[Bored chemist]

"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.

[MayoFlyFarmer]

[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.

[NobodySavedMe]

"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.

[BenV]

"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?

[NobodySavedMe]

"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.

[turnipsock]

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.

[another_someone]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[MayoFlyFarmer]

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???

[GBSB]

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. 

[Plutogirl]

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. 

[GBSB]

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.

[NobodySavedMe]

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?

[BenV]

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.

[Bored chemist]

"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.

[chris]

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

[Plutogirl]

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.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

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?

[GBSB]

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.

[GBSB]

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.