zlacker

The article seems to claim it’s as simple as your cells regenerate less often past 80, thus fewer chances for mutations and thus cancer.

>>mathge+(OP)
That's not very simple. It's simpler that the observation is due to an unmeasured confounder or observation bias -- like, for example, a lot more people are dying of all causes at age 80 and beyond, so fewer people get diagnosed with cancer. Or, alternatively, doctors don't bother looking for certain cancers after age 80.

I'm not saying that these are the cause, but there are ton of similar, simple statistical arguments you'd have to rule out before arriving at a relatively complex conclusion about human biology.

>>timr+d
No argument here, just relaying what the article is claiming for folks who just read the headline.