Do Bras Cause Breast Cancer? – A Primal Question page 2

[cillakat]

Pregnancy and Vitamin D

[Paleo Man]

♡you.

I am on a mission with the vitamin D thing.

. . .

My own children with mild and moderate LDs and ADHD.

Does vitamin D deficiency also contribute to learning disabilities and ADHD? I thought they were caused to a large extent by obstructive sleep apnea. Often heritable.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22881407/

For other posts on established science, how extremely prevalent obstructive sleep apnea is and how many ways it really can and will kill a person without ever appearing on their death certificate, look at some of the other posts from Cillakat and also myself.

But, back to the subject at hand, and less established but hopefully groundbreaking scientific discussion and insight . . .

[Bushrat]

did not adjust for known breast cancer risk factors that might be associated with bra-wearing behavior, like weight and age. [/B]

That says all you need to know about how poor this research is. Did no one learn anything from the still ongoing saga over the China Study. Firstly, correlation does not equal causation. Secondly, always ask what other variables may be affecting the results.

In this case we have a link between breast cancer rates and wearing bras. What else can we say about women who wear bras? They're from richer countries. They eat a diet high in grains, soy and just about every other bad thing. They don't get enough sun. And so on. Whereas groups of women more likely to not wear bras live more primally over all and therefore have less of all the other causative properties of cancer (i.e poor diet, lack of sun etc).

[cillakat]

Does vitamin D deficiency also contribute to learning disabilities and ADHD? I thought they were caused to a large extent by obstructive sleep apnea. Often heritable.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22881407/

That references only behaviors that might mimic LDs or ADHD. Yes, sleep is mind-bogglingly important. Or perhaps it's better to say that good quality sleep is important so as to keep one's mind from becoming boggled.

But real ADHD and LDs? No good evidence yet, just some epidemiological data and a couple of rat studies.

Give it 10 years though.....lol

And in the mean time, hopefully all hcps of pregnant women are following the AAP 'request' to test all pregnant women's vitamin d levels and to treat deficiency accordingly.

What? You say they're not? Even in spite of the Wagner/ Hollis study? Imagine that.

and less established but hopefully groundbreaking scientific discussion and insight . . .

It's 3 am! Sleep deprivation is a problem whether caused by sleep apnea or staying up to late in front of the computer.

And did you see this? Are you standing up? lol

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...re-at-screens/

[Paleo Man]

On the issue under discussion, I'm surprised at how quickly and vehemently some well credentialed folks are to insist that the answer is "NO!" and that there "can't be" a connection.

In my mind, in the absence of carefully controlled studies, the words "can't be" and "anatomically impossible" apply to something like this: A fly lands on the behind of a woman in Taiwan. A woman in the US gets cancer. I agree! There can't be a connection. It is anatomically impossible.

I'd be much, much more hesitant to apply such certainty to a situation such as this: A modern woman does something never done in the history of evolving humans; she uses a sometimes irritating appliance to constrict a portion of her anatomy every day and almost all day. She gets cancer at elevated rates in that portion of her anatomy that is adjacent to the appliance, anatomy that may be especially susceptible.

Can constant exposure to an unnatural irritant ever cause cancer?

Consider the case of bladder cancer and the correlation with long term catheter placement (selected excerpts below):

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n32007486/

"The factor frequently reported responsible for this connection (in addition to smoking) is chronic irritation within the bladder.

Craig Hospital researchers specifically looked at the relationship between long-term catheter usage and bladder-cancer risk in 3,670 former patients, injured between 1950 and 1997.

Sky High

What did the researchers find? The bladder cancer rate for indwelling-catheter users was ten times higher than in the U.S. nondisabled population and more than four times greater than for SCI survivors who did not use indwelling catheters. After adjusting for age, the expected number of new diagnoses of bladder cancer among indwelling catheter users was 77 cases per 100,000 people per year, compared with just under 8 among able-bodied individuals.

Researchers also discovered a large rise in the incidence of bladder cancer for indwelling-catheter users at about 20 years postinjury and at about 40 years of age. In addition, they found higher rates--about seven times greater--in those who had used indwelling catheters at any point (greater than a year) in their SCI "careers."

These findings seem to suggest a "dose" or "exposure" effect: The more years an indwelling catheter is in place, the greater the risk of bladder cancer.

For people who, since initial rehabilitation, had exclusively used bladder programs that did not involve an indwelling catheter, the adjusted cancer rates were about 18 per 100,000--or about twice that of the able-bodied general population. This extra risk is probably explained, at least in part, by the increased tendency for bladder infections SCI survivors face."

Reference to bladder irritation with catheters causing bladder cancer absolutely does not prove that bras cause breast cancer. But at least the first possibility has been deemed worthy of quality studies by qualified researchers, while the second was not.

Are bladders so much more important than breasts?

When there is a ten fold increase in bladder cancer among long term catheter users, researchers had no trouble suspecting causation in face of such high correlation.

But when Singer reports a ten fold increase in breast cancer among women who wear bras more of the day, everyone insists that there can't be causation involved. It must be just correlation.

The first step, for crying out loud, is for someone to do a quality study and find out if there is really a ten fold increase or any other degree of increase of breast cancer correlation. Maybe not. Then we can happily forget about this.

And if there is such a high degree of correlation, surely it is worth exploring thoroughly to determine whether bra usage, or some other factor that correlates with bra usage, is causing the ten fold breast cancer increase.

[geekgrrl]

a study would be excellent, indeed.

Undoubtedly there are a bunch of other factors involved - number of children, breastfeeding duration and so on. In my experience, bra wearing does interfere with success of breast feeding for various reasons, including increased sensitivity, and the pressure on the milk ducts makes mastitis much more likely (one of the first bits of advice you get is to get rid of the bra). I've often wondered if bra wearing alters the shape and makes it harder for the baby to attach correctly.

[shannon]

so i'm a believer in the damage that emf's can produce (as i sit in front of a giant computer screen and watch the fly's droppin' dead from it)LOL;-)
apparently the metal underwire can pick up these harmful emf's. so i try to go w/o a bra as much as possibe and also use plastic or no underwire.
i think there is a lot more factors to consider such as:
deodorant, nut. deficiencies, environmental toxins etc.
bras can also prevent proper lymph drainage which could possible lead to cancer. but i'm sure if you eat a wholesome clean diet and avoid poisonous things that you'll be just fine! remember that grokette's never wore bras;-)

[Lewis]

This is an explosive thread.

I liked:

The authors also point out that breast cancer is rare in countries where bras are not as commonly worn.

Of course, those might also be countries where vegetable oil, margarine, and processed foods are not consumed. Did the authors cross-check for that?

Who knows why the length of time throughout the day different groups of women wore (or didn't wear) their bras correlated with rates of breast cancer. However ... correlation is not causality.

Let's invent a reason for that. Perhaps bra-wearing is seen as polite in the West. Therefore, women who are more susceptible to social pressure might be more likely to wear a bra and for more of the day. But people who are more susceptible to social pressure are also more likely to take notice of adverts for commercial foodstuffs and to follow guidelines on public health (which are, unfortunately, influenced by slanted "studies" and direct political lobbying paid for by agribusiness).

I just made that up. But the fact remains that correlation is not causality. If this gentleman can't show a plausible mechanism by which bra-wearing causes cancer, then he's got nothing.

[LX]

Large breasted women can be prone to cysts when they go braless (or so my OB/GYN told me).

"Can constant exposure to an unnatural irritant ever cause cancer?"

I don't know, but the natural irritant (chafing! Oooooh the chafing!) is bad enough that I wear bras.

There are so very many variable between cultures that wear bras regularly and ones that don't, I don't think you can pin it down to being just bras that are the problem.

[Roo]

Darn. . . I thought this thread would be vindication for not wearing a bra They're f'ing uncomfortable, so I'll continue to go without.