0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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).
quote:Originally posted by rosyHmm, 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?
quote:Originally posted by Andrew K FletcherSyd 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. newbielink:http://www.selfstudycenter.org/about.htm [nonactive]"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
quote:Originally posted by fishytailsits not pleasant doing sports without one.
quote:Originally posted by ukmickyLook its quite simple.Ban the Bra.[8D] There unhealthy, and completely remove the fun out of watching a woman run for a bus..And yes Iím a male chauvinistic pig who deserves to die from the death of a thousand breasts torture. Nice way to go.[:p]
quote:Originally posted by coquiI 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 Andrew K FletcherGood NewsJude 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!"
It is very likely that the only problem is that this study isnít conduced on the rats but on the humans. It seems that many people donít trust in the facts and common sense anymore but they believe only in the ratsí 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!
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?"There are plenty; here are somehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineoplasticso the idea that NobodySavedMe puts forward is simply not real.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/03/2008 21:12:00"So where is the cancer cure?"There are plenty; here are somehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineoplasticso the idea that NobodySavedMe puts forward is simply not real.Yeah,sure those concoctions will cure cancer.lol.
Quote from: NobodySavedMe on 20/03/2008 22:42:47Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/03/2008 21:12:00"So where is the cancer cure?"There are plenty; here are somehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineoplasticso 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?
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.
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
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?
Over 560000 deaths from cancer every year in the United States.