Daddy Freeze claim on prostate cancer sparks online debate

Daddy Freeze

Popular media personality Ifedayo Olarinde, also known as Daddy Freeze, has stirred controversy after claiming that men must ejaculate at least 21 times a month to reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

The veteran radio host made the statement during a recent livestream with Caterefe, saying:

“I won’t encourage masturbation, but if a man doesn’t ejaculate up to 21 times monthly, he could be setting himself up for possible prostate cancer.”

Read Also: Daddy Freeze: Why I married my ex-wife

The comment quickly went viral, triggering widespread debate on social media, with many users and professionals disputing the claim.

Reacting to the statement, a pharmacist identified as Pharm. Greatman wrote:

“The claim that men must ejaculate 21 times a month to avoid prostate cancer is not true.
There is no fixed number that guarantees protection. Some studies suggest that more frequent ejaculation may be linked to a slightly lower risk, but this is only an association, not a rule or treatment.”

Another user, Rhine_sto, warned against oversimplifying medical research:

“Turning nuanced research into a numeric command is how misinformation spreads. There are studies suggesting a correlation between frequent ejaculation and a lower risk of prostate cancer, but it’s not a medical prescription and 21 times a month is not a rule doctors give patients.”

However, Hunter_Guide1 offered a more nuanced perspective, referencing research:

Daddy Freeze said men should ejaculate 21+ times a month to lower prostate cancer risk, and he’s not totally wrong.
A 2016 Harvard study involving over 32,000 men found that those who ejaculated more frequently had a 20–31 per cent lower risk than those who did so only 4–7 times a month.

“But it’s a correlation, not a guarantee. Age, genetics, family history and lifestyle matter more. Real prevention includes healthy eating, exercise, not smoking, and regular medical check-ups.”

The debate highlights ongoing concerns about how health information shared by public figures can be misunderstood when complex scientific findings are simplified into rigid claims.

For more details, visit New Daily Prime at www.newdailyprime.news.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *