[Bored chemist]

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.

[NobodySavedMe]

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.

[BenV]

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?

[NobodySavedMe]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[NobodySavedMe]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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?)

[lyner]

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.

[GBSB]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[lyner]

From what I read, it's not lack of stress that leads to long lives in Japan.

[GBSB]

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/

[Bored chemist]

"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.

[lyner]

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.

[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.

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

[that mad man]

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.

[GBSB]

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.