Bra Wearing Causes Cancer By 12500%

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;2 billion from the use of cancer drugs.

Bra sales generate;3 billion annuellyin the Uk alone.


[edit on 23-2-2006 by John bull 1]

First of all, I'm a guy. And no, I don't cross-dress.

Ok, now that's out of the way, I must say I find this news disturbing. I actually prefer it if women wore bras (surprised?). As far as I know it helps keep the shape, so gravity won't take it's toll. Saggy boobs are such a turn-off.

I don't really know what else to say. So all that campaigning Nike did about sports bras and 'only the ball should bounce' was BS?

New study reports "Brushing your teeth increases your chances of acquiring Tuberculosis"

Originally posted by Beachcoma
First of all, I'm a guy. And no, I don't cross-dress.

Ok, now that's out of the way, I must say I find this news disturbing. I actually prefer it if women wore bras (surprised?). As far as I know it helps keep the shape, so gravity won't take it's toll. Saggy boobs are such a turn-off.

I'm going to commission Bruce to write a new song called "Only the Perky Die Young"...to commemorate beauty before sense. LOL

And with this, I will quote one of my all time favorite moments from the epitome of comedies - It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World: (J. Algernon Hawthorne played by Terry-Thomas, J. Russell Finch by Milton Burle)

J. Algernon Hawthorne : I must say that if I had the grievous misfortune to be a citizen of this benighted country, I should be the most hesitant of offering any criticism whatever of any other.

J. Russell Finch: Wait a minute, are you knocking this country? Are you saying something against America?

J. Algernon Hawthorne : Against it? I should be positively astounded to hear anything that could be said FOR it. Why the whole bloody place is the most unspeakable matriarchy in the whole history of civilization! Look at yourself! The way your wife and her strumpet of a mother push you through the hoop! As far as I can see, American men have been totally emasculated- they're like slaves! They die like flies from coronary thrombosis while their women sit under hairdryers eating chocolates & arranging for every 2nd Tuesday to be some sort of Mother's Day! And this infantile preoccupation with bosoms. In all time in this Godforsaken country, the one thing that has appalled me most of all is this infantile preoccupation with bosoms. Don't you realize they have become the dominant theme in American culture: in literature, appetizing and all fields of entertainment and everything. I'll wager you anything you like that if American women stopped wearing brassieres, your whole national economy would collapse overnight.

*valhall laughs her *** off while she strikes a match*

BURN - BABY - BURN!

[edit on 2-23-2006 by Valhall]

[edit on 2-23-2006 by Valhall]

Sexual selection will trump evolution and logic everytime. Perky breast are more attractive then saggy ones sorry its sad but its true.

Its like the poor male peacock his tail serves no practical purpose and is actually a obvious handicap to him. But oh how a nice tail drives those females wild.

Okay, this is interesting and I am forced, against my will, to throw in my 2 cents..... (not really )

Seriously though, even seen a woman with a 38ddd chest and no bra? My wife is standing over my shoulder reading this and shouting about the stupidity of men and researchers in general.

"Damn men! They will do anything and say anything to see nipples and boobs! Bras cause cancer! Next thing you know, underwear will cause brain damage!"

Quote from the wife.

Originally posted by WinterGhost


"Damn men! They will do anything and say anything to see nipples and boobs! Bras cause cancer! Next thing you know, underwear will cause brain damage!"

Quote from the wife.

I'll u2u with a quick fix on how to avoid the brain damage. It has something to do with where your wife's panties DON'T belong.

I'm sorry, I like ample, perky bosoms. I can't really control it, my male hormones activate when I see a nice pair. Why is that a crime?

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I'm sorry, I like ample, perky bosoms. I can't really control it, my male hormones activate when I see a nice pair. Why is that a crime?

No crime! And I am certain there are thousands of women just dying to please you.

lol

[edit on 2-23-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I'm sorry, I like ample, perky bosoms. I can't really control it, my male hormones activate when I see a nice pair. Why is that a crime?

No one said it was a crime.

However, if this study is true, and as a result of maintaining those "ample, perky bosoms" women have a higher risk of cancer, you may just find yourself being turned off by saggy boobs or mastectomies.

Which do you prefer?

I guess the optimum answer, parr, would be for all us women to just go straight after puberty and intentionally have the mastectomy and replace the faulty natural ones with tumor-free saline ones...then both aesthetics and life-expectancy can be increased in one fell-swoop.

We could probably start a grass-root movement to show that this procedure is required to avoid all the breast-cancer complications...and could probably even show the insurance companies that in the long run they'd be better off paying for this procedure - which would no longer be cosmetic, but life-saving.

Then we could all live to be 110 with these abnormally, unnatural perky things sticking out of our bowed-over, wrinkle-up bodies. And demand open-caskets, nude from the waiste up funerals.

I think we should start working on this.

I'd open a company that'll develop non-carcinogenic bras! I'm serious. And I'll make a killing, cosmetics and beautification is one industry that'll never grow old (wheee a pun!)

Then after we get the fake-boob remedy paid for by insurance, we need to start a study that shows face wrinkles cause cancer and get face-lifts paid for as life-saving procedures.

...and turkey necks cause cancer to, so throat-lifts are a must.

double-chins are deadly as well

Oh - and butt-fat causes liver disease...to get the lyposunction paid for.

Don't forget about stretch marks!

and cellulite!! They're all bad for our health, too.

We need free laser surgery and liposuction.

And sagging eye-lids cause hemorrhoids which eventually turn into colon cancer.

I'm sure of that.

[edit on 2-23-2006 by Valhall]

I think big noses can turn into throat cancer.

and hairy legs/arm pits, that can lead to kidney problems, so we'll need insurance to cover laser hair removal or whatever it's called.

and vericose veins cause strokes...

and all liver spots turn into melanoma.

Women of the world unite!

*paid for by CSAA (cosmetic surgeons association of America) - not just for perkiness anymore - saving the women of the world, two boobs at a time*

[edit on 2-23-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I'd open a company that'll develop non-carcinogenic bras! I'm serious. And I'll make a killing, cosmetics and beautification is one industry that'll never grow old (wheee a pun!)

Oh, and btw, according to this study, it's the very nature of the bra that is carcinogenic. It's the constrictive nature that is a potential cause of cancer.

A bra by any other name is still a bra. And it would appear, that to be non-carcinogenic the bra would have to be less constricting. Thus, it would not generate so much support ultimately resulting in saggy boobs.

Looks like Val's solution is the way to go.

YAY CSAA!!!

Okay, what I'd like to share with you next is this study that was just completed that shows that penises under a certain size cause prostate cancer, and male-pattern baldness has been proven to be the leading cause of carcinoma due to over exposure to the sun.

**

[edit on 2-23-2006 by Valhall]