About 20 years ago, when I was in medical school, I remember reading about the bold experiment our culture was about to undertake to deal with the rising tide of breast cancer. Without having knowledge about the cause of this disease, which would allow true prevention of breast cancer, it was reasoned that the best prevention alternative was early detection and treatment. To this end, a massive experiment in mammography was started.

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 you don’t get it and look for early signs to attack the problem before it’s too late.

When my wife discovered a lump in her breast, the issue took on a new meaning. She was pregnant at the time and we did not want to undergo radiation from a mammogram. We were also wary of the next steps in the process. Once a suspicious lump is discovered, a biopsy will be performed. A biopsy can spread cancer, since the tumors grow inside a capsule that contains the malignant cells. Piercing the capsule to obtain a tissue sample with a biopsy, even using only a needle, can spread cancer cells throughout the breast and to the rest of the body. So a biopsy could make things worse. And then there’s the surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, none of which were acceptable to us.

What bothered us the most was the big question of WHY? Why did this lump develop? Without understanding the cause of the problem, how can we effectively cure it or prevent it from happening again?

The medical industry offered no answers to the question of WHY. 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 to do is look for the tumor and treat it as soon as possible. Getting regular mammograms, they insisted, was the best thing a woman could do.

Of course, you can’t prevent a disease by looking for it. Once you find it, you 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.

There is usually no mention in that blurb that mammograms use potentially dangerous X-rays, which are known to cause cancer. Radiation exposure 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 the mammogram 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 detect 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 detection procedure? Would it make sense, for example, for men to routinely undergo X-rays to look for a tumor? Should we all get annual 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 undergoing unnecessary treatment caused by false-positive results.

Clearly, it is better to know the cause of a disease rather than look for its first signs for early treatment. However, once a disease detection and treatment industry develops around a disease, as it did 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 really isn’t a mystery, except to those who rely on the cancer treatment industry for information. According to research my wife and I conducted, most cases of breast cancer are caused by excessive wearing of tight bras. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. If you constrict any part of the body, it will affect circulation and cause tissue degeneration. Bras are tight fitting by design. Puffy neckline and other breast shapes are achieved by applying constant pressure to the soft tissue of the breast. This affects the flow of the lymphatic system, causing fluid 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 illnesses. Corsets killed women for centuries by constriction and compression. Foot binding in China deformed and damaged feet to satisfy men’s foot fetish. 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-wearing ones?

What is surprising and shocking is that breast cancer researchers have ignored this effect of wearing bras. You’d think the first thing you’d look into when it comes to breast diseases would be a bra, just like the first thing you’d look into when it comes to foot diseases would be tight-fitting 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.

What’s more shocking is the suppression of this life-saving information about bras causing breast cancer. Once the bra/cancer link was made public 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 who got breast cancer were those who wore bras, was also ignored. A 1991 study by Harvard researchers that showed women without a bra had a much lower incidence of breast cancer was also ignored or belittled. A 2009 study from 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 adopted a perverse 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 are recommending professional fittings to avoid the health risks of constriction. (Of course, there’s no such thing as a well-fitting push-up bra, which is constrictive by design.) Many bra manufacturers around the world have overcome denial and are actively promoting bra/cancer information to sell new designs and patents. relieving bras can prevent damage to the lymphatic system caused by other bras.

More importantly, many women who have heard about the dangers of bras have voluntarily gone bra-free, and their breast health has dramatically improved in 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 has been shown that most women seeking breast reduction surgery for breast pain and cysts suffer from a bra that is too tight . Clearly, it is better to remove the bra than to surgically remove all or part of the breast.

While this bra link discovery is good news for women who want to prevent breast cancer, it is bad news for the medical industry that invests in detecting and treating this disease.

I first came across this disturbing fact in 1995, when our research came to light. We were interviewed by Dateline, a television program on NBC. 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 deteriorating lymphatics in the 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 the story. According to the producer, Dateline’s policy is not to broadcast any news that threatens the interests of its parent company, which in the case of NBC is General Electric. As it happens, GE is a manufacturer of mammography machines.

Can the gains from mammography outweigh 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, non-profit organization, or government agency was interested in doing any study to refute or support our findings), I reached out to a radiology office here. in Hawaii, where I live. My hope was to ask a group of volunteers with fibrocystic breast disease to go braless and to use ultrasound to document any changes in the size and number of cysts over time. The head of the practice was impressed with the theory of bra/lymphatic impairment and was interested in doing a study. However, after seeking his approval from his associates, my research proposal was rejected. As she explained it, they had just purchased a new mammography machine, which cost a lot of money, and they were concerned that if the bra thing was proven to be correct, women would simply stop wearing bras and get fewer mammograms.

So it seems that if you make or use mammography machines, you would rather have women come in for mammograms than change their lifestyle to avoid breast cancer.

The cancer industry has managed to make mammography a given in Western culture by censoring, suppressing, and ignoring the cause of most breast cancer cases. And now, when the US Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of doctors, has declared the mammography experiment a failure, women are crying out for their mammograms. They have been hooked on detection, brainwashed by the very industry that profits from their fear and lack of information and who, through annual fundraising campaigns and awareness programs, get women to go irradiate their 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 knowledge of the cause. It became a multi-billion dollar industry that now has to protect itself from the cause.