BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%

  • 96 Replies
  • 52120 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Plutogirl

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #50 on: 22/03/2008 04:59:12 »
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. 

*

Offline GBSB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 99
    • View Profile
    • Biomechanics and Health
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #51 on: 22/03/2008 08:12:06 »

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.

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #52 on: 22/03/2008 09:41:47 »
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?

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #53 on: 22/03/2008 10:27:19 »
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 doesnít 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.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8745
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #54 on: 22/03/2008 13:21:36 »
"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.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2008 13:27:43 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 5391
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #55 on: 22/03/2008 18:25:01 »
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
I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception - Groucho Marx

*

Offline Plutogirl

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #56 on: 23/03/2008 03:31:23 »
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.

 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #57 on: 23/03/2008 20:14:47 »
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?
Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline GBSB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 99
    • View Profile
    • Biomechanics and Health
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #58 on: 23/03/2008 22:04:17 »
and because cancer researchers are not the monsters you believe them to be.

I donít believe that they are monster and I donít think they are monster. I think they are just humans. On the other side I donít 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.

« Last Edit: 23/03/2008 22:09:14 by GBSB »

*

Offline GBSB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 99
    • View Profile
    • Biomechanics and Health
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #59 on: 23/03/2008 22:26:09 »
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 donít 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 ďNew TheoriesĒ is more appropriate place for this tread.

*

Offline GBSB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 99
    • View Profile
    • Biomechanics and Health
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #60 on: 24/03/2008 12:03:15 »
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 canít 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 donít take seriously. I think it is the weakest point in their work.
« Last Edit: 24/03/2008 13:21:48 by GBSB »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8745
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #61 on: 24/03/2008 19:10:32 »
" 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
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #62 on: 24/03/2008 21:43:13 »
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.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #63 on: 25/03/2008 09:08:07 »
Personally I donít 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.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8745
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #64 on: 25/03/2008 19:53:08 »
"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?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #65 on: 25/03/2008 23:25:42 »
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


Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline elegantlywasted

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
    • Deviant Art
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #66 on: 26/03/2008 02:00:03 »
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...
-Meg

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8745
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #67 on: 26/03/2008 19:42:25 »
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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Seany

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4209
  • Live your life to the full!
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #68 on: 26/03/2008 22:32:58 »
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? [::)]
They say that when you die, your life flashes in front of you. Make it worth watching!


*

Offline GBSB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 99
    • View Profile
    • Biomechanics and Health
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #69 on: 27/03/2008 02:37:12 »
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 donít think this is appropriate to discus in this topic because it will further take discussion in wrong direction.
« Last Edit: 27/03/2008 19:50:18 by GBSB »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8745
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #70 on: 27/03/2008 20:01:55 »
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.
« Last Edit: 27/03/2008 20:09:37 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #71 on: 28/03/2008 19:09:31 »
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.

Science is continually evolving. Nothing is set in stone. Question everything and everyone. Always consider vested interests as a reason for miss-direction. But most of all explore and find answers that you are comfortable with

*

Offline GBSB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 99
    • View Profile
    • Biomechanics and Health
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #72 on: 31/03/2008 03:48:22 »
Does my wristwatch mean I'm more likely to get cancer in my left hand than my right?*

Your wristwatch doesnít support the weight of your hand. The weight of your wristwatch is supported by your arm

In case of wearing the bra, the breast doesnít support the bra but the bra restrict the natural movements of the breast and cause that weight of the breast isnít 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 canít blame your belt because it doesnít 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%"



*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8745
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #73 on: 31/03/2008 20:53:32 »
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?

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline GBSB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 99
    • View Profile
    • Biomechanics and Health
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #74 on: 01/04/2008 00:55:03 »
I should make allowances for those not posting in their first language .


It is strangeÖ.. Iíve always had impression that the English language isnít your native language.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8745
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #75 on: 01/04/2008 20:30:36 »
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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #76 on: 22/04/2008 11:37:26 »


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.

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #77 on: 22/04/2008 15:00:52 »
NobodySavedMe...

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 22/04/2008 15:05:35 by rosy »

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #78 on: 22/04/2008 15:05:43 »
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

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #79 on: 04/06/2008 14:00:19 »

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.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2008 14:02:42 by NobodySavedMe »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8745
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #80 on: 04/06/2008 20:01:56 »
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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #81 on: 16/06/2008 11:52:05 »
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.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #82 on: 16/06/2008 15:10:49 »
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?

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #83 on: 16/06/2008 18:53:28 »
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.
« Last Edit: 16/06/2008 18:55:11 by NobodySavedMe »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8745
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #84 on: 16/06/2008 20:35:27 »
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?
« Last Edit: 16/06/2008 20:41:07 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline NobodySavedMe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 112
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #85 on: 17/06/2008 09:48:57 »
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?


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8745
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #86 on: 17/06/2008 19:17:22 »
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?)
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

lyner

  • Guest
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #87 on: 17/06/2008 20:04:56 »
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.

*

Offline GBSB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 99
    • View Profile
    • Biomechanics and Health
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #88 on: 22/06/2008 00:22:03 »

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.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8745
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #89 on: 22/06/2008 10:56:34 »
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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

lyner

  • Guest
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #90 on: 22/06/2008 13:18:09 »
From what I read, it's not lack of stress that leads to long lives in Japan.
« Last Edit: 22/06/2008 16:44:02 by sophiecentaur »

*

Offline GBSB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 99
    • View Profile
    • Biomechanics and Health
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #91 on: 26/06/2008 00:16:10 »
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/
« Last Edit: 26/06/2008 00:21:37 by GBSB »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8745
    • View Profile
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #92 on: 26/06/2008 21:21:50 »
"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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

lyner

  • Guest
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #93 on: 26/06/2008 21:56:40 »
Quote
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.

*

Offline GBSB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 99
    • View Profile
    • Biomechanics and Health
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #94 on: 24/07/2008 23:07:30 »

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


Quote
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

*

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #95 on: 24/07/2008 23:40:53 »
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.


*

Offline GBSB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 99
    • View Profile
    • Biomechanics and Health
BRA CAUSES CANCER BY 12500%
« Reply #96 on: 25/07/2008 00:51:22 »
I was thinking about this an wondered if native women have saggier breasts because of....

There isnít 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.