Bras and the Breast Cancer Cover-Up

Posted by Digital_Zone on February 22nd, 2023

"Whom can you trust when your culture is the greatest enemy of your wellbeing? Would you trust your culture's leading authorities? Would you trust your culture's government? Would you trust your culture's private industry?"

We asked those questions in 1995, at the end of our book, Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President's Cancer Panel, American Women's Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women's Health Network, and National Women's Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given having less interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the info straight to the ladies who needed to listen to it.

But are women having the message?

It's been 12 years since our book was initially published. Over that point, significantly more than 500,000 women in the US alone have died from breast cancer, with another 2,000,000 having been diagnosed with this particular terrible disease -- a disease that is generally preventable by loosening up or eliminating the bra. And yet, this lifesaving information has been actively suppressed and censored by the medical and lingerie industries.

Types of Suppress and Censorship

A large public relations firm in New York City was willing and eager to simply help us release these details to the public. "My wife just had breast cancer, and I'm sure you're right," the pinnacle of the firm confessed. A large media announcement and celebration were planned. Days later, however, the firm withdrew its offer to simply help, stating this one of these clients, a large medical center, objected with their working together with us.

A Sydney, Australia public relations firm agreed to simply help publicize our work when we were doing outreach efforts inside their country. However it, too, reversed itself. We had asked if they'd any conflicts of interest, such as for instance lingerie industry clients. They said they'd none. But as it turned out, they did represent a pharmaceutical company which makes a breast cancer treatment drug, and the prevention of breast cancer and its treatment have been in conflict, they explained.

The Intimate Apparel Council (which may be the US trade association for the multi-billion dollar bra industry) threatened our publisher, Avery Publishing Group, with a lawsuit if Dressed To Kill was released. The publisher said the publicity would help spread the word. The lawsuit never materialized.

After the book was released, the NBC television news show, Dateline, was interested in carrying out a story on our work. We were extensively interviewed by way of a skeptical reporter who became a supporter. The story was then abruptly terminated. The producer confidentially explained that the policy of General Electric, which owns NBC, is to avoid airing news stories that could adversely effect on other GE interests. Since it happens, GE is a supplier of mammography machines.

Women's magazines, such as for instance Glamour, Self, and others, ran critical stories condemning our work, and finding "experts" to encourage women to keep wearing bras. Elle magazine planned a confident story concerning the bra/cancer link, but was coerced into pulling the story by bra advertisers. In several newspapers around the globe, such as the Guardian in the UK, stories were pulled just before publication because of fear that they might "panic the public", including their lingerie advertisers.

The British Fashion Council (which may be the UK's equivalent of the Intimate Apparel Council) published the Breast Health Handbook in 1996 to oppose our efforts. They announced the formation of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Foundation, that was to get donations from bra sales to fund genetic research into breast cancer. The book criticized our work, claiming, "The idea that wearing a bra encourages cancer by trapping toxins was recently put forward by researchers at the Institute for Culturogenic Studies (sic) in Hawaii. Researchers from more august establishments promptly dismissed it as claptrap." Without any medical evidence or research, the book informs women that wearing bras is just a health necessity, and must be worn as early in life as you are able to to avoid breast damage.

Our original publisher, Avery, was purchased by giant Penguin Putnam in 1998. The brand new publisher did not list the book for four years and refused to revert publication rights to the copyright holders, Singer and Grismaijer. The book was virtually unavailable, and it had been considered to have gone out of print. Finally, after repeated requests, the publishing rights were released to us in October, 2001. (ISCD Press has been keeping it on the net since then.)

A television documentary was stated in the year 2000 by Channel 4 in the UK, called, Bras- The Bare Facts. In the documentary, 100 women with fibrocystic breast disease went bra-free for 3 months to document the effect on breast cysts and pain. Two prominent British breast surgeons conducted the study. The outcome were astounding, and clearly demonstrated that the bra is just a serious health hazard. We were interviewed for this program to go over the bra/cancer connection, that was considered highly plausible and important by the doctors interviewed. Some theorized that, in addition to lymphatic impairment, the bra may possibly also cause cancer by overheating the breasts. The documentary made newspaper headlines in British Commonwealth countries throughout the world, but no mention of it was made at all in the US. The next day, headlines in the U.K. tried to suppress fears of the bra/cancer link, and the doctors in the study quickly distanced themselves from the cancer issue, telling women to keep wearing bras. Their research for the documentary was supposed to be published in a medical journal, but never was. And no longer research ever materialized to follow-up on the work, that they said they would do. Extensive news coverage of this program was available on the Internet right after it aired, but most articles were removed shortly thereafter.

No follow-up studies have now been done to refute or confirm our research. None. While a Harvard study, published in the European Journal of Cancer in 1991, learned that bra-free women have less rate of breast cancer, the results weren't central to the research they were conducting and were considered unimportant and not followed-up. In reality, aside from our initial 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, discussed at length in Dressed To Kill, and our follow-up research in Fiji, discussed within our book, Get It Off!, you will find still no other studies on the bra/cancer link. Not even a letter or discussion of the issue can be found in any medical journal. After decades of breast cancer research, the bra remains completely ignored as even being a potential factor for consideration. It's like studying foot disease and ignoring shoes.

Keeping the Public Mystified

This lack of research, and the consequent ignorance, are then utilized by cancer organizations to justify further suppression of the issue. Because the American Cancer Society states on its website, (ignoring the Harvard study), "You can find no scientifically valid studies that show a correlation between wearing bras of any type and the occurrence of breast cancer. Two anthropologists made this association in a book called Dressed To Kill. Their study was not conducted based on standard principles of epidemiological research and did not take into account other variables, including known risk factors for breast cancer. There is no other, credible research to validate this claim in any way." And they don't seem interested in funding such studies in the long run, either. You can find other organizations which can be similarly critical of the bra/cancer link for lack of research evidence, while at once discouraging any research on the subject.

Of particular interest is when breast cancer organizations antagonistic to the issue declare the bra/cancer link to be "misinformation" or a "myth", without any scientific study supporting their claims. They say bras are very important for women to wear for support, without any evidence showing bras are safe or necessary. Then they encourage regular mammograms, cancer prevention drug therapy (not realizing that "prevention therapy" is an oxymoron), and even preventative mastectomies (which ensures that those who are high risk for breast cancer but who don't want to get it may have their breast removed as a prevention strategy). Obviously, it is better to remove the bra rather than the breasts, but bra removal is not really a billable procedure.

Keep in mind that bras have now been associated with other health problems, such as for instance headaches, numbness in the hands, backache and other postural problems, cysts, pain, skin depigmentation, and more. And lymphatic blockage, that will be caused by bra constriction, had been associated with various cancers. Clearly, the bra/cancer link needs further research, while women take the precaution of loosening up.

Why the resistance?

What harm could there maintain following our simple advice, or in even researching this problem? Why the defensive reaction?

You can find three reasons:

1. The bra industry fears class action lawsuits. Many insiders have admitted to us that for a long time the industry suspected underwires were causing cancer. They know that tight bras cause cysts and pain. It's just a matter of time until Hair Straightener Breast Cancer Lawsuit is manufactured against a bra manufacturer. As a defense, the industry is shifting the blame to the consumer, claiming that many women are wearing their bras too tightly, and should get professional fittings. (How do you obtain an adequately fitted push-up bra?) Breaking ranks using their industry peers, and attempting to capitalize on the bad news, are many bra manufacturers that now offer newly patented bras claiming to mitigate the damage, including cancer, caused by conventional bras.

2. The medical industry is making billions each year on the detection and treatment of breast cancer. As stated above, there is a conflict between the prevention and treating disease, especially when the prevention does not include drugs or surgery. The truth is our treatment-focused, profit-oriented medical system is creating a killing treating this disease, and has billions to reduce if breast cancer fades of fashion along side bras.

Furthermore, the bra issue will revolutionize the breast cancer field, embarrassing many researchers. Breast cancer research currently that has ignored the bra issue is seriously flawed as a result, which explains why the "experts" remain unable to spell out the reason for over 70% of most breast cancer cases. Career cancer researchers who have ignored the bra issue will need to admit this fatal flaw inside their work, which they're not inclined to admit inside their lifetimes.

3. Finally, there is the dogmatic, fearful resistance from some women who find their personal identity so connected with their bras that they would rather risk cancer than be bra-free (which some women have actually told us.) Women are cultural entities, and provided that our culture scorns a natural bustline, many women will submit to the pain, red marks and indentations, cysts, and even the threat of cancer rather than face potential public ridicule (which hardly ever really happens.)