Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: esecallum 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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.Â
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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/ 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 - http://www.arcos.org/mtardif/bcrefs.htm - and http://www.all-natural.com/fibrocys.html
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
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
http://forum.aidworkers.net/messages/141/22670.html?1105057020
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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!"
-
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
"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.
-
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.
-
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 www.SelfStudyCenter.org. 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.
-
hmmmm, breasts :)
sorry
-
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 don’t 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 – 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 doesn’t 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
-
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 !!
-
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
-
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 I’m a male chauvinistic pig who deserves to die from the death of a thousand breasts torture. Nice way to go
.[:p]
-
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.
-
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 !!
-
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 I’m 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 !!
-
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?
-
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".
-
Good News
Jude has abandoned the Bra and looks terrific without it and feels more comfortable.
Thanks guys, have been trying to convince her about this for years :)
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
-
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew K Fletcher
Good News
Jude has abandoned the Bra and looks terrific without it and feels more comfortable.
Thanks guys, have been trying to convince her about this for years :)
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
You're just saying that....lets SEE the evidence please [;)]
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
I think that this topic BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%) (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=2275.0)
deserve more attention. I am sure it will save a few people from misery.
The more publicity this topic gains the more people will be saved from breast cancer misery.
-
People just wanna see their breast move more..ha
-
Wearing bra has for purpose to artificially enhance appearance of the breasts and to make them more attractive and desirable…. By the way I am not interesting to discus about moral or religion but just about facts.
It is striking parallel between wearing the bra and feet binding in old China only after this research is published by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer, the custom of wearing the bra seems far more insane than the custom of feet binding in Old China.
-
If there was a true 12500% increase in the incidence of cancer from ANYTHING much less something as simple as bra-wearing; it would be such an easy career-making topic of research for any young scientist, it would have been jumped on years ago.
The claim that this non-peer-reviewed study should be veiwed as reputable is pure ignorance; and to presume that the only reason that the scientific community hasn't taken intrest in the topic has to do with the taboo nature of breasts, or some sort of brain-washing by the media is completely juvenile.
I reccomend that the moderators of the forum move this thread to the "that can't be true" forum where it belongs.
-
It is very likely that the only problem is that this study isn’t conduced on the rats but on the humans.
It seems that many people don’t trust in the facts and common sense anymore but they believe only in the rats’ science.
-
MayoFlyFarmer, shame on you for trying to remove this thread to That Can't Be True.
The truth of the matter is that more studies will not end up in the ultimate Unique Selling Point that so mant drug trials arrive at. No one is going to get rich by advising people that their bra will probably kill them. This is the reason that many up and coming PHD Students have not jumped on the bra research waggon. In order to do a study one needs to find a vested interest in order to gain funding. While the Health Services around the globe should be looking into the long term problems of wearing a bra in order to reduce the risk of surgery and often useles procedures, it would be far more prudent to address a suspected cause. Better to avoid a condition than to treat one!
-
It is very likely that the only problem is that this study isn’t conduced on the rats but on the humans.
It seems that many people don’t trust in the facts and common sense anymore but they believe only in the rats’ science.
actually, those of us who work with model organisms such as mice or rats have to go to great lengths to convince people that our research is relevant to humans.
-
MayoFlyFarmer, shame on you for trying to remove this thread to That Can't Be True.
The truth of the matter is that more studies will not end up in the ultimate Unique Selling Point that so mant drug trials arrive at. No one is going to get rich by advising people that their bra will probably kill them. This is the reason that many up and coming PHD Students have not jumped on the bra research waggon. In order to do a study one needs to find a vested interest in order to gain funding. While the Health Services around the globe should be looking into the long term problems of wearing a bra in order to reduce the risk of surgery and often useles procedures, it would be far more prudent to address a suspected cause. Better to avoid a condition than to treat one!
those of us who work in publicly funded labs aren't looking for things that are going to make anyone rich. you could use that arguement for a private pharmecutical company, but public institutions are simply interested in the science regardless of its financial prospects. The only way we have to even come CLOSE to striking it "rich" is to come up with a discovery big and important enough that we become a prestigious name in our feild and are highly sought after by universities. ANY DISCOVERY THAT A COMMON PRACTICE BY MOST WOMEN CAUSES A 12500% INCREASE IN THE INCIDENCE OF CANCER WOULD BE THIS TYPE OF CAREER MAKING DISCOVERY FOR EVEN AN ESTABLISHED SCIENTIST MUCH LESS A GRADUATE STUDENT!!!! Also, funding agencies would LOVE to fund research that would be so cheap and easy to conduct and showed potential for such a break-through discovery.
if there was any promise in this feild of study it would have been jumped on by so many people by now, AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL TO BEGIN WITH!!!!
-
Hmm the thought of bra-less women being jumped on raises an eyebrow
-
Research into any plausible mechanism for this - say the toxins not getting cleared by the lymphatic system- would proably lead to spinoffs that could be sold.
If this were plausible it would be exploited to the hilt by big pharma.
They have a lot of money to spend on R and D- so much that they can afford to toss away a few tens of thousands verifying or refuting a study like this. Why not? the money get's written off against tax anyway so it barely costs them a bean. If there were even the slightest payoff it would be worth it. Also the prestige of being the company that published the result would be astounding.
-
I would have thought the simplest correlation (and as usual, one should never mistake correlation with causality, whether either exist in this case) is that maybe there is a greater propensity for larger breasted women to be more likely to wear bras, and to develop breast cancer.
-
I work in cancer research at a wolrd class institution. lengths to convince people that our research is relevant to humans.
So where is the cancer cure?
$300 hundred million or more given by the public year after year and you have zilch to show for it.
Admit it that cancer research is just self perpetuating money making institutions who don't want a cure as there would be no need for them then.
Research funding is determined by various panels and the members of such panels are employed by various vested interests and thus keep research away from anything that might damage their interests.
-
Thing is, see, that cancer ain't "a disease", it's a whole series of things that can go wrong with cells all over the body all of which result in the formation of tumours. The thing is, finding a cure for one type of cancer, whilst it will make life immeasurably better for anyone suffering from that particular form of cancer, won't do a thing for a whole lot of other people.
Whilst that's all desperately depressing on one level it does at least mean that we can be confident NobodySavedMe has been seduced by a groundless antiestablishment fantasy rather than actually having spotted a genuine conspiracy in action.
-
"So where is the cancer cure?"
There are plenty; here are some
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineoplastic
so the idea that NobodySavedMe puts forward is simply not real.
-
[quote author=NobodySavedMe link=topic=2275.msg161786#msg161786
So where is the cancer cure?
$300 hundred million or more given by the public year after year and you have zilch to show for it.
[/quote]
maybe try picking up any scientific journal published in the past 30 years. or talk to someone who's had the misfortune of having cancer in the past decade. or compare survival rates to those ten years ago.
you are right that there is no magic bullet against cancer yet. but there never will be one. cancer is way to complex and dynamic of a disease for that. its all a matter of further understanding how the body is supposed to work, and what goes wrong to cause cancer.
-
"So where is the cancer cure?"
There are plenty; here are some
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineoplastic
so the idea that NobodySavedMe puts forward is simply not real.
Yeah,sure those concoctions will cure cancer.
lol.
-
"So where is the cancer cure?"
There are plenty; here are some
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineoplastic
so the idea that NobodySavedMe puts forward is simply not real.
Yeah,sure those concoctions will cure cancer.
lol.
Could I ask what qualifies you to doubt them? Are you a cancer researcher? A scientist? Statistician perhaps? Or Biochemist?
Why should I agree with you, instead of the many, many qualified researchers who are working very hard to find ways to treat and manage, this incredibly complicated problem?
-
"So where is the cancer cure?"
There are plenty; here are some
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineoplastic
so the idea that NobodySavedMe puts forward is simply not real.
Yeah,sure those concoctions will cure cancer.
lol.
Could I ask what qualifies you to doubt them? Are you a cancer researcher? A scientist? Statistician perhaps? Or Biochemist?
Why should I agree with you, instead of the many, many qualified researchers who are working very hard to find ways to treat and manage, this incredibly complicated problem?
I am a very in depth student of cancer.I have studied in great depth over the last 5 years from a vast number of sources.
The sad conclusion was that cancer researchers and treatment has stayed the same,the new drugs have very marginal effects and some of the cancer drugs actually cause more cancer.The cancer industry has artifically improved survival rates by detecting cancer earlier and earlier and the Lancet journal concluded after a in depth study that people who don't get chemo actually live longer.
Come on now.Let us be reasonable.You don't really believe it deep down when they come on the tv every week with another wonder drug of the week after the one they were peddling last week.Do you?
At the end of the day the true measure of success is the reduction in the headstones count from cancer which has not changed no matter how you massage the figures.
Over 560000 deaths from cancer every year in the United States.
-
I wonder if Gordon Brown is going to suggest that brasiers have a health warning printed on them, like they do with cigarets.
I'm thinking of starting smoking, could somebody recommend a site on how to learn to smoke? I was thinking of trying a pipe but I haven't a clue where to start, it will look cool though.
-
At the end of the day the true measure of success is the reduction in the headstones count from cancer which has not changed no matter how you massage the figures.
If you don't take into account the age profile, then this is meaningless.
If all you are doing is looking at headstone counts - the fact of the matter is there is a 100% mortality - we all die - so the only question is, of what, and when. The only way to avoid dying of cancer is to die of something else; so simply reducing the number of deaths from cancer is not necessarily a positive move unless you have some preferred means of death.
If you are asking what percentage of people will live beyond a given age, and if you have an increase in survivors, what percentage of those survivors would have died of cancer in past generations, then it is a more meaningful question; but simply asking how many people died of cancer, without qualification, tells us nothing useful.
-
Here in the UK the drugs used to treat cancer (and other illneses) are paid for by the government. It has a specific comittee that exists to check which drugs represent good value for money.
http://www.nice.org.uk/
Are you saying they are liars or fools?
-
I am a very in depth student of cancer.I have studied in great depth over the last 5 years from a vast number of sources.
Do you care to qualify that statement at all???
The sad conclusion was that cancer researchers and treatment has stayed the same,the new drugs have very marginal effects
And what amazing cures have YOU come up with in your lifetime??
The cancer industry has artifically improved survival rates by detecting cancer earlier and earlier
How is it a BAD thing that we have learned to detect cancer earlier?? This is probably the number one way that we have increased the cancer survival rate, and you state it as if its some way that the cancer research field is pulling the wool over society's eyes. Any way that we can help a person have a better fighting chance of not being overcome to cancer is a step in the right direction. And this didn't come about by accident, its the result of year of painstaking research by the people whom you are denouncing.
Come on now.Let us be reasonable.You don't really believe it deep down when they come on the tv every week with another wonder drug of the week after the one they were peddling last week.Do you?
When was the last time you saw a TV comercial for a Cemo therapy drug or the newest in gene-therapy techniques???
At the end of the day the true measure of success is the reduction in the headstones count from cancer which has not changed no matter how you massage the figures.
Who's massaging the figures here?? The rate of survival is undisputably higher. Just because the rate of incidence of cancer is also higher doesn't mean that the therapies haven't improved!
Over 560000 deaths from cancer every year in the United States.
And you think we should stop giving money to research to fight it???
-
It is hard to comprehend why need to discus about useless cancer research when the research of Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer undoubtedly shows that wearing bra is responsible for breast cancer incidence.
On the other side discovery that wearing the bra cause breast cancer is not good for the breast cancer professionals and the breast cancer industry and it is understandable why they ignoring this discovery. If they admit that wearing the bra is responsible for breast cancer they will lose lucrative income, lucrative career, social status etc.
It is understandable that it doesn’t mater how much stronger evidence are presented they will be ignored and rejected by this people.
Further more if people knew that just being bra free will protects them from breast cancer will raise other questions.
On the other waste number of people beehive that in near future the genetic science and stem cells science will enable miracles cure and because of that they accepting everything what coming from established medical professionals and everything that contradict to mainstream science they rejecting without thinking.
-
Hi.
I found this forum by accident if you will and now I am a little worried. As a very large breasted female I fear that gravity will drag my breast down to my knees if I go without a bra. I am not aware of any ligaments in that area which would eventually chip in to support my breasts if i stopped wearing a bra as someone mentioned.
Now I am not sure if the reason why I do not understand some of the arguments presented here is because I was not breast fed as a baby and therefore have the intellect barely above that of a common house fly but I am still concerned.
The trade off (if the research is to be believed) is between saggy, national geographic cover native woman breasts or cancer, hassle and pre-mature died. These choices suck. I don't know what is best but I have started looking at my bras with great suspicion.
-
The trade off (if the research is to be believed) is between saggy, national geographic cover native woman breasts or cancer, hassle and pre-mature died.
No, is not.
The trade off is between wearing the bra that artificially enhance appearance of breast followed with premature aging of the breast and bra free that is important factor to enable breast to be healthy.
It is still to explain why native women have saggy breast but on the other side the women that are bra free have far less saggy and breast compare to the women that wear bra. It is wrong and misleading that wearing the bra helps maintain better shape of the breast.
On the web site of Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer is far better explained that what is my ability and as well there is a few links to other web site that explain a few other things like wearing the bra and premature aging of the breast.
-
Thing is, see, that cancer ain't "a disease",
I suggest you tell that to a cancer victim.Tell them cancer is not a disease.Tell them it is "something else".Tell them it is "something" they have been researching for a century with countless billions wasted on toxic drugs with nothing to show for it.
When you get cancer what will you tell yourself?
-
On the other side discovery that wearing the bra cause breast cancer is not good for the breast cancer professionals and the breast cancer industry and it is understandable why they ignoring this discovery. If they admit that wearing the bra is responsible for breast cancer they will lose lucrative income, lucrative career, social status etc.
It is understandable that it doesn’t mater how much stronger evidence are presented they will be ignored and rejected by this people.
Further more if people knew that just being bra free will protects them from breast cancer will raise other questions.
On the other waste number of people beehive that in near future the genetic science and stem cells science will enable miracles cure and because of that they accepting everything what coming from established medical professionals and everything that contradict to mainstream science they rejecting without thinking.
This is a nonsense. Do you think people listen only to professionals when they decide what to do about their health? Do you not think that if this were true, and proven, it would be all over tv news (who don't rely on cancer professionals); Daytime tv chat shows (who don't rely on cancer professionals); Shows about health and nutrition...
And so on.
Cancer professionals would not lose anything if there was a proven link between wearing a bra and breast cancer incidence. They would be overjoyed. They would study the mechanism by which this happens and attempt to apply what they have learned to other forms of cancer. Furthermore, they would design a bra that avoided the issue - think about how much money and status there would be in that! If cancer researchers are only after cash and status, would this not be the aim?
It isn't. Because there's no proven link between wearing a bra and breast cancer, and because cancer researchers are not the monsters you believe them to be.
This is an interesting study though, and suggests we should look further into it, but ask yourself why it's not peer reviewed, and why it's not been publicised wider. If the science was robust and the conclusions sound, it would have got through peer review, been published in a reputable journal (they would have loads to gain from publishing it) and latched onto by the world's press.
-
"I suggest you tell that to a cancer victim.Tell them cancer is not a disease.Tell them it is "something else"."
Sorry, NobodySavedMe, do you mind if I meet you half way on that?
Cancer is not a disease, it is a term used for a whole bunch of different dseases. I'm quite happy to tell any cancer sufferer about it. That makes calling it "something else" a bit silly. Then again that description fits many of your posts.
I also note you haven't answered the question about "NICE" the professional cynics whose job it is to avoid giving the government's money to ineffective therapies.
Here's a question. Since almost all bra wearers are women and the incidence of breast cancer is much lower (though not zero) in men if you looked at the population as a whole wouldn't you expect most breast cancer sufferers to wear bras?
Not causation; just correlation. Please learn the difference.
-
Thank you everyone for your thoughts on this thread. I do, however, have concerns about the credibility of some of the material and some of the arguments being presented here, and their potential impacts on users who may not be sufficiently scientifically well-versed to sort fact from fiction.
I don't want to delete this thread, but I do think it would be better suited to a different section of this forum - "New Theories" seems most appropriate.
Consequently I'll be moving this to that new location in the next day or so, so that's where to look if you come back here and it's gone.
Chris
-
The trade off is between wearing the bra that artificially enhance appearance of breast followed with premature aging of the breast and bra free that is important factor to enable breast to be healthy.
I don't think so. Based on what I can see around me, women who don't wear bras seem to be more likely to experience sagging. Really it just seems like the effect of gravity is obvious in this matter. There really is no ligaments to support the breast in the manner suggested and the breast itself is made up mainly of fat which does not provide firm or rigid structural support. Much of the breast is supported and held in shape by the skin and the skin on the breast like every where else on the body stretches with tension and becomes gradually less tight with age.
It is still to explain why native women have saggy breast but on the other side the women that are bra free have far less saggy and breast compare to the women that wear bra. It is wrong and misleading that wearing the bra helps maintain better shape of the breast.
Like I said that is most likely not true given the effects of gravity and the anatomical structure of the breast itself. Those native women who have saggy breasts have them exactly because they don't wear bras and breast fed several children.
On the web site of Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer is far better explained that what is my ability and as well there is a few links to other web site that explain a few other things like wearing the bra and premature aging of the breast.
I have not seen any credible research there that can be taken seriously. With regard to cancer and bra wearing I actually do think serious research is needed into the matter. I have been hearing rumours of this link for some years now and I had in fact committed to not using the bra as much. It seems likely that a bra could possibly impede lymph drainage especially as the bra is worn so closely to the axillary lymph node.
-
I agree on the lymph drainage being compromised by pressure against the rib cage induced by the tightness of the bra straps and in particular the Wire rib found in many modern bra's. The lymph facilitates much of the removal of waste from the circulation. So it follows that suppressing this system is unwise. Add to this the leeching of chemicals from the materials of synthetic bra's together with the metallic ingredients in underarm deodorants and anti per spirants and it does not take a genius to realise we have the ingredients for cellular overload.
The arguments against this are?
-
and because cancer researchers are not the monsters you believe them to be.
I don’t believe that they are monster and I don’t think they are monster. I think they are just humans. On the other side I don’t have religious attitude toward established medical professionals whose job description is medical scientists.
This is an interesting study though, and suggests we should look further into it,
I agree with you. I think that first need to prove is it really that wearing the bra cause breast cancer by 12500%.
The question is why established medical professionals and official institutions ignore and in some case trying to marginalise Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer research.
-
I do, however, have concerns about the credibility of some of the material and some of the arguments being presented here, and their potential impacts on users who may not be sufficiently scientifically well-versed to sort fact from fiction.
I hope you will explain more. Personally I don’t see any potentially negative impact on people except on particularly group of established medical professionals.
I think that simply people will only benefit from this tread. Maybe I am wrong and if you or someone also thinks that this tread can have negative impact on simply people than please explain.
I don't want to delete this thread, but I do think it would be better suited to a different section of this forum - "New Theories" seems most appropriate.
Chris
I think too that the section “New Theories” is more appropriate place for this tread.
-
The trade off is between wearing the bra that artificially enhance appearance of breast followed with premature aging of the breast and bra free that is important factor to enable breast to be healthy.
I don't think so.
I know that what I state in my previous replay to you contradict to popular belief. At the moment I can only say that I am confident that is true what I stated about wearing the bra and negative impact on shape and aging of the breast.
Wearing the bras affect the breast like shape, size etc. It is plenty to discus about that but first at all is important to take serious the claim that wearing the bra cause breast cancer incidence by 12500%.
The most people are afraid from breast cancer that they are afraid think of them.
The research from Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer shows that simply people can take more control of own health. Being aware of own body will positively effect body health, appearance and some other important factors.
Around twenty years long I have belief that wearing the bra cause breast cancer and when I in 2003 read in some tabloid news paper ( I can’t remember in which one) about Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer research it was for me some kind of relief.
However, I think the even being all life bra free will not absolutely protect from breast cancer but it will greatly reduce chance to be affected by breast cancer.
The research of Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer I find extremely important for humanity and on the other side their theory about underlining mechanism of breast cancer I don’t take seriously. I think it is the weakest point in their work.
-
" it does not take a genius to realise we have the ingredients for cellular overload.
The arguments against this are?"
That "cellular overload" isn't a defined problem but something you seem to have made up and that, if this sort of thing caused cancer it would have been noticed even more strongly when corsets were in fashion. Oh, btw, the metals (typically Al) in antiperspirants don't generally get through the skin so it doesn't take a genius to see that they can't hope to have an effect on the lymphatic system.
I still say that we need to look at the raw data because otherwise, as I have said before, we are in danger of equating correlation with causation. That's a big enough fault, but to do it on the basis of just one (debatable) set of data is simply not science.
If this were a real effect how come it wasn't spotted when bras were new?
Newcomers to this site may wish to know that GBSB doesn't seem to think that scurvy is caused by a shortage of vitamin C.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8659.50
-
NobodySavedMe, you missed my point completely. I don't say that individuals who have developed cancer are not affected by a disease.. I said that cancer was not a disease. There are many, many different types of cancer, and each is a distinct disease all by itself. Some have things in common with each other, but just because you can treat one doesn't mean the same treatment will be effective on another.
I thought my original post made that clear, but apparently not clear enough.
-
Personally I don’t see any potentially negative impact on people except on particularly group of established medical professionals.
I doubt there would be any negative effect on medical professionals - even if wearing a bra increased the risk of breast cancer there are many aspects of cancer to research. As I said before, if there is a proven link, it will encourage more research into the mechanisms behind the link, not least so that the problem can be overcome through different bra design. This research would then filter into research on different types of cancer - could these mechanisms apply elsewhere? When scientists discover something that increases the cancer risk, they don't just give up - the nature of scientific enquiry is to ask why any link exists. In fact, if there were a proven link, it would most likely increase the money going to cancer research, as clothing manufacturers would want to support further research.
The people who would be negatively affected are those that make and sell bras and the people who would panic about wearing them.
-
"The people who would be negatively affected are those that make and sell bras"
until they found a way to advertise the "New safe(r) bra! only $1000"
but anyway, until there's more evidence than one iffy study I don't believe it.
As I have asked before how would such an effect have been missed when bras were a new invention?
-
BC
Division of Cell and Molecular Biology, School of Animal and Microbial Sciences, The University of Reading, P.O. Box 228, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AJ, UK
Received 31 March 2005; revised 17 May 2005; accepted 1 June 2005. Available online 19 July 2005.
Abstract
Aluminium salts are used as the active antiperspirant agent in underarm cosmetics, but the effects of widespread, long term and increasing use remain unknown, especially in relation to the breast, which is a local area of application. Clinical studies showing a disproportionately high incidence of breast cancer in the upper outer quadrant of the breast together with reports of genomic instability in outer quadrants of the breast provide supporting evidence for a role for locally applied cosmetic chemicals in the development of breast cancer. Aluminium is known to have a genotoxic profile, capable of causing both DNA alterations and epigenetic effects, and this would be consistent with a potential role in breast cancer if such effects occurred in breast cells. Oestrogen is a well established influence in breast cancer and its action, dependent on intracellular receptors which function as ligand-activated zinc finger transcription factors, suggests one possible point of interference from aluminium. Results reported here demonstrate that aluminium in the form of aluminium chloride or aluminium chlorhydrate can interfere with the function of oestrogen receptors of MCF7 human breast cancer cells both in terms of ligand binding and in terms of oestrogen-regulated reporter gene expression. This adds aluminium to the increasing list of metals capable of interfering with oestrogen action and termed metalloestrogens. Further studies are now needed to identify the molecular basis of this action, the longer term effects of aluminium exposure and whether aluminium can cause aberrations to other signalling pathways in breast cells. Given the wide exposure of the human population to antiperspirants, it will be important to establish dermal absorption in the local area of the breast and whether long term low level absorption could play a role in the increasing incidence of breast cancer.
Keywords: Antiperspirant; Aluminium chlorhydrate; Aluminium chloride; Underarm cosmetics; Breast cancer; Oestrogen; Oestrogen receptor
-
wow.
all i have to say is wow.
Cancer. Bras. Sagging. Has anyone correlated this to breast size? Women with larger breasts wear bras more often and for longer periods of time because it is comfortable to have the support. Larger breasts have more tissue, which would lead to more room for cancerous cells to grow, causing more instances of cancer. Lastly, boobs are heavy. Heavy things sag. Large breasts which are supported by bras weigh more than small breasts that do not need a bra; so obviously these bra supported breasts are going to sag more.
Do I make sense? I'm not a scientist or a doctor, I'm just a girl, and as you all know from the pictures of me you keep finding reasons to post, I know a thing or two about breast size.
I have to say, the info in that study may be correct, but it sure as hell isn't thorough. Oh well...
-
AKF
Thanks, the salient point in that text seems to be this
"it will be important to establish dermal absorption in the local area of the breast "
That tells us that no evidence for such absorbtion currently exists.
What it says is that If Al got in then maybe it could interfere with a mechanism that might trigger changes in levels of a hormone that is often, but not always, linked to breast cancer.
Hardly a smoking gun.
As I have asked before, how would such an effect have been missed when bras were a new invention?
Elegantlywasted.
Good point and an excellent example of why correlation isn't proof of causation.
-
Mmm.. I haven't looked at the thread that closely..
But does this mean that if men wear underwear..
They are 12500% more likely to get testicular cancer? [::)]
-
Mmm.. I haven't looked at the thread that closely..
But does this mean that if men wear underwear..
They are 12500% more likely to get testicular cancer? [::)]
It is great thought Seanny.
I suggest open the new topic. I am sure it will be interesting to discus this question
In any case, I don’t think this is appropriate to discus in this topic because it will further take discussion in wrong direction.
-
Does my wristwatch mean I'm more likely to get cancer in my left hand than my right?*
Perhaps I should remove my belt in case my legs drop off.
"Mmm.. I haven't looked at the thread that closely.."
I wouldn't bother. It's not clear to me that it should even be on a scientific website.
Just for the sake of tradition I will ask once more, how would such an effect have been missed when bras were a new invention?
* this is an interesting example of the so called "confounding variable" problem.
Here in the UK people drive on the left of the road and so get more sun on their right sides. This is associated with a higher incidence of cancer on the right side of the body.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6320405.stm
Of course, in the USA they drive on the other side so you could look at the 2 population (US and UK) and deduce that something else was happening.
If you only looked at the US data (and a lot of studies only cover data from one country) you might conclude that watches were causing the problem.
That sort of effect may be the cause of the "bra causes cancer!" data that this thread is based on.
-
Depends whether the fingers glow in the dark or not :)
Does my wristwatch mean I'm more likely to get cancer in my left hand than my right?*
Perhaps I should remove my belt in case my legs drop off.
-
Does my wristwatch mean I'm more likely to get cancer in my left hand than my right?*
Your wristwatch doesn’t support the weight of your hand. The weight of your wristwatch is supported by your arm
In case of wearing the bra, the breast doesn’t support the bra but the bra restrict the natural movements of the breast and cause that weight of the breast isn’t supported by breast but the weight of the breast is supported with the shoulders because the strip of the bras hang from the shoulders. The weight of the breast and the weight of the bra are supported by the shoulders. Wearing the bra have for consequence that weight of the breast laying on the shoulder- the breast are still in chest area but the weight of the breast is laying on the shoulders. By going bra free the breast and the weight of the breast are in chest area.
Perhaps I should remove my belt in case my legs drop off.
If your legs drop of you can’t blame your belt because it doesn’t support your legs but prevent trousers from falling down (on them hang your trousers).
It seems that you missed the point of the topic "The Bra cause cancer by 12500%"
-
You have missed the points of my post- I was being sarcastic, OK, I should make allowances for those not posting in their first language .
However, the restricted circulation and lymphatic drainage would still happen so it's a valid point. Why don't wrist watches cause cancer by the same supposed mechanism?
If my legs dropped off it might, once again, be due to poor circulation. Restricted circulation is not uncommon if you look at some overweight people's belts. Again there's no local excess incidence of cancer.
OK that's now 3 for 3.
No evidence of a risk from a watch (which sholud restrict bloodflow and lymphatic drainage.)
No increased risk from a belt (ditto)
No noted increase in cancer risk at the same time as the bra was introduced.
The idea that bras cause cancer (or increase the risk by anything like the factor suggested) simply doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Why not drop it?
-
I should make allowances for those not posting in their first language .
It is strange….. I’ve always had impression that the English language isn’t your native language.
-
Very strange, I'm born and bred in England and my mother taught English for a living.
I know that's off topic however, unless anyone has an explanation of how come this "magical" effect only works on breasts but yet wasn't noticed when the bra first came into fashion I guess we can all this topic dead.
-
The sad conclusion was that cancer researchers and treatment has stayed the same,the new drugs have very marginal effects
The cancer industry has artifically improved survival rates by detecting cancer earlier and earlier.
Come on now.Let us be reasonable.You don't really believe it deep down when they come on the tv every week with another wonder drug of the week after the one they were peddling last week.Do you?
When was the last time you saw a TV comercial for a Chemo therapy drug or the newest in gene-therapy techniques???
Every week on the "news".It's called free advertising.
I dare say bleach kills cancer cells too but the profit margin is a lot less to compared to very expensive fake "wonder"drug of the week.
-
NobodySavedMe...
I dare say bleach kills cancer cells too but the profit margin is a lot less to compared to very expensive fake "wonder"drug of the week.
Is this supposed to mean something? I dare say bleach would kill cancer cells. Of course, it would probably also kill the healthy cells and thus the patient so it wouldn't be a whole lot of use as a cancer treatment.
Sure, some cancer treatments work better than others, some have fewer side effects than others, and many work only on cancers caused through a specific mechanism. As I explained earlier in this thread, there are many different causes of cancer and many of the modern treatments target a specific chemical pathway which is defective in those cells (as opposed to say radiotherapy which is extremely crude, but effective for localised tumours).
Because cancer is The Disease(s) Everyone Is Afraid Of, there's a lot of public opinion in favour of research (and of funding research, and treatment) of cancer(s) as opposed to less high profile conditions such as Alzheimers. So a lot of work is done on cancer(s).
Of course, the other thing about cancer(s) is that because the cells are proliferating out of control they're often technically much easier to study in the lab than less localised, more systemic diseases. So again, a lot of work gets done in the field.
-
Heh. On a lighter note I went bra shopping at the weekend. The pointlessly huge array of colours and different degrees of lacy-ness available made me wonder whether there might be something in this after all. I would attribute it to the stress induced by having to select bras on a regular basis.
OK, so I hate shopping. Is someone going to try to rescind my extra X chromosome? ;P
-
I reccomend that the moderators of the forum move this thread to the "that can't be true" forum where it belongs.
So you "know" that it can't be true.Are you some sort of all knowing god?
Also any word on that cancer cure you have been working on.It has been 3 months since we spoke.
-
It belongs in the "it can't be true" category because, if it were true, people would have noticed it when the bra was first invented. For the record, I an an all knowing God, but I don't need to be one to see the flaw in this idea.
-
It belongs in the "it can't be true" category because, if it were true, people would have noticed it when the bra was first invented. For the record, I an an all knowing God, but I don't need to be one to see the flaw in this idea.
You arguments are spurious.
Actually I was addressing MayoFlyFarmer, the "cancer cure researcher",not you,who seems to be really too busy to respond.
Maybe I shamed him into trying to look harder or even look for a real cancer cure.
-
His arguements are valid, unlike yours.
Are you actually ignorant enough to think that someone could discover, develop and test a cure for cancer in a matter of a few months? Or are you just trolling for reactions?
-
His arguements are valid, unlike yours.
Are you actually ignorant enough to think that someone could discover, develop and test a cure for cancer in a matter of a few months? Or are you just trolling for reactions?
His arguements are valid, unlike yours.
Are you actually ignorant enough to think that someone could discover, develop and test a cure for cancer in a matter of a few months?
They have been claiming to look for a cure for 50 years.
Enough time has been wasted/passed.
This is the only field where zero advance has occured.
-
I see you are telling this lie
"This is the only field where zero advance has occured."
again.
Might it be better if, rather than repeating trash that has already been shot down (20/03/08), you actually answered my question. If this assertion about bras causing cancer is correct, why wasn't it noticed when bras were first developed?
-
I see you are telling this lie
"This is the only field where zero advance has occured."
again.
Might it be better if, rather than repeating trash that has already been shot down (20/03/08), you actually answered my question. If this assertion about bras causing cancer is correct, why wasn't it noticed when bras were first developed?
If this assertion about smoking causing cancer is correct, why wasn't it noticed when smoking was first started?
-
Smoking was initially rare. When it became popular (roughly WWI) the risk was noted (not emediately of course, there's an incubation period).
Bras have been pretty much universal in the West for many years- why no evidence of a cancer risk? (OK, technically, why just 1 paper worth of evidence?)
-
The associations between diseases and their effects are often very subtle.
Not many generations ago, life expectancy was much shorter and there were a lot of other diseases which killed people and masked the presence of various cancers.
Bra's (or equivalent)and smoking have been around since long before reliable records were made.
Smoking as a cause of cancer was an idea which was resisted for many reasons - commercial and social. It has actually take a change in the Law to have a serious effect on people modifying their behaviour - and many of them have still not.
-
Smoking as a cause of cancer was an idea which was resisted for many reasons -
How to explain the fact that Japan has highest percentage of smoking population in the world and at the same time is the healthiest nation in the world with highest life expectancy.
-
Do the Japanese wear fewer bras?
If not then it's evidence against the idea put forward in the original post.
Life expectancy is largely determined by childhood mortality and maternal mortality. A good healthcare system can make enormous improvements in these factors. So far as I can see that's the most likely reasson for the Japanese people's longevity.
-
From what I read, it's not lack of stress that leads to long lives in Japan.
-
The biostatistics evidences shows that Japan has highest percentage of smoking population in the world and at the same time is the healthiest nation in the world with highest life expectancy.
The biostatistics evidences done by Singer and Grismaijer shows that wearing the bra causes increased 125 fold incidence of breast cancer.
The point of discussion is not why that happen but why this biostatistics evidence about wearing bra and breast cancer ignored by medical establishment.
Anyone can ridicule theory that explaining the mechanism underlining breast cancer caused by wearing bra but no one can ridicule biostatistics evidence.
Only progress that is made till today in understanding the breast cancer is the biostatistics evidences done by Singer and Grismaijer.
(How to explain anything when people are refusing to accept the fact.)
Luka Tunjic
http://biomechanics.wordpress.com/
-
"The point of discussion is not why that happen but why this biostatistics evidence about wearing bra and breast cancer ignored by medical establishment."
It's being ignored because it doesn't make sense.
People did biostatistics before they had any understanding of it. They knew that inbreeding was bad for you long enough ago for most religions to ban it.
In much the same way, people can observe things like "people have not suddenly started dying in droves since bras were invented." and conclude that bras don't cause cancer.
One study doesn't prove anything.
-
since bras were invented
When would that have been? I don't think it was all on one day that Dorothy Perkins opened their first branch in the High Street. It could well have extended over a few hundred years - what other factors could have been changing which were never recorded? Indeed, what are the records of Bra (or equivalent) wearing?
To come to a serious conclusion, you would have to look at modern populations and do the usual analysis.
The inbreeding point is not really comparable - the results of inbreeding are noticeable much sooner than marginal changes in death rates due to fashion items. When people died at 30, they may have been dying WITH cancer but not OF cancer.
-
The trade off (if the research is to be believed) is between saggy, national geographic cover native woman breasts or cancer, hassle and pre-mature died.
No, is not.
The trade off is between wearing the bra that artificially enhance appearance of breast followed with premature aging of the breast and bra free that is important factor to enable breast to be healthy.
It is still to explain why native women have saggy breast but on the other side the women that are bra free have far less saggy and breast compare to the women that wear bra. It is wrong and misleading that wearing the bra helps maintain better shape of the breast.
On the web site of Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer is far better explained that what is my ability and as well there is a few links to other web site that explain a few other things like wearing the bra and premature aging of the breast.
Here is link providing reliable evidence concerning the wearing bras and aesthetic appearance of the breast. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=15913.0
From all these biometric measurements, one can conclude that, contrary to popular opinion, the breasts do not sag if not supported. After an initial period of adaptation, the women who took part in this study did not have any complaints of discomfort while participating in sports and even gained a more positive aesthetic shape to their breasts. Something to think about. http://www.e-sante.be/be/magazine_sante/sports_sante/soutien_gorge_question-6294-973-art.htm
-
It is still to explain why native women have saggy breast but on the other side the women that are bra free have far less saggy and breast compare to the women that wear bra. It is wrong and misleading that wearing the bra helps maintain better shape of the breast.
I was thinking about this an wondered if native women have saggier breasts because of economics as they usually breast feed their children. When a native women breast feeds they do so for months at a time until the child can take up solid food. This also means that their glands are heavily loaded with milk for a much longer time than those who do not breast feed. Many months compared to several weeks. They also tend to have more children which I'm sure would make a great difference.
Breast feeding is making a comeback in the modern world but its still not a very common thing so there is little data on it.
Until that aspect has been studied I think that any notion of bras or supports causing a greater incidence of cancer very suspect and alarmist.
PS I also hate it when people quote percentages instead of the real figures as it can be very misleading.
-
I was thinking about this an wondered if native women have saggier breasts because of....
There isn’t any study done that leading to conclusion that tribal women have saggier breast compared to women living in modern civilisation.That is just wrong perception caused by pre-existing belief.
Here are a few words more about that subject. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=15913.0
Until that aspect has been studied I think that any notion of bras or supports causing a greater incidence of cancer very suspect and alarmist.
It is alarming for the breast cancer industry, for the bras industry and many other useless branch of medical industry but for simple people it is great relief because they are able to do something to prevent the breast cancer.