The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%  (Read 51939 times)

Offline esecallum

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« on: 29/06/2005 12:32:59 »
Wearing a bra and breast cancer

Reseaching a national library of medicine database over a year ago. That article documented an increase in breast cancer rates between women who do wear bras versus those that do not.

That harvard study fascinated me and I searched the medical literature for possible explanations.

In essence, what singer and grismaijer study found was that the odds of getting breast cancer dramatically increased with bra-wearing over 12 hours per day.

* women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer (in their study, n=2056 for the cancer group and n=2674 for the standard group).
* women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not to bed had a 1 out of 7 risk.
* women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day had a 1 out of 152 risk.
* women who wore bras rarely or never had a 1 out of 168 chance of getting breast cancer. The overall difference between 24 hour wearing and not at all was a 125-fold difference.

A 125 fold difference is 12500%

(The MTV generation might not understand that a 125 fold increases=12500% NOT 125% so I repeated this.)

Lifestyle and diet studies for cancer always have differences in the region of 20 to 60% usually.

This is a 12500% difference.

4700 women took part in the study.

The results of this study are compelling, even considering that it was not a "controlled study" for other risk factors. Bear in mind that known (published in medical journals) risk factors for breast cancer are mostly in the range of less than three-fold differences. It should also be noted that singer and grismaijer surveyed bra-wearing behavior of the past, which is excellent for a disease with such a long development period. The authors show how most of the known risk factors can be related to bra-wearing behavior and/or the lymphatic system.

For example, breast feeding and pregnancy cause full development of the mammary lymphatics. Also, women of higher economic status have higher breast cancer rates, and one would expect that they would wear their bras more hours per day. Women who excercise have lower risk, which could relate to better lymphatic circulation (and I would add, more breast movement).

To this discussion, I would like to add that lymphatic circulation in many tissues (especially the primary lymphatics) are highly dependent on movement. When you sit for a long time on an airplane flight, your feet and ankles can swell, because lymphatic circulation goes to near zero. Wearing a bra, especially a constricting one with underwires, and especially to bed, prevents normal lymphatic flow and would likely lead to anoxia (lower than normal oxygen content), which has been related to fibrosis, which has been linked to increased cancer risk.

Women evolved under conditions where there was breast movement with every step that they took when they walked or ran. My reading of the scientific literature about lymphatic flow shows me that this may be as important as the constriction factor. Every subtle bounce of the breast while moving, walking, running, etc. Gently massages the breast and increases lymphatic flow and thus cleans the breast of toxins and wastes that arise from cellular metabolism.

Of course, there may be other mechanisms for the damage that bras apparently cause. One such mechanism could be temperature. Breasts are external organs and have a naturally lower temperature. Cancers can be temperature-dependent. Breast cancer is hormone-dependent. Temperature can alter hormone function. Breast temperature changes throughout the monthly cycle.

All these facts are from the medical literature. By whatever mechanism, someone will eventually explain why singer and grismaijer found a 125-fold difference in cancer rates between bra-free breasts and those constricted by 24-hour-per-day bra-wearing.

Also, just for an interesting experiment, the next time you walk down the street, notice visually how constricting bras are. On many women you can actually see "dents" around the sides of their chests where there bras are, even in something as opaque as a black t-shirt.

A physical therapist friend of mine, said that she was amazed at what she saw in her practice at a local medical clinic. She noticed how many women have red creases and grooves on the their bodies caused by their bras. Singer and grismajer also suggest that you simply stop wearing one for two weeks and see how you feel.

By the way, I have heard that they are currently working on a new study. The research is to study whether benign fibrocystic breast disease can be treated by stopping bra-wearing for eight weeks. That should be very interesting; this time they are involving medical doctors, from what i've heard.

Years ago, many people thought that the idea of cigarettes causing lung cancer was funny. Even if further research with highly controlled studies only shows a difference of 5-fold, or even 2-fold, it will be no laughing matter.

40000 women get breast cancer annually and over 10000 die from it in the uk.

Treating 40000 women for breast cancer annully generates revenues of about #65533;1billion from the use of cancer drugs.

Bra sales generate #65533;3 billion annuellyin the Uk alone.



http://forum.aidworkers.net/messages/141/22670.html?1105057020 [nofollow]


 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #1 on: 29/06/2005 15:23:26 »
Just a few points that spring to mind...
1) Was breast size taken into account in the research? I would imagine that if the breasts moving has something to do with it, large breasts would be less at risk than small ones. Then again, larger breasts means that there is more tissue that could be at risk.
2) Was weight or body size considered? Overweight people are allegedly more likely to contract more illnesses than those of average size. I don't know if that's the case with cancers.
3) Were all the women studied in close proximity or was it a nationwide or international exercise?
4) You state that women of higher economic status are more likely to contract breast cancer. The diet of such women will be very different from those of lower economic status.
5)
quote:
Also, women of higher economic status have higher breast cancer rates, and one would expect that they would wear their bras more hours per day.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim?
« Last Edit: 29/06/2005 15:24:37 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #2 on: 29/06/2005 15:34:07 »
I don't wish to denegrate what you've said but there is a hell of a lot of research published with allegedly-far-reaching conclusions where the researchers have arrived at those conclusions without looking at all the options (I would personally put the figure in excess of 90% of the papers I've read).
I believe that is why there is so much contradictory evidence published. Someone thinks they see a pattern & that gives them the chance to make a name for themselves. From then on they see only what they want to see & completely forget that other factors may be involved.
 

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5339
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #3 on: 29/06/2005 17:02:54 »
This sort of reporting can be very misleading.

You have stated that BRA [wearing] CAUSES CANCER...

In fact, the most you can say is that bra wearing may be associated with cancer.

It would be like me looking up cases of lung cancer and finding out that people with lung cancer often drink tea, and then concluding that tea must be a cause of lung cancer, when in reality it's the cigarette that is smoked WITH the cup of tea that causes the cancer...

There are also many confounding variables at play here. As DoctorBeaver points out, people who are obese have a higher risk of breast cancer. They are also likely to have more pendulous breasts and therefore find wearing a bra more comfortable, so they wear one more often than a women with metaphorical fried eggs who doesn't feel the need.

To prove causation a relationship must satisfy the Bradford Hill criteria. These are :

1) CONSISTENCY AND UNBIASEDNESS OF FINDINGS

Confirmation of the association by different investigators, in different populations, using different methods.

2) STRENGTH OF ASSOCIATION

Two aspects: the frequency with which the factor is found in the disease, and the frequency with which it occurs in the absence of the disease. The larger the relative risk, the more the hypothesis is strengthened.

3) TEMPORAL SEQUENCE

Obviously, exposure to the factor must occur before onset of the disease. In addition, if it is possible to show a temporal relationship, as between exposure to the factor in the population and frequency of the disease, the case is strengthened.

4) BIOLOGICAL GRADIENT (DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP)

Finding a quantitative relationship between the factor and the frequency of the disease. The intensity or duration of exposure may be measured.

5) SPECIFICITY

If the determinant being studied can be isolated from others and shown to produce changes in the incidence of the disease, e.g., if thyroid cancer can be shown to have a higher incidence specifically associated with fluoride, this is convincing evidence of causation.

6) COHERENCE WITH BIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE

The evidence must fit the facts that are thought to be related, e.g., the rising incidence of dental fluorosis and the rising consumption of fluoride are coherent. 

7) BIOLOGICAL PLAUSABILITY

The statistically significant association fits well with previously existing knowledge.

8) REASONING BY ANALOGY

9) EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE

This aspect focuses on what happens when the suspected offending agent is removed. Is there improvement? The evidence of remission - or  even resolution of significant medical symptoms - following explantation  obviously would strengthen the case.

It is unethical to do an experiment that exposes people to the risk of illness, but it is permissible and indeed desirable to conduct an experimental, i.e., a randomized controlled trial, on control measures. If fluoride  is suspected of causing thyroid dysfunction, for example, the experiment of eliminating or reducing occupational exposure to the toxin and conducting detailed endocrine tests on the workers could help to confirm or refute the suspicion.


"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #4 on: 29/06/2005 17:27:02 »
Hmm, does anyone know what the correlation data are between breast size and cancer?
Because I would expect to see (OK, anecdotally among my friends, I know that I do see) much lower levels of bra wearing among women with smaller breasts relative to women with smaller breats, beause the larger the breast the more their waving about is liable to cause discomfort.

Also, why on earth would you wear a bra in bed? The point of a bra is surely that it reduces uncomfortable wobbling, which I'd have thought was a minimal issue whilst sleeping...

quote:
* women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer (in their study, n=2056 for the cancer group and n=2674 for the standard group).

No, if the cancer: non-cancer ratio is 2056:2674 then 3 out of 7, not 3 out of 4, women got breat cancer. Is that your typo or did you quote it from somewhere (a typo is fair enough, if yours... if it came from a site setting itself up as a source of information it'd be pretty deeply unimpresive).

Oh, also, do you know if this is a published research paper? If so do you have a reference for it? Or failing that a link, say to their research group's website or whatever?
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #5 on: 29/06/2005 17:35:05 »
Chris - what you've said is basically what I was getting at but I have an inborn aversion to technical terminology. I believe science should be accessible to your average Mr Joe Public so I try to steer away from jargon
 

Offline esecallum

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #6 on: 29/06/2005 21:54:23 »
quote:
Originally posted by rosy

Hmm, does anyone know what the correlation data are between breast size and cancer?
Because I would expect to see (OK, anecdotally among my friends, I know that I do see) much lower levels of bra wearing among women with smaller breasts relative to women with smaller breats, beause the larger the breast the more their waving about is liable to cause discomfort.

Also, why on earth would you wear a bra in bed? The point of a bra is surely that it reduces uncomfortable wobbling, which I'd have thought was a minimal issue whilst sleeping...

quote:
* women who wore their bras 24 hours per day had a 3 out of 4 chance of developing breast cancer (in their study, n=2056 for the cancer group and n=2674 for the standard group).

No, if the cancer: non-cancer ratio is 2056:2674 then 3 out of 7, not 3 out of 4, women got breat cancer. Is that your typo or did you quote it from somewhere (a typo is fair enough, if yours... if it came from a site setting itself up as a source of information it'd be pretty deeply unimpresive).

Oh, also, do you know if this is a published research paper? If so do you have a reference for it? Or failing that a link, say to their research group's website or whatever?



As i said people FAIL TO UNDERSTAND FACTORS.
A FACTOR OF 125 IS 12500%.

more than 4000 people were sampled.

only 2 variables used.
women wears a bra for certain lenghts of time
or does not wear a bra.

Of course diet/lifestyles influence cancer rates but WHAT DIET/LIFESTYLE INCREASES THE CANCER RATE BY 12500% I ASK YOU?

I dont really care if women wears a bra or not.its upto them.

I just pointed out the link exists.

the study exists on the internet.
i note people totally failed to read and understand the original post.

not one of you mentioned the lypmhatic/circulation system.
some of you wanted more information.
the details are below:-



Could Bra-Wearing
Increase the Incidence of Breast Cancer?
and also Painful, Lumpy Breasts?

by Darrell J. Stoddard      Copyright 2000

           Cancer organizations may have overlooked one of the most important cancer discoveries of the last century.  The incidence of breast cancer for women in bra-wearing countries is 1 in 8 or 9 (based on a projection that all women will live to be 90 years old).  Much lower rates of breast cancer have been reported in non bra-wearing cultures.
              Breast Cancer will strike an estimated 178,000 U.S. women this year, killing about 43,500.  If we knew all of the causes of breast cancer, we would know more about preventing this terrible disease.
              Medical anthropologists, Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer, in a study involving 4,700 U.S. women found that women who wear a bra 24 hours a day had a cancer rate that was 125 times higher than women who don't wear a bra at all!
              How long a woman wears a bra each day also makes a major difference.  "Women who wore bras for over 12 hours daily, but not to sleep, have a 21-fold greater chance of developing breast cancer than do women who remove their bras before twelve hours."
              The theory of why bra-wearing may increase the incidence of breast cancer is the concept that a bra impairs the flow of lymphatics.  The blocked lymphatic vessels allow wastes and toxins to accumulate creating a toxic condition and cellular damage leading to the development of cancer.
              Even if the exact mechanism is not known, the correlation between wearing a bra and breast cancer is 4 to 12 times greater in significance than the connection between smoking and lung cancer.  Reasons you may have never heard of this discovery are:  No one has anything to sell or will profit from women not wearing bras. It costs nothing to implement.  The discovery could upstage cancer research that is costing billions.  Experts who work for cancer causes are reluctant to accept such a simple solution.   The monumental medical discoveries of William Harvey, James Lind and Ignaz Semmelweis were rejected for decades and even for a lifetime.
             In our day, traditional medicine rejected the discoveries of Oliver Sachs (Awakenings), Augusto and Michaela Odone (Lorenzo's Oil), and Gary and Victoria Beck (Parents of Autistic Child, featured on Dateline Oct. 7, 1998).
             The harmful effects of X-rays, discovered in 1895, were hardly known 50 years later.  In the 1940's there were X- ray machines for fitting shoes in nearly all department stores.  The harmful effects of X-rays are still not fully realized 100 years later!  (Search www under "John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D." then see his vital and timely book Preventing Breast Cancer, which is complete on the web.)
              It took the FDA more than 30 years to even acknowledge that a folic acid deficiency could cause birth defects. Thousands of deformed babies have been born because the FDA prohibited claims that pregnant women should take folic acid."  Now it is widely publicized.
              Not only is the implementation of the Singer, Grismaijer study available to all women free of charge, but the research cost zero, zilch, nada, not one cent of your tax or donated dollars.  No one paid them to do the research.  The only monetary rewards Singer and Grismaijer will ever get is a royalty on their book, Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, a book I highly recommend.
              It is infinitely more important to prevent breast cancer than try to cure it.  Thanks to Singer and Grismaijer, we know what could be the most important step women can take to prevent breast cancer.
              In the news there have been stories of high risk women who did not have cancer that had double radical mastectomies (removal of both breasts) to prevent breast cancer!  "Not wearing a bra to prevent breast cancer" seems too simple, so it is hardly mentioned by the media and not even considered by many cancer experts.
              In contrast, the media has been full of news releases from the National Cancer Institute about how Tamoxifen (which has dangerous side effects) can reduce the risk of breast cancer by up to one-half in certain women.  This compared to reducing risk 21 times by wearing a bra less than 12 hours a day, or reducing the risk much more than 21 times by not wearing a bra at all!
             Tamoxifen doubles the risk of uterine cancer, triples the risk of potentially fatal blood clots, and increases the risk of developing cataracts in the eyes according to a report by the Food and Drug Administration.  Nevertheless, the F.D.A. has approved the use of Tamoxifen by high risk, healthy women to prevent breast cancer.
             Going without a bra to prevent breast cancer will not be popular with all women but should a woman have her breasts removed or take tamoxifen instead?
             Tamoxifen sales are 255  million dollars a year.  It is predicted that with the expanded market to prevent breast cancer in healthy women, tamoxifen sales could balloon to seven billion dollars a year in the U.S. alone!  It costs nothing to stop wearing a bra.
             In response to the bra study, Good Housekeeping magazine  (which often has 3 full page color ads for tamoxifen) stated that, "Bras Don't Cause Breast Cancer" then adds, "most cancer specialists say the idea is so ludicrous it isn't even worth commenting on.  The theory that constriction from bras allows toxins to build up in the breasts' lymphatic system, which leads to cancer....is unfounded."  "Even when a bra fits snugly, it doesn't interfere with the lymphatic drainage of the breast," explains breast cancer expert Gordon F. Schwartz, M.D..
            In contrast, there are many published studies to refute the claim that wearing a bra does not interfere with lymphatic drainage of the breast.  Michael Schacter, M.D. writes at:
    http://www.healthy.net/lirary/articles/ [nofollow] schacter/breast.d.htm  "Any activity which will help to remove accumulated toxins in the breasts will help to reduce the chances of developing breast cancer."  "It is the job of the lymphatic system of the body to help drain toxic substances from tissues and poor lymphatic drainage may play a role in breast cancer formation."  "(Lymph flow) is very sensitive to constricting external pressure which can impede its flow.  Bras and other external tight clothing can impede flow."  "So, the take home message to women is to wear bras as little as possible and when wearing them try to choose one that is least constricting."
            Dr. Jesse Hanley, M.D. (in her book What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Premenopause, Warner Books, 1999) encourages her patients "not to wear underwire bras or even tight bras, except for special occasions because they block the lymph glands underneath the breast.  Lymph glands play an important role in draining toxins from the breast."
            Another media story about the bra study said it was "ripped to pieces" by cancer experts because the study didn't factor in risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, etc.
            Scientific scepticism is wonderful but such criticism is groundless when there is no conceivable reason why women in the U.S. who don't wear bras would be non-smokers or non-drinkers and bra wearers would be smokers or alcohol users.  Reminds me of the endless defense by cigarette companies that cigarettes do not cause cancer.
            The smoking/cancer connection was the most important cancer discovery of the last century but it took more than forty years to be widely accepted.  Nearly every magazine and newspaper published in the 1950's (except Reader's Digest) had full page ads stating that "More Doctors Smoke Camels than any other brand."  Until this decade, lawsuits against cigarette companies never made it to trial.
             R.I. Reed, Ph.D., has compiled an excellent bibliography of published studies that present evidence for a possible bra-wearing breast cancer connection.  See:                         http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html [nofollow]   -   http://www.arcos.org/mtardif/bcrefs.htm [nofollow]   -   and http://www.all-natural.com/fibrocys.html [nofollow]
             Dr. Reed also has found 30 references linking fibrocystic breast disease (benign lumps, cysts and pain) to increased cancer incidence.  He states, "Many women, and unfortunately many doctors, think that fibrocystic breast disease is a "normal" condition for women; some even say that it is not a disease."
             There are doctors, however, who believe fibrocystic breasts are diseased.  Dr. Richard Santen, M.D., says at:   http//www.ivanhoe.com/docs/backissues/benignbreast clinicqa.html  "If a (breast) duct becomes blocked it will fill up with fluid and it is very much like a balloon filled with water.  It is a round area filled with fluid that represents a blocked duct.  That's the cystic component of fibrocystic disease. The area around that blocked duct then has the tendency to form scar tissue and that's the fibrous component of the fibrocystic disease."  "Benign breast disease ....let's consider this as a medical problem and focus on trying to treat the patient rather than saying it's not cancer, let's forget about it."
            A six year study of 1,374 women with palpable breast cysts was published in Lancet, May 1999. Sixty-five cancers developed which was significantly more then would have occurred in an equal number of women who did not have fibrocystic breasts.  The study concluded that for all cyst types, "Women with breast cysts are at an increased risk of breast cancer, especially at younger ages."  The relative risk was 5.94 times more for women under 45 years of age.
            To this date, very few doctors and no public information on breast disease list benign lumpy breasts as a risk factor for breast cancer.  One of the reasons for not recognizing the risk is because a remedy is not generally known.  The bra study and recent research hopefully will change that.
            Many women sent Dr. Reed their personal stories telling of dramatic relief from monthly breast pain and/or lumps achieved by not wearing a bra.  See seven of their histories at:
    http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html [nofollow]
            Singer and Grismaijer, and also Dr. Gregory Heigh of Florida have found that about 90% of women with fibro-cystic disease find improvement by not wearing a bra.
            If going bra free will prevent lumpy, painful breasts and if such fibrocystic disease increases the risk of breast cancer, then going without a bra may prevent some (and possibly much) breast cancer.
            Women who find a lump in their breast may delay medical care and try to eliminate the lump by not wearing a bra.  It is imperative not to so endanger your life!   This paper is about preventing breast cancer, not treating it.  Going bra free may reduce a benign cyst.  It will probably do nothing for an existing malignant tumor.

             Note:   Women may believe that bra-wearing will prevent the development of "sagging breasts."  With or without a bra, sagging is an inevitable part of aging.  There are many studies, however, to show that ligaments (also muscle and bone) will atrophy if they do not move or bear weight.  Because the breast is supported by ligaments, wearing a bra may actually cause breast sagging.

    Darrell Stoddard, Founder - Pain Research Institute
    266 East 3200 North, Provo, UT 84604  U.S.A.

    Phone: 801-377-6900
    Email: stoddard@healpain.net
    Website: http://www.healpain.net [nofollow]

http://forum.aidworkers.net/messages/141/22670.html?1105057020 [nofollow]
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #7 on: 30/06/2005 00:24:23 »
Thanks for the article, but I was really hoping for a link to the original research by Singer and Grismaijer (as I thought maybe having read it you'd have the link at your fingertips), however, I'll have a look for it myself.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily think the findings are incorrect, but I do find them counterintuitive... as you say "what diet/lifestyle increases the cancer rate by 12500%", wearing or not wearing a bra quite likely does affect the behaviour of the lymphatic system, but there are also other factors (like breast size and many lifestyle factors) which correlate with the wearing or not of a bra, and which may or may not be leading to the cumulative effects. Just because it correlates doesn't mean it's necessarily causal... I'd want to see evidence of much more highly controlled research than this appears to be before I'd submit to the discomfort which would be involved in any vigorous activity if I threw away my bra!

Your point about factors... I understand perfectly well that 12500% means a 125 fold increase. My question in no way refered to that statistic... as I haven't read the research I've no idea what the actual numbers it quotes are.
My query was about the section of your post I quoted, which at least appears to say that of a group of 2056+2674=4730 women who wore their bras 24 hours a day, 2056 developed breast cancer whilst 2674 did not. Fine so far... but then to say that of those women 3 out of 4 developed breast cancer is obviously nonsensical. I don't think that it is I, member of the MTV generation though I may be, who have a problem with factors.
 

Offline rabeldin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
    • http://www.stormloader.com/dickbeldin
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #8 on: 30/06/2005 01:44:38 »
I'd like to mention that there are "standard statistical techniques" for comparing rates in case and control groups that are extremely sensitive to lack of balance in the sizes of the groups. Because bra use is conventional in many societies, the number of women who admit to not wearing one may be so small as to invalidate the statistical techniques in question. I have no specific data about what tests were used, but I know of many techniques that suffer from this defect. Remember, most statistical techniques are in fact based on approximations, and the approximations get worse as you violate the assumptions more extremely.

R A Beldin,
Improbable Statistician
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #9 on: 01/07/2005 22:23:52 »
Here's a link to a page that reads too much like the original post to be a coincidence: http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html

Here's a link to a page showing the reference. Its a book, written by Singer and Grismaijer: http://www.all-natural.com/dressed.html

If you want to buy it, Amazon has it used for only $8.99:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895296640/ref=ase_naturalhealthand/002-0355428-5604038?v=glance&s=books
 

Offline VAlibrarian

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #10 on: 30/08/2005 04:04:08 »
I still think that the association of bra-wearing and breast cancer is not good science. How do you separate out associated factors? Are you really measuring psychology- as in "how likely are women who wear brassieres all day and all night to have psychological factors which lead them into some behaviors that are in fact causing a heightened breast cancer risk but have nothing physically to do with the bra itself?"
If you notice that breastfed babies grow into children who are more intelligent than the norm, do you immediately assume that there is a brilliance chemical in breast milk? Or is it equally possible that the closeness between mother and child led to brain growth, or just that mothers who are willing to breastfeed almost always love their babies and work hard to get them well educated later on? How do you isolate?

chris wiegard
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #11 on: 30/08/2005 23:00:40 »
Syd Singer is a friend of mine, who has done some amazing research. He has written a book on this subject, aptly named "Get it off", His logical approach to lymph drainage and an inevitable cause of toxin build up where the wire from the bra is pressing tight against the skin sounds plausible. Furthermore, one only has to look for evidence in non-bra wearing populations to see if there is a correlation between breast cancer and the under-wired bra.

I am sure Syd would love to hear from you guys and girls.

http://www.selfstudycenter.org/about.htm


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline esecallum

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #12 on: 31/08/2005 11:39:31 »
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew K Fletcher

Syd Singer is a friend of mine, who has done some amazing research. He has written a book on this subject, aptly named "Get it off", His logical approach to lymph drainage and an inevitable cause of toxin build up where the wire from the bra is pressing tight against the skin sounds plausible. Furthermore, one only has to look for evidence in non-bra wearing populations to see if there is a correlation between breast cancer and the under-wired bra.

I am sure Syd would love to hear from you guys and girls.

http://www.selfstudycenter.org/about.htm [nofollow]


"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"




The link exists between bra wearing causing cancer and those who dont is by a factor of 125  (=12500%).

12500% is a very large number and drowns out any other variables like diet,lifstyle....etc...etc.

A lot of people just dont understand this number.

This number supercedes eclipses every other cause for causing breat cancer.

I note people try to cloud the issue by including psychology also!
no doubt it may have an effect but not by 12500%.

Also i have noted that big stars and celebrities have got wind of this and have stopped wearing bras now.

This is evident in presenters etc on tv not wearing bras.You can clearly see the nipples protruding from their usually flimsy revealing clothing.no bra line is visiable.I suggest you watch out for this when you watch tv.

Celebrities clearly have a lot to lose by dying early from breast cancer.
All that vast money they get paid means they are very wealthy.
There is  no point in having vast wealth if you are going to die of breast cancer.

In the U.K 13000 die every year and upto 30000 contract it.

In the case of Kylie Minogue for instance she had small breasts and being in the public eye and under pressure from the media spotlight then started wearing tight breast enhancing underwear and this may have led her to get breast cancer probably due to poor circulation for prolonged priods of time.

She has had chemo buts its success rate is poor.We can only wait and see how long she survives.
For oher people I suggest they take steps if they dont want breast cancer.

Remember no money can be made from people who dont wear bras and who dont fall ill.

Remember this tonight when you are lying in bed.
 

Offline DrN

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 815
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #13 on: 05/09/2005 22:20:57 »
YES we understand what 12500% means!!!
 
if this research has been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal then please let us know, its difficult to discuss without seeing the methods of the research. I have only been able to find references to this work through the book mentioned above. Syd Singers CV appears reputable, but I'm concerned about how much you can read into a single study that doesn't have proper controls or take into account any other risk factors. plus the four categories of bra wearing duration splits the group of 4700 into a much smaller n numer per individual study.
 

Offline coqui

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #14 on: 09/09/2005 04:07:17 »
I find it amazing, and unscientific, that so many comments have been made about this research and theory without going to the source.  The book is Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras (Avery/Penguin Putnam 1995; ISCD Press 2002).  The authors, Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer, are medical anthropologists.  Their website is newbielink:http://www.SelfStudyCenter.org [nonactive].  They have also written a follow-up to Dressed To Kill, entitled, Get It Off! Eliminating the Cause of Breast Pain, Cysts, and Cancer, Illustrated with A Little Breast Play. Dressed To Kill discusses the reasoning behind the bra-cancer connection, describes the 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, and provides a brief analysis of the cultural role bras play in Western societies.  Intelligent discussion of this theory requires reading this book.  Otherwise, criticism or support will merely reflect one's personal biases, which many people have when it comes to topics such as bras, breasts, and cancer.  Also, keep in mind the research of Singer and Grismaijer is applied medical anthropology, not epidemiology.  
Get It Off! explores the cultural issues that keep women wearing bras and that have turned breasts into fashion accessories.  As a method of illustration, the authors use a play (actually a musical) that begins each chapter.  It is a novel, creative presentation, and the musical version of the play, renamed "The Booby Trap", was premiered in New York City on Mother's Day, 2000.

Finally, keep in mind that bra wearing is a form of breast binding, akin to foot binding as once practiced by the Chinese.  Compression by the bra of lymphatic vessels within the breast results in fluid accumulation, as the microscopic lymphatic vessels that drain the breast tissue of fluid and toxins is impaired in its flow.  This results in tenderness and cyst formation, which is readily reversible by going bra-free, as has been experimentally shown.  (This was also documented by medical doctors in the UK for the BBC and Channel 4 in the year 2000, in a program entitled, Bras-The Bare Facts.)  Fibrocystic breast disease should be called Tight Bra Syndrome.  The cancer connection is that the toxins that the lymphatics normally flush away from the breasts are kept within the breast tissue due to the bra's constrictive of lymphatic vessels.  The toxins include various carcinogens that are known to contaminate our food, water, and air in our petro-chemically polluted world.  These toxins cause the cancer, not the bra.  However, the bra keeps these toxins in the breast for as long as the bra is worn.  That is why cancer of the breasts is the most common female cancer in the West.  The bra is the tightest garment women in the West wear.  This also explains why men have a much lower rate (they don't wear bras.)  And it also explains why breast cancer is negligible in bra-free cultures.  
There's much more.  Don't underestimate this theory or the reasoning behind it.
 

Offline entropy

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #15 on: 09/09/2005 06:34:46 »
hmmmm, breasts :)

sorry
 

Offline David Sparkman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #16 on: 09/09/2005 14:34:34 »
I just had a discussion with my wife over this subject. She is a masseuse, and rather well endowed. As a trained masseuse, she works on people with medical problems with lymph drainage and agrees with the premise, but points out that tight bras are more the problem than bras themselves. People who use their bras for support, and donít sleep in them are in a different class of risk than those who try to shape and enhance their figure with tight bras.

Using bras for support has a few different purposes. Jogging is not a good exercise for large busted women without support Ė it hurts. Likewise, women lactating prefer not to bounce their swollen and heavy breasts. But women who feel the need to enhance their size with bras or with breast enhancement surgery are the ones who are interfering with their lymph systems.

FYI for those unfamiliar with the circulatory system, the blood system doesnít do much to carry away wastes other than CO2. The lymph system is what carries away most of the waste products of your cells. When my wife massages someone it is always in the direction of the lymphatic flow, and never against it. This pushes waste fluids out of the muscle tissue and into the lymph system, never the reverse. With arms and legs, the pressure stroke should always be toward the heart, with just a light return stroke.


David
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #17 on: 09/09/2005 20:32:52 »
What about tight clothes in general ?...I'm all in favour of naturism in the work place for health reasons !

David...my wife is well endowed too !!...she had to get planning permission for hers !!...sorry for downgrading the standard of this thread.....move along peeps...nothing else to see hear.

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
 

Offline David Sparkman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #18 on: 09/09/2005 20:59:08 »
Hmm do you think we need a discussion of how to properly massage breast tissue to improve lymphatic circulation then? I wonder about how the lymphatic circulation works with enhanced breasts, if that doesn't complecate things

David
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #19 on: 09/09/2005 22:09:32 »
Look its quite simple.

Ban the Bra.[8D]
 
There unhealthy, and completely remove the fun out of watching a woman run for a bus..:D



And yes Iím a male chauvinistic pig who deserves to die from the death of a thousand breasts torture. Nice way to go
.[:p]
« Last Edit: 10/09/2005 04:00:11 by ukmicky »
 

Offline DrN

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 815
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #20 on: 09/09/2005 23:30:39 »
Coqui, glad you seem to have enjoyed the book. I expect several people on this site found the source, its been mentioned a few times, I myself mentioned his CV, so by deduction, must have visited the website! if you would like to share the contents of this non-peer reviewed, not-available-in-a-scientific/medical-journal, piece of scientific literature I'm sure all of us who don't want to fork out for it ourselves (and wait for delivery) before being able to comment further in this thread (the last few posts ignored!) would be happy to hear from you.

I agree with David, support is the key with bra's, thats what they're designed for, nothing to do with binding (unless maybe you're aiming for that 20's 'boyish' look). its not pleasant doing sports without one.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2005 23:31:03 by fishytails »
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #21 on: 10/09/2005 03:31:03 »
quote:
Originally posted by fishytails

its not pleasant doing sports without one.



I agree...but I have to take mine off when I'm on the gymnastic rings....it really chafes :D

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #22 on: 10/09/2005 04:01:16 »
quote:
Originally posted by ukmicky

Look its quite simple.

Ban the Bra.[8D]
 
There unhealthy, and completely remove the fun out of watching a woman run for a bus..:D



And yes Iím a male chauvinistic pig who deserves to die from the death of a thousand breasts torture. Nice way to go
.[:p]




Reminds me of the scene at the end of Monty Pythons, Meaning Of Life !!..;)

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
 

Offline coqui

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #23 on: 13/09/2005 21:46:25 »
I do not agree that bras are for support.  There is nothing wrong with the female body that requires 20th Century lingerie for correction.  When girdles were in fashion, their manufacturers claimed that they, too, were essential for abdominal support.  In fact, however, the artificial support from the girdle resulted in weaker abdominal muscles, since the body comes to rely on the girdle instead of on its own muscular system for support.  The same goes for the bra.  They are only for fashion.  And they create weak, droopy breasts.  It is a myth, promoted by the bra industry, that bras prevent sagging or are necessary for breast support.

Interestingly, Singer and Grismaijer also did a study in Fiji to follow-up on their US study.  They found that about 50% of the female population there wore bras, and breast disease was limited to this bra-wearing group.  Comparing women from the same village, with the same diet and genetic background, those who developed breast cancer were those who had a history of wearing bras.  

And while some women in the west, who were raised on bras, claim that they need a bra for comfort and "support", Singer and Grismaijer found many large breasted Fijian woman claiming that they couldn't wear a bra because their breasts were "too big"!  

The problem is that women who have worn a bra since puberty have not developed their natural ligamental support system for their breasts.  The breasts become reliant on the bra for support.  It takes time for the body to relearn to support the breasts by itself once women go bra-free.  However, according to Singer and Grismaijer, many women who have never worn a bra have reported that their breasts are firm and free from cysts and pain, even into their 60's.  

I suppose wearing a bra during sports activities would be helpful, just as some men wear a jock strap.  However, if men wore jock straps for 18 hours daily, there would probably be more cases of testicular cancer.  (Tight underwear has already been shown to harm the testicles.) Also, keep in mind that one of the benefits of exercise is that it improves circulation.  Wearing a bra inhibits this circulation.  

As for breast massage, it would certainly help the breast lymphatics and help clear out some of the edema caused by chronic bra constriction.  Self-massage would be best.  But the problem is getting past the discomfort people have with the subject.  After all, we live in a breast-obsessed culture where a mature discussion of breast massage is difficult. It is even illegal in some states for a massage therapist to offer a client a breast massage.

Given the taboo nature of breasts and bras, is it any wonder that this bra-cancer connection has been ignored?
 

Offline esecallum

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #24 on: 14/09/2005 10:18:51 »
quote:
Originally posted by coqui

I do not agree that bras are for support.  There is nothing wrong with the female body that requires 20th Century lingerie for correction.  When girdles were in fashion, their manufacturers claimed that they, too, were essential for abdominal support.  In fact, however, the artificial support from the girdle resulted in weaker abdominal muscles, since the body comes to rely on the girdle instead of on its own muscular system for support.  The same goes for the bra.  They are only for fashion.  And they create weak, droopy breasts.  It is a myth, promoted by the bra industry, that bras prevent sagging or are necessary for breast support.

Interestingly, Singer and Grismaijer also did a study in Fiji to follow-up on their US study.  They found that about 50% of the female population there wore bras, and breast disease was limited to this bra-wearing group.  Comparing women from the same village, with the same diet and genetic background, those who developed breast cancer were those who had a history of wearing bras.  

And while some women in the west, who were raised on bras, claim that they need a bra for comfort and "support", Singer and Grismaijer found many large breasted Fijian woman claiming that they couldn't wear a bra because their breasts were "too big"!  

The problem is that women who have worn a bra since puberty have not developed their natural ligamental support system for their breasts.  The breasts become reliant on the bra for support.  It takes time for the body to relearn to support the breasts by itself once women go bra-free.  However, according to Singer and Grismaijer, many women who have never worn a bra have reported that their breasts are firm and free from cysts and pain, even into their 60's.  

I suppose wearing a bra during sports activities would be helpful, just as some men wear a jock strap.  However, if men wore jock straps for 18 hours daily, there would probably be more cases of testicular cancer.  (Tight underwear has already been shown to harm the testicles.) Also, keep in mind that one of the benefits of exercise is that it improves circulation.  Wearing a bra inhibits this circulation.  

As for breast massage, it would certainly help the breast lymphatics and help clear out some of the edema caused by chronic bra constriction.  Self-massage would be best.  But the problem is getting past the discomfort people have with the subject.  After all, we live in a breast-obsessed culture where a mature discussion of breast massage is difficult. It is even illegal in some states for a massage therapist to offer a client a breast massage.

Given the taboo nature of breasts and bras, is it any wonder that this bra-cancer connection has been ignored?







Coqui you are so right in what you say.

Many people dont want to see a connection between bra's and breast cancer coause of the media brain washing and their media conditioned responses similar to Pavlov's dogs.

"Bob the new hunky executive in marketing wont find Sharon the new secretary as attractive cos her boobs are not sticking out cos she is not wearing a bra".

"Sharon is afraid Bob the new hunk in marketing wont find her as attractive cos her boobs are not sticking out cos she is not wearing a bra".
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #24 on: 14/09/2005 10:18:51 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums