make these connections? Prostate cancer is an old man's disease. The vast majority of cases occur after age 50 or 60. Telling young men in their 20s that they should ejaculate frequently now to possibly reduce cancer risk decades later is a bit speculative and has so many other possible life effects that can contribute to that. If a young man has an extremely low absolute risk of prostate cancer before age 40, virtually near zero, any preventative measure is not going to show a measurable benefit for a very long time. It also raises ethical questions. Should doctors really prescribe ejaculation frequency as a health intervention. Given the uncertainty of the actual causal link, encouraging a behavior which I think is destructive solely for this reason might be misguided. Now let's talk about absolute versus relative risk. It is important to put the reported percentages into perspective. Everyone here is significantly lower risk. 30% lower risk. And you think, okay, 30% is a big number, 1 in 3, you know, okay, that's a huge— but that is actually relative risk. So what is the difference between that? Now, that 20 to 30% relative risk reduction sounds sizable, but in absolute terms, it might mean, it might mean the difference between a 5% chance versus a 3 or 4% chance for the entire population number. Now, if a group of men has a baseline 5% risk of cancer by age 70, a 30% relative risk reduction in that would lower it to, lower it to 3.5%. That's 1.5% difference if you believe that all these mechanisms are actually true and valid and everything else. It's very, very small still. Certainly not an absolute guarantee of any protection if you're going to incorporate this information or any scientific study that they use as justification to change your behaviour, to control you. It may even be a very, very small relative risk. And now we could go on to think about how do I want to live my life? Do I want to live my life as a slave? Do I want to make my choices based on a very small amount of risk reduction? Oh, the risk. Oh, I'm scared. I'm going to make choices in my life based on The smallest amount of risk and you become a little slug. So that is not the answer. But even then, that's the moral thing, which I'll get to later. But even then, that's assuming that these protective effects are actually legit. For a young man with very negligible risk, reducing that risk by 20% is still negligible. It's still a negligible risk. For example, a man in his 30s has maybe a 0.1% chance of prostate cancer in the next decade. Reducing that by even 50% is practically the same nothing by his 40s. At the time he's 60s, 70s is more of a concern. Will those habits of ejaculation from 30 to 40 years earlier still influence his risk? We don't know for sure. The studies suggest that they might, but there could be confounding or other issues, a particular subset. So when interpretate— interpreting this 21 ejaculations per month equals lower risk fact, we should remember that the relative risk is very, very low and it can exaggerate perceptions. So think about it that way. Not to mention that all of these studies were done on normies, AKA people that are likely eating Zog slop. A lot of them were health, uh, health workers. Working under blue light in a hospital, not very healthy environment. So when we're looking at that, they're living in the modern world, they're ingesting toxins, likely medications, no idea of the healthy soul lifestyle that we all enjoy. You cannot apply these population studies to yourself in a meaningful way and think, okay, because the Zog Slave Army of people running around and doing God knows what may have had a small sliver of a worse effect for this thing, therefore I'm going to change my life because of it and ignore every other factor. It doesn't make sense. Reliance on self-reporting behavior. So all of the studies relied and depended on men recalling and reporting their ejaculation frequency. Sometimes 40 years ago. This is inherently gonna lead to error, recall bias. Uh, for instance, the Harvard study asked men to remember how often they were ejaculating in their 20s when they were in their 50s. It's a very inexact memory at best. These responses could be influenced by how honest the people are, how comfortable that they felt. Giving up this information, you know, if they wanted to make themselves look like legend. Yeah, I was banging heaps of chicks back then, probably at 20 times a week. Yeah, totally. Or they were, you know, they're the opposite. They didn't want to disclose how much they were doing it or, uh, or weren't doing it. And so, so on and so forth. Like, no, I wasn't jerking off. I was, you know, yeah, ejaculating maybe twice a month. So there's, there's a bunch of other BS like that. It's not a valid dataset, in my opinion. In short, the exposure count, the ejaculation count, is not accurate. It could misclassify so many things, put you in the wrong group. It's not, it's not a high-quality dataset, uh, creating random effects or associations which aren't actually there in real life. Confounding factors. So correlation, not causation. Correlation occurs when one factor rises or is associated with this factor. And these things may be going up at the same time. There may be a relation, but it doesn't mean that one causes the other. So men who ejaculate more often may differ in other important ways from men who ejaculate infrequently. For example, reduced ejaculation frequency was found to be associated with higher body mass index. If you were fatter, less physical activity, and also being divorced. So fat men who are not getting as much sexual attention or just have a lower sex drive because they were unhealthy, all factors that were linked to poorer health outcomes in general and possibly higher cancer risk. It's plausible that men with healthier lifestyles and relationships tend to have more regular sexual activity, and it's their overall health that lowers their cancer risk, not the act of ejaculation per se. Another possible confounding factor is testosterone levels, which was not measured at all in the studies. Men with high testosterone typically have a stronger libido and might ejaculate more frequently. Interestingly, contrary to old assumptions, Higher testosterone is not clearly linked to higher prostate cancer risk. Some evidence even suggests low testosterone is associated with worse prostate outcomes. This makes sense to me because when hormones are functioning properly, the whole body will. And not all studies found the same results. Even the Harvard data changed over time. The first report showed a link only for recent ejaculation, while the 2016 update suddenly found links for these younger years too, suggesting that some results may have appeared just by chance, which is highly possible due to the large sample size. When you have a lot of data, you can manipulate it in different ways to kind of say what you like. So that's something to think about. Random variation or selective analysis could explain some of the findings. The effect also being on low-risk cancers. As mentioned, the reduction in risk was largely due to early-stage, low-grade cancers. These are tumors that often grow so slowly that they may never cause someone harm in an entire lifetime. You know, some prostate cancers are found incidentally. They're not looked for. They have no symptoms. A lot of cancers will present that way in, in the human body. They'll go away on their own. And because you never got tested, you never had any issues, boom, it go— it goes away. So you might question the significance of a small reduction in a low-grade cancer incidence. And if a factor does not reduce the risk of a public health issue, uh, in advanced or deadly cancers, then its public health benefits are kind of limited. Not to mention that these days the medical industry loves to diagnose people with cancer because if they have a diagnosis, you have a treatment, and the treatment costs money. So they are literally medically, uh, financially incentivized to diagnose people who may not even have symptoms. But they'll go in and say, oh yeah, I had a bit of, a bit of pain when I went to the toilet the other day, uh, what do you think about that, doctor? And the doctor goes, oh well, that could be dangerous prostate cancer, we got to get you in for some tests. And then you look at the tests and maybe There's a little bit of a lump somewhere. And they interpret that as something that needs direct action and medication and now, now, now. And now you're part of the, the data in the system and everything else. Even with no symptoms or issues. And now you're locked into the fear-based system for a situation that might have gone away on its own if the body was allowed to deal with it. This does happen, in my opinion, with diseases of all types. So over the past few decades, there have been other studies of ejaculation prostate cancer been done with mixed results. So a recent review of 33 years of data found that 4 out of 11 studies reported no effect, unclear results, and it indicates that the evidence is not unanimous. About a third of the studies did not find a protective link. Specifics also differ. Some investigations found protective associations for certain age ranges, they found the opposite for certain age ranges. One analysis even noted a finding that extremely high sexual activity in young men might correlate with a higher risk of prostate cancer later. So it's, it's just suggested the results can change depending on how the study is designed, the population examined, the period of life considered, and how ejaculation frequency is measured or defined. Some studies include all forms of ejaculation. Others might focus on purely sexual intercourse, uh, rely on some one-time recall of past behaviors. The differences make it difficult to draw firm overall conclusions, which, if you're going to be telling the mainstream people that you've got to ejaculate 21 month— 21 times a month, otherwise you're going to get prostate cancer, which is how it's presented in the mainstream, then you have, you should have some really strong data that is replicated across datasets, across different age groups, and it's consistent and you see it all the time. But you don't. So that's my point. In conclusion, the apparent benefits could be due to healthier lifestyle, hormonal factors, or even chance rather than the act of ejaculation itself. The researchers themselves acknowledge that their findings do little to answer the critical questions of how and why this association even exists. I'm not a big science guy. I understand the science. I've studied science in university. But from a scientific standpoint, one can poke several holes in the simplistic conclusion that frequent ejaculation prevents prostate cancer. The evidence for a protective effect is inconsistent across studies, it's potentially confounded, and biologically it's not well explained. The whole thing is predicated on prostate cancer being this unavoidable looming death figure when most people never experience it, and healthy people don't run these same risk profiles. For the record, I do believe that some level of ejaculation can remove toxins from the body if those toxins have accumulated in the body over time around the testes and the glands there. If the body is low on fat, it will put toxins where there is fat to protect your other tissues. That's what happens. I do believe that there is then likely somewhat of a benefit to intentional focused times where you would ejaculate via sex a lot and ensure simultaneous extreme replenishment. Oyster maxing. This, however, is a separate topic, and it's not a point in support of the 21 times a month forever notion. 99% of people are not nourishing themselves enough to the point where this is logical advice and should not be recommended. In general, as I will explain, it is better to reserve your vital life forces and detox in other ways with raw fats, lymphatic hot baths, heavy metal detoxes, of fresh herbs, and so on and so forth. Now, to my own personal beliefs and more metaphysical understandings about this topic. I don't believe in a restrictive, Puritan, and shaming logic here. I do not believe ejaculation is immoral. I don't believe sex is wrong. This is an inherently shameful, anti-life perspective that I do not participate in. I do believe that masturbation to porn is a waste of life force. It doesn't help you develop. It weakens you. And I do believe that men should not do it. I do believe that ejaculating every time you have sex depletes Vril energy within you. That's a fact. And that your life and health will be better off if you didn't ejaculate so frequently as the modern world wants us to do. The philosophical texts, esoteric knowledges, my personal life experience, as well as my coaching experience, all support these notions. Having sex without ejaculation is king. Stimulating and then circulating the energy up your chakra system through movement, breathwork, and visualization, that changes your entire life force field. And when you ejaculate, You lose this force. Utilize your biological urges in order to transcend into the Übermensch. The negative effects of excessive ejaculation vastly overpower the potential 30% relative risk reduction against prostate cancer, which, as I've shown, likely has a whole host of other explanations anyway. Low energy, low sex drive, High prolactin, reduced motivation, hair loss, less muscle mass. This is the trade-off you are making. Even if ejaculation pretend protected against prostate cancer, which I don't believe that it does, it's vastly better to live a life charged with energy to enhance and cultivate Vril, not being a slave to your lustful urges. To avoid corrupting your soul for some potential small longevity bonus. It is literally bugman to think about this way. Living life in fear of death. Death is written in our fates. Be healthy, but don't let it determine your life. What good would prostate protection be to a man who wants to go out in a blaze of glory in a final battle against the technological demiurge forces at 60 years of age, journeying to Valhalla. And so ends my analysis of this particular cultural health phenomenon. I hope it has been informative and convincing for you. I trust that you will not pursue the bugman daily ejaculation in the name of health. Farewell and thank you for listening.