trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Lack of ejaculation causes prostate cancer
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
0 sources for · 4 against

Evidence directly refutes the claim that a lack of ejaculation causes prostate cancer; instead, large cohort studies and meta-analyses consistently show that higher ejaculation frequency is associated with a reduced risk of the disease.

Evidence against · 4
2016 · cited by 97
A large prospective cohort study found that higher ejaculation frequency throughout adult life was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer.
See more details
The analysis

The retrieved literature (including large prospective cohorts like [0], clinical studies like [10], and comprehensive meta-analyses like [11]) consistently demonstrates an inverse relationship between ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer risk. Higher frequency is associated with a protective or lower risk effect, which directly contradicts the claim that a lack of ejaculation causes prostate cancer.

More against · 3
2025 · cited by 3
Mechanistic reviews indicate that frequent ejaculation helps suppress sympathetic nervous activity and reduce tension, thereby lowering prostate cancer risk rather than causing it.
2019 · cited by 1
Clinical data show an inverse correlation where increased monthly ejaculation frequency is associated with a significantly decreased risk of prostate cancer.
2025 · cited by 0
A recent updated meta-analysis confirms that higher ejaculation frequency demonstrates a significant protective effect against prostate cancer rather than being a cause.
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → REFUTED · 1204 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt