About 20 years ago, when I was in medical school, I remember reading about the audacious experiment our culture was about to undertake to tackle the rising tide of breast cancer. Without knowing the cause of this disease, which would allow a true prevention of breast cancer, it was reasoned that the best prevention alternative was early detection and treatment. To this end, he began a massive mammography experiment.
I paid little attention to this at the time. Breast cancer was not a personal problem for me, and the theory that early detection and treatment was the best option seemed reasonable. In the absence of knowing the cause of a disease, all you can do is hope that you do not get it and look for the first signs to attack the problem before it is too late.
When my wife discovered a lump on her breast, the problem took on a new meaning. She was pregnant at the time and we were reluctant to undergo radiation from a mammogram. We are also wary of the next steps in the process. Once a suspicious lump is discovered, a biopsy will be done. A biopsy can spread the cancer, as the tumors grow inside a capsule that contains the malignant cells. Piercing the capsule to obtain a tissue sample with a biopsy, even using just a needle, can spread cancer cells throughout the breast and the rest of the body. So a biopsy could make things worse. And then there are the surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, none of which were acceptable to us.
What bothered us the most was the big question WHY? Why did this lump develop? Without understanding the cause of the problem, how could we effectively cure it or prevent it from happening again?
The medical industry offered no answers to the WHY question. The cause of breast cancer, they said, has something to do with genetics and lifestyle, although they admit they cannot explain the cause of more than 70% of all breast cancer cases. Without knowing more, they said, the only thing you can do is look for the tumor and treat it as soon as possible. They insisted that getting regular mammograms was the best a woman could do.
Of course, you cannot prevent a disease by looking for it. Once you find it, you will have it. Early detection means you have cancer. This is not prevention, despite claims made in the propaganda campaign for women to comply with mammography guidelines.
It is not generally mentioned in that blurb that mammograms use potentially dangerous X-rays, which are known to cause cancer. Exposure to radiation is also cumulative, which means that the chances of these X-rays causing a cell mutation increase with each new exposure. And recent research has shown that false positives have resulted in unnecessary surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, not to mention the psychological trauma for women and their families as a result of false cancer diagnosis and treatment.
There are also false negatives. Radiologists have to interpret mammography and they make mistakes. Some may not see a mass, giving the woman a false sense of security.
Surely, if a woman has breast cancer, it is best to find it and treat it early. That would be true for all cancers in all parts of the body. But does this justify a massive program for women to routinely undergo X-rays as a disease screening procedure? Would it make sense, for example, for men to routinely X-ray their testicles to look for a tumor? Should we all get yearly brain X-rays to look for tumors? Some people can be saved by this. But most people will be harmed, not only by the X-rays themselves, but also by unnecessary treatment caused by false positive results.
Clearly, it is better to know the cause of a disease rather than looking for its first signs for early treatment. However, once a disease detection and treatment industry develops around a disease, as has happened with breast cancer, it becomes an impediment to discovering the cause, as this could undermine that industry. I found out firsthand that this is exactly what has happened with mammograms and breast cancer.
You see, the cause of breast cancer is not really a mystery, except for those who depend on the cancer treatment industry for information. According to research my wife and I conducted, most breast cancers are due to overuse of tight-fitting bras. This should come as no surprise to anyone. Contracting any part of the body will affect circulation and cause tissue degeneration. Bras are fitted by design. Puffy cleavage and other breast shapes are achieved by applying constant pressure to the soft tissue of the breast. This disrupts the flow of the lymphatic system, causing fluids and toxins to build up within the breast tissue, which could lead to pain, tenderness, cysts, fibrocystic breast disease, and ultimately cancer.
Tight clothing has been linked to other diseases. Corsets killed women for centuries by constriction and compression. The feet bandaged in China deformed and deteriorated the feet to satisfy the fetish of men’s feet. Now, women tie their breasts with bras. Is it any wonder that breast disease is rampant in bra-wearing cultures and virtually absent in non-bra cultures?
What is surprising and shocking is that breast cancer researchers have ignored this effect of wearing bras. You’d think the first thing to look into regarding breast disease would be the bra, just like the first thing you would look into regarding foot disease would be tight shoes. Of course, the link between smoking and lung cancer, which now seems obvious, was ignored for more than 30 years after the first study showed the connection.
Most shocking is the suppression of this life-saving information about bras that cause breast cancer. Once the link between bra and cancer was published in 1995, the only response from the cancer industry was condemnation and denial. Follow-up research we conducted in Fiji, which showed that the only women with breast cancer were also ignored in bras. A 1991 study by Harvard researchers that showed braless women had a much lower incidence of breast cancer was also ignored or looked down upon. A 2009 study in China showing that wearing a bra to sleep increases cancer rates is also being ignored.
The bra industry, of course, has been trying to call the bra-cancer link a “myth,” and has embraced a wicked campaign to promote breast cancer research through bra sales and bra art events. . However, they have also announced their finding that most women wear the wrong size bra, usually a bra that is too tight, and recommend professional adjustments to avoid the health dangers of constriction. (Of course, there is no such thing as a well-fitted push-up bra, which is narrow by design.) Numerous bra manufacturers around the world have overcome denial and are actively promoting bra / cancer information to sell new and proprietary designs. Bras that they claim can prevent damage to the lymphatic system caused by other bras.
Most importantly, many women who have heard of the dangers of bras have voluntarily chosen not to wear bras, and their breast health dramatically improved in a few weeks, if not days. Fibrocystic breast disease should be called “tight bra syndrome.” In the UK women are now getting bra fittings at health clinics as it was shown that the majority of women seeking breast reduction surgery for breast pain and cysts suffer from a bra too tight. Clearly, it is better to remove your bra than to surgically remove all or part of the breast.
While this discovery of the bra link is good news for women who want to prevent breast cancer, it is bad news for the medical industry dedicated to detecting and treating this disease.
I first came across this disturbing fact in 1995, when our research came out. We were interviewed by Dateline, an NBC television show. At first, it was going to be an exhibition of our work, trying to poke fun at the idea that bras, an icon of femininity, could be linked to cancer. However, the show’s producer found a medical historian who backed up our theory, congratulating us on resurrecting the role of impaired lymphatic system as a cause of cancer, something that had been understood but forgotten for decades. You’d think this would have helped us, but it ended up killing history. According to the producer, Dateline has a policy of not broadcasting stories that threaten the interests of its parent company, which in NBC’s case is General Electric. GE happens to be a manufacturer of mammograms.
Could the benefits of mammography defeat the interest in preventing this disease? Before you think the question is too cynical, consider the following.
Hoping to do another study to test the bra / cancer theory (since no other medical research institute, nonprofit organization, or government body was interested in doing any study to refute or support our findings), I approached a radiology practice here. in Hawaii, where I live. My hope was to ask a group of volunteers with fibrocystic breast disease to remove their bras and use ultrasounds to document any changes in their size and number of cysts over time. The practice director was impressed with the bra / lymphatic impairment theory and was interested in doing a study. However, after asking their partners for approval, my proposed research was rejected. They had just bought a new mammogram machine, which cost a lot of money, she explained, and they were concerned that if the bra thing was proven correct, women would simply stop wearing bras and have fewer mammograms.
So it seems that if you manufacture or use mammograms, you would rather have women come in for mammograms rather than change your lifestyle to avoid breast cancer.
The cancer industry has succeeded in making mammography a given fact of Western culture by censoring, suppressing, and ignoring the cause of most cases of breast cancer. And now, when the US Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of physicians, has declared the mammogram experiment a failure, women scream for their mammograms. They have become hooked on detection, brainwashed by the very industry that profits from their fear and lack of information, and which, through annual fundraising campaigns and awareness programs, causes women to radiate. your sinuses to find tumors in the name of prevention.
It all started as a social experiment to promote early detection and treatment in the absence of knowing the cause. It became a multi-billion dollar industry that now has to protect itself from the cause.