About 20 years back, when I was in medical school, I recall reading about the daring experiment our civilization was going to undertake to take care of the rising tide of breast cancer. Without having any knowledge regarding the cause of the disease, which might enable true breast cancer prevention, it was concluded that the best alternative to avoidance was early detection and therapy.
Tenga en cuenta
Towards the end, a enormous mammogram experiment began. I paid little attention to this at the moment. Breast cancer wasn’t a personal issue for me, and the concept that early detection and therapy was the best option seemed sensible. In the absence of understanding the origin of a disease, all you can do is hope you do not get it, and look for early signs to attack the issue before it’s too late. When my wife found a lump in her breast, the issue took on a new significance. She had been pregnant at the moment, and we were reluctant to go through the radiation of a mammogram.
We’re also wary of the upcoming steps in the procedure. Once a suspicious lump is found, there’ll be a biopsy. A biopsy can spread cancer, since tumors grow inside a capsule which comprises the malignant cells. Piercing the capsule to get a tissue sample with a biopsy, even using just a needle, can spread the cancer cells throughout the breast and the rest of the body. So a biopsy could make matters worse. And then there are surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, none of which were acceptable to us.
What nagged at us was the large question of WHY? Why did this bulge develop? Without understanding the cause of the issue, how can we effectively cure it or keep it from happening again? The medical sector offered no answers to the question of WHY. The reason for breast cancer, they said, has something to do with genetics, and lifestyle, though they admit they can’t explain the cause for more than 70 percent of all breast cancer cases.
Without knowing more, they said, all you can do is search for the tumor and treat it as soon as possible. Getting routine mammograms, they insisted, was the best a girl can do. Needless to say, you can’t prevent a disease by searching for it. Once you find it, you have got it. Early detection means you’ve got cancer. This isn’t prevention, despite promises made in the propaganda effort to get women to abide by mammogram guidelines. It’s not normally mentioned in that propaganda which mammograms use potentially harmful x-rays, which are known to cause cancer.
Exposure to radiation can also be cumulative, so the odds of those x-rays causing cellular mutation increases with each new exposure. And recent research indicates that false positives have caused unnecessary surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, and of course the emotional injury to women and their families caused by a false cancer diagnosis and therapy. Additionally, there are false negatives. Radiologists have to translate the mammogram, and they make mistakes. Some may not find a mass, giving the girl a false sense of security.
Surely, if a woman has cancer in her breasts, then it’s ideal to detect and treat it early. That would be true for all cancers in most areas of the body. But does this justify a gigantic program to get girls to routinely submit to x-rays as a screening process for disease? Would it make sense, as an instance, for men to routinely obtain their testes irradiated with x-rays to search for a tumor? Should we all get yearly brain x-rays to scan for tumors? Some might be saved by this. But most people will be harmed, not only by the x-rays themselves, but also by going through unnecessary treatment brought on by false positive results.
Tenga en cuenta
Clearly, it’s ideal to understand the cause of a disease rather than searching for its early signs for early therapy. However, after a disease detection and treatment business grows around a disorder, as it’s for breast cancer, there’s an impediment to discovering the cause, because this could undermine this industry. I discovered firsthand that this is precisely what has happened with mammograms and breast cancer. You see, the reason behind breast cancer is truly not a mystery, except for people who rely on the cancer treatment business for their advice.
According to research my wife and I ran, most breast cancer is due to the excessive wearing of tight bras. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. If you constrict any area of the body, it is going to impair circulation and lead to tissue degeneration. Bras are tight with design. Pumped up cleavage and other breast shaping is accomplished by continuous pressure being applied to the breast tissue.
This impairs the flow of the lymphatic system, causing toxins and fluid to accumulate within the breast tissue, which could result in pain, tenderness, cysts, fibrocystic breast disease, and, finally, cancer. Tight clothing was implicated in several other diseases. Corsets murdered women for centuries by constriction and compression. Foot binding in China deformed and decayed feet to meet men’s foot fetish. Now, women bind their breasts . Is it any wonder that breast disease is uncontrolled in bra sporting cultures, and virtually absent in bra-free ones? What’s surprising, and shocking, is that breast cancer researchers have dismissed this effect of wearing bras.
You would think the first point to research with respect to breast disease could be the bra, as the very first thing you’d research with respect to foot disease could be tight shoes. Naturally, the connection between smoking and lung cancer, which seems obvious, was ignored for more than 30 years following the first study demonstrated the link. What’s most shocking is that the suppression of the life saving info about bras causing breast cancer. Once the bra/cancer link was publicized in 1995, the only answer from the cancer sector was condemnation and denial. Follow-up study we conducted in Fiji, demonstrating that the only girls getting breast cancer were people wearing bras, was also ignored.
A study done in 1991 by Harvard researchers that revealed bra-free girls had a much lower incidence of breast cancer, was also ignored or disparaged. A 2009 China study that reveals wearing a bra to sleep raises cancer rates is also being ignored. The bra business, of course, has been trying to predict the bra/cancer connection a”fantasy”, and has embraced a perverse campaign to promote breast cancer research through bra earnings and costume art occasions. However, they also have announced their finding that many women wear the wrong size bra, usually too tight a bra, and they’re advocating professional fittings to avoid the health hazards of constriction.
Numerous bra manufacturers worldwide have now gone beyond the denial and are actively promoting the bra/cancer information to market newly designed and patented bras that they allege can prevent the damage to the lymphatic system due to additional figurines. Most of all, many women who’ve learned about the dangers of bras have voluntarily chosen to go bra-free, and their breast health improved dramatically within weeks, or even days.
Tight Bra Syndrome
Fibrocystic breast disease ought to be called “Tight Bra Syndrome”. In the U.K., girls are now getting bra fittings at health clinics, because it was revealed that most women seeking breast reduction surgery for breast cysts and pain are suffering from too tight a bra. Clearly, it’s much better to remove the bra compared to surgically remove part or all of the breast.
While this discovery of this bra link is great news for women wishing to reduce breast cancer, it’s bad news for the health industry that’s invested in discovering and treating this disorder. I ran into this disturbing reality in 1995, when our study first came out. We were interviewed by Dateline, an NBC television program. Initially, it was going to be an expose of our job, attempting to make fun of the notion that bras, an icon of femininity, might be linked to cancer.
However, the show’s producer found a medical historian who backed up our concept, congratulating us on resurrecting the part of the lymphatic system impairment as a cause of cancer, something that was known but abandoned over the decades. You’d think this could have helped us, but it ended up killing the story. According to the manufacturer, Dateline has a policy to not broadcast any stories that threaten some of the pursuits of its parent firm, which in the case of NBC is General Electric. As it happens, GE is a manufacturer of mammography machines.
Could the gains of mammography trump the interest in preventing this disorder? Before you feel the question overly cynical, consider the following. Hoping to do another study to check the bra/cancer theory, (because no additional medical research institute, non-profit organization, or governmental body was interested in doing any research to refute or support our findings), I approached a radiology clinic here in Hawaii, where I live. My expectation was to request a group of volunteers with fibrocystic breast disease to go bra-free and to use ultrasounds to document any changes in their size and number of cysts with time.
The head of this clinic was impressed with the bra/lymphatic handicap theory, and was interested in doing a research. However, after requesting his partners for their acceptance, my proposed study was reversed. As he explained it, they just bought a new mammography machine, which cost plenty of money, and they were worried that, if the bra issue was proven right, girls would only stop wearing bras and get fewer mammograms.
So it appears that if you manufacture or use mammography machines, then you favor women coming for mammograms as opposed to changing their lifestyles to prevent breast cancer. The cancer market has succeeded in creating mammography a given fact of Western civilization by censoring, suppressing, and ignoring the cause of most cases of breast cancer. And today, when the United States Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of physicians, has announced the mammogram experiment a failure, girls scream for their mammograms. They’ve become hooked on discovery, brainwashed by the industry that profits from their fear and lack of information, and , through annual fundraising drives and awareness programming, keep women coming to irradiate their breasts to locate tumors in the name of prevention. It all started as a social experiment to promote detection and early treatment in the absence of understanding the cause. It evolved into a multi-billion dollar business which currently has to protect itself from the reason.