The study divided the participants into two groups. One took a placebo pill, the other received 2,000 IU/d of vitamin D3 and 1,500 mg/d of calcium. Over the course of four years, researchers recorded all incidences of cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers). It was found that around four percent of the supplement group developed a form of cancer compared to around six percent in the placebo group. That’s roughly a relative 50% increase in cancer risk among those who did not receive the vitamin D.

How much vitamin D do I really need?

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) suggests an average daily intake of 400 to 800 IU of vitamin D a day. However, they are quick to point out that this is only for those who receive adequate amounts of sunlight. Those who are not exposed to sunlight would need higher doses of vitamin D. In reality, wellness experts say that a dose of 8,000 to 10, 000 IU a day of the vitamin is needed — especially for people who stay indoors a lot.

Statistics on the number of people suffering from a vitamin D deficiency are conflicting. It is estimated, however, that around 42 percent of U.S. adults are vitamin D deficient, with the highest rates found among African Americans and Hispanics.

Sunlight is the main source of the vitamin. Your skin naturally synthesizes the fat-soluble vitamin when exposed to sunlight. Vitamin D is then processed by your liver and sends it through the body. Every cell has a receptor for vitamin D. The vitamin is responsible for several processes and is necessary for a healthy immune system and strong bones. Two forms of the vitamin can be found in one’s diet. Vitamin D2 found in mushrooms and vitamin D3 which is found in oily fish and eggs. Of the two, vitamin D3 is more potent, raising blood levels of vitamin D almost twice as much as D2. (RELATED: Top 5 reasons the USA Medical Industrial Complex does NOT want you to understand the importance of Vitamin D.)

What about the calcium used?

The study used calcium supplements comprised of calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate is common because it is inexpensive and convenient. Nevertheless, calcium carbonate is not readily absorbed by the body. It depends on stomach acid for absorption. This is why people who take calcium supplements are told to eat a full meal before taking the supplement. Failure to do so can lead to serious gastrointestinal issues. Taken properly or not, calcium carbonate has also been linked to several other side-effects such as bloating, constipation, or a combination of the two.

More importantly: Calcium carbonate does not provide the adequate amount of calcium needed for the body to perform properly. Doctors recommend sourcing the mineral instead through a healthy diet.

Take note that the body needs vitamin D for calcium to be absorbed. Lacking in the former would affect levels of the latter. So, let’s take a look at that study again. Participants were given a low dose of vitamin D which could affect the way their bodies absorbed the calcium — of which they were given a cheap form of. Is it any surprise then that the study showed negative results?

Sources:

ScienceDaily.com

MayoClinic.org

NHS.uk

WashingtonPost.com

AuthorityNutrition.com

ODS.OD.NIH.gov

Health.Harvard.edu

Drugs.com

For the fast-food nation, the news propagated by the corporate media seems great: Eat whatever you want, it doesn’t matter anyways. But it would be foolish to believe that what you put into your body has such a minuscule effect on health. You wouldn’t put gasoline into a diesel engine and expect to go very far, now would you? Despite how enticing it is to believe that nutrition isn’t important, the truth is that plant foods afford us a number of benefits that simply cannot be obtained from other sources. Phytonutrients, or plant nutrients, such as antioxidants, are unique in that capacity. Consuming these nutrients via an array of plant foods has many documented health benefits, despite what corporate sell-outs would like for you to believe.

Science Daily, a mainstream science website, recently published research that sought to better understand how these valuable plant nutrients exact their effects. A team of scientists from Oregon State University analyzed a compound known as sulforaphane that is found in broccoli. Their findings were published in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry. 

Sulforaphane is known to help prevent prostate cancer and this recent study has found that it may exact its anti-cancer effects via its influence on long, non-coding RNA (lncRNA). LncRNA was once considered to be inconsequential “junk DNA” that had little to no value and no particular function. However, research has revealed that lncRNA may actually play a substantial role in triggering cells into becoming malignant and proliferating.

There are thousands of lncRNAs, and current evidence suggests that they may control what genes get turned on or are “expressed” to carry out a genetic function. Scientists have posited that the dysregulation of lncRNAs may contribute to the onset of a number of diseases, including cancer.

Emily Ho, the endowed director of the Moore Family Center for Whole Grain Foods, Nutrition and Preventive Health at OSU, a professor in the College of Public Health and Human Sciences and principal investigator with the Linus Pauling Institute, says that the study’s findings indicate that the broccoli compound, sulforaphane, may have a positive impact on lncRNA.

“It’s obviously of interest that this dietary compound, found at some of its highest levels in broccoli, can affect lncRNAs,” Ho commented.

A particular type of lncRNA, called LINC01116 is known for being up-regulated in human cell lines of prostate cancer. The research led by OSU scientists shows that this lncRNA can also actually be down-regulated via treatment with sulforaphane.

Their findings “reinforce the idea that lncRNAs are an exciting new avenue for chemoprevention research, and chemicals derived from diet can alter their expression,” as stated by the scientists in their study. In other words, the chemicals and nutrients from the foods we consume do offer protection against disease development — even diseases like cancer.

According to the team, the effects of diet on lncRNA were relatively unknown prior to their examination. Their data showed a 4-fold reduction in the ability of prostate cancer cells to build colonies when LINC01116 was deregulated.

The over-expression of  LINC01116 lncRNA has also been documented in other types of cancer, including cancers of the brain, lung and colon. High levels of LINC01116 have also been seen in breast, stomach, and lung cancers, as well as chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The study’s lead author, Laura Beaver, a research associate in the Linus Pauling Institute and College of Public Health and Human Sciences, stated,”We showed that treatment with sulforaphane could normalize the levels of this lncRNA.” Beaver believes the finding could be more significant than just contributing to cancer prevention, and may help scientists develop new treatment methods to significantly slow down the progression of cancer and prevent it from becoming more invasive.

Find more examples of nutritional science that’s censored by the mainstream media at CensoredScience.com.

Sources:

ScienceDaily.com

NYTimes.com

Glyphosate.news has published the full text of the court document “Motion to Compel Deposition of Jess Rowland.”

Also published on Glyphosate.news is this heartbreaking letter from a dying EPA scientist begging her colleagues to stop lying about the dangers of glyphosate.

Continuing with the full disclosure of these court documents — originally acquired by U.S. Right to Know — Glyphosate.news has now published the full text of the “Third-Party Discovery and Pending Motions to Seal” document.

Some of the more interesting highlights from this document include these passages:

Monsanto has trumpeted reports generated by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) concluding that glyphosate is not hazardous… In this phase, which is limited to “general causation,” the Court will decide only whether there is sufficient admissible evidence that glyphosate and/or Roundup is capable of causing cancer (specifically, Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma) in humans.

Texas A&M’s motion to quash the subpoena to Dr. Ivan Rusyn is granted. [Who is Dr. Ivan Rusyn? And why doesn’t Monsanto want him subpoenaed?]

Monsanto’s request to seal the documents submitted in connection with the motion to compel Rowland’s deposition is denied, with the exception of one document. As previously mentioned, the EPA reports are important to this litigation. Therefore, to support its sealing request, Monsanto must present compelling reasons for concealing documents relating to the EPA reports from the public… Potential embarrassment to Monsanto (or to Jess Rowland) is not enough.

Finally, the parties have submitted a discovery letter regarding Monsanto’s practice of designating a high percentage of documents produced in discovery as “confidential” in accordance with the protective order. That dispute is resolved in favor of Monsanto… when the plaintiffs provisionally file documents under seal based on Monsanto’s confidentiality designation, Monsanto must undertake a good-faith review of the documents and inform the Court whether they should remain under seal. [i.e. Monsanto will inform the court of whether Monsanto thinks its own documents should remain secret from the court.]

If Monsanto continues to file unreasonable or unsubstantiated declarations, it will be sanctioned.

Read the entire decision from U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria at this link from Glyphosate.news.

Does Glyphosate / RoundUp cause Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma?

Here’s what a few authors and researchers say on the subject:

Because the shikimate pathway is only found in plants, it is assumed that glyphosate does not affect animals and therefore is safe; however, the retinoic acid signaling pathway in animals is very similar to the shikimate pathway. Research by Mesnage et al. found that Roundup from 1 ppm to 20,000 ppm causes cells of the human body to die through necrosis. At 50 ppm it delays the cellular apoptosis that is essential for the normal functioning and regeneration of cells, body tissues, and organs. GLYPHOSATE AND CANCERS: A case-controlled study published in March 1999 by Swedish scientists Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson showed that non-hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) is linked to exposure to a range of pesticides and herbicides, including glyphosate. Prior to the 1940s, non-hodgkin’s lymphoma was one of the world’s rarest cancers. Now it is one of the most common. Between 1973 and 1991, the incidence of non-hodgkin’s lymphoma increased at the rate of 3.3 percent per year in the United States, making it the third fastest-growing cancer. In Sweden, the incidence of NHL has increased at the rate of 3.6 percent per year in men and 2.9 percent per year in women since 1958.
– The Myths of Safe Pesticides by Andre Leu

Roundup Ready soybeans convert much of the applied glyphosate into a metabolite called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) with unknown health properties. In one study, the beans contained 3 mg/kg of glyphosate and up to 25 mg/kg of AMPA.35 “The presence of high AMPA residues in Roundup Ready soybean was not anticipated and presents a new type of consumer exposure.” Glyphosate is toxic According to the Journal of Pesticide Reform, “Symptoms of exposure to glyphosate include eye irritation, burning eyes, blurred vision, skin rashes, burning or itchy skin, nausea, sore throat, asthma and difficulty breathing, headache, lethargy, nose bleeds, and dizziness. Glyphosate and glyphosate-containing herbicides caused genetic damage in laboratory tests with human cells, as well as in tests with laboratory animals. … Exposure is linked with increased risks of the cancer non-hodgkin’s lymphoma, miscarriages, and attention deficit disorder,” as well as Parkinson’s disease. Exposure to mouse testicular cells (Leydig cells) resulted in a 94% reduction in sex hormone production.
– Genetic Roulette – The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey M. Smith

According to French and international bodies, glyphosate is considered an irritant that may produce severe eye lesions, and [is] toxic for aquatic organisms,” Marc reports. “According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. EPA, and the European Community, the use of glyphosate in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions therefore poses no human health risks. . . . However, several epidemiological studies have demonstrated a correlation between exposure to glyphosate and cancer.” Roundup Triggers the First Stage of the Development of Cancer: In fact, while regulatory agencies have continued to classify glyphosate-based herbicides as “not a human carcinogen,” a series of epidemiological studies tend to demonstrate exactly the opposite. For example, a Canadian study published in 2001 by the University of Saskatchewan showed that men exposed to glyphosate more than two days a year had twice the risk of developing non-hodgkin’s lymphoma of men never exposed.
– The World According to Monsanto by Marie-Monique Robin

Why do we heed all this bad advice and consume chemicals to treat chemical disorders? We do this because corporations are very sneaky, and they push the same lies over and over, across different mediums and even through the mouths of shill doctors, dentists, scientists, academics, journalists and the like.

You hear the Big Food and Big Pharma tales repeatedly, and then you start to believe them. You read them everywhere; you hear them on television. You read them in Prevention Magazine or via WebMD. You look them up in Wikipedia and your MD regurgitates them for bonus cash.

Let’s put an end to all this self-inflicted misery. So, here they come and here they’ll go – away for good, now that you know better. Don’t fall for the top 10 food and medicine myths!

#1. Milk … it does a body good

Wrong! Think about this for a minute: Humans are the only animals that drink milk after infancy and from another animal; it’s just not normal. Plus, all dairy products cause excess mucus to accumulate in the body and lead to inflammation.

#2. Red meat is worse for your body than chicken, turkey or pig

Most meat in America comes from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) where the animals are cooped up in overcrowded pens, rarely if ever see sunlight or pastures, are shot up with synthetic hormones (that cause cancer), injected with massive amounts of antibiotics to stave off bacterial infections, fed genetically modified feed (that also causes cancer) and slaughtered inhumanely – then processed with bleach, ammonia, nitrates and nitrites for human consumption. So, with that in mind, it doesn’t really matter if the meat is red, brown, white or green, because it’s all doing the same chronic damage to the humans that consume it regularly. “Eat less red meat?” Try eating no processed meat and you’ll be far better off.

#3. Organic canola oil is a healthy choice

Everything organic is not healthy. Let’s go there. Organic means it doesn’t contain chemical-based insecticides, algaecides, fertilizers and herbicides. What it doesn’t mean is that it’s free of heavy metals or trace amounts of dangerous chemicals. Canola is not a natural plant to this earth. Canola comes from rapeseed, which is toxic to all animals. What the manufacturers do is remove the stench of rapeseed using hexane, a constituent vapor of gasoline, but there’s still some left in the final product. Irrespective of whether canola is organic or not, it strangles your mitochondria (cells) that need oxygen to function. Organic canola also inhibits enzyme function. Plus, the omega-3 fatty acids of processed canola oil are transformed during the deodorizing process into trans-fatty acids. The reason why canola is particularly unsuited for consumption is that it contains a very long-chain fatty acid called erucic acid, which is associated with fibrotic heart lesions.

#4. Organic soy (that’s unfermented) is a healthy choice

Some people think if a product is organic, it’s “good to go.” Wrong. You still need to stay informed. Let’s talk about any soy that’s not fermented, including the organic stuff. Big Food is quickly buying up medium-sized organic companies and pushing soy and canola like it’s healthy. Just over the past 15 years, 3,000 new soy-based foods, all labeled “certified organic” have hit the shelves. Why? Big Food likes to trick healthy-minded people, that’s why. Remember, Big Food works hand-in-hand with Big Pharma.

All soy that’s not fermented screws with the balance of human estrogen and testosterone. Got breast cancer or “Low-T?” Did you know unfermented soy is linked to immune-system malfunctions, thyroid dysfunction and cognitive decline? Yep. In fact, hundreds of health studies reveal infant abnormalities, kidney stones and food allergies thanks to soy consumption. No soy was fit to eat until the discovery of fermentation techniques during the Chou Dynasty. Your organic soy “protein” may be causing you chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. Destroy the soy myth and protect your body.

#5. Vaccines no longer contain mercury (thimerosal), and the CDC even says so

The CDC says they removed mercury from all childhood vaccines over a decade ago, but they’re lying. Influenza vaccines contain massive amounts of mercury and are highly recommended by the CDC for pregnant women, infants 6 months old, and every person for every year of their lives thereafter. Yes, influenza vaccines (flu shots) are one of the main causes of the flu and still contain thimerosal, formaldehyde, aluminum and other dangerous preservatives, adjuvants, emulsifiers and virus “deadeners.”

#6. Chemotherapy is the best chance to beat cancer once you’ve been diagnosed

Fact: Chemotherapy yields a miserable 2.3 percent success rate on average. Another fact: 75 percent of MDs and oncologists would never take chemotherapy themselves nor recommend it for their family members. Chemotherapy destroys the human immune system – the one thing humans need the most to fight off cancer. Quite ironic, huh? Natural remedies for cancer are abundant and inexpensive, including vitamin C, garlic, oregano oil, CBD oil, hemp seed oil, chaga and reishi mushrooms, baking soda in water, and of course, plenty of vitamin D.

#7. Many cancer cases are inherited in our genes from our parents or their parents

Doctors tell patients almost everything is inherited from their parents so they won’t go out and seek natural remedies that work. Why would any greedy doctor want you cured when you’ll never come back to them? Most cancer is caused by chemical consumption, period.

#8. There is no cure for cancer

The search for the cure is the ultimate boondoggle. Honest scientists have been curing cancer for decades – even brain cancer. Google the Burzynski Clinic and you’ll be blown away! Then research natural remedies online.

#9. The FDA and the CDC function in the best interests of American consumers by inspecting food and medicine for dangerous substances

Laughing out loud. The FDA and the CDC are in business with Big Pharma and have been for decades. Want to die of preventable diseases? Just heed their advice.

#10. Fluoride in toothpaste and tap water helps humans keep their teeth strong and free of decay

If you aren’t already aware of it, it’s time to learn the raw truth about tap water and toothpaste. Watch this mini-documentary by the Health Ranger, right now!

Sources for this article include:

CAFOTheBook.org

NaturalNews.com

CDC.news

NaturalNews.com

BurzynskiClinic.com

My experience as a boy, similar to the experience of so many others, led to the understanding that cancer was the enemy, and if you got it, you had to fight for your life and battle it with all your strength. My view didn’t change until a short while ago, when I started doing the research to write this article.

Turns out, using war metaphors to communicate about prevention and treatment of cancer is not really in our best interest. Dana Jennings, a writer for The New York Times and prostate cancer survivor, wrote a piece published March 15, 2010, about his experience with the language of cancer during his treatment for it. A couple of phrases stick out in reading it:

It pays to have a positive outlook, I think, but that in no way translates to “fighting” cancer. Cancer simply is. You can deny its presence in your body, cower at the thought or boldly state that you’re going to whup it. But the cancer does not care; and:

But after staggering through prostate cancer and its treatment — surgery, radiation and hormone therapy — the words “fight” and “battle” make me cringe and bristle.

A University of Michigan study, “The War on Prevention: Belicose Cancer Metaphors Hurt (Some) Prevention Intentions,” published online October 28, is the result of three studies covering different aspects of this phenomenon. David Hauser, a University of Michigan doctoral student in psychology, was the lead investigator for the study, and with his colleague Norbert Schwarz of the University of Southern California, found that exposure to language which equates cancer to an enemy degrades the message of cancer-preventing behaviors.

“Hearing metaphoric utterances is enough to change the way we think about a concept,” Hauser told Michigan News. “When we hear the phrase ‘win the battle against cancer,’ it forces us to think of cancer as if it’s an enemy that we are at war with.”

The authors found that cancer-preventing behaviors such as curbing consumption of alcohol, quitting smoking and lowering intake of salty foods dealt with limitation and restraint rather than confronting an enemy.

For example, in one of the studies, they asked the participants to list cancer-prevention behaviors that they would willingly perform. The request for one group metaphorically related cancer to an enemy, while a second group’s request contained no metaphors. The group with no metaphors produced a significantly longer list of prevention behaviors that they would perform than the metaphor-influenced group.

“This suggests that simply seeing war metaphors for cancer diminishes the extent to which these behaviors come to mind,” Hauser said.

Calling cancer an enemy, then, relieves us of the belief that we may have any direct connection to preventing it or to its appearance in our bodies. An enemy, after all, has its own motivations and reason for existence, whereas an illness such as cancer has its existence in a cause that we have connection to and may control by paying more attention to what we put in our bodies, how we allow doctors to treat us, the level of fitness we maintain and the things which we knowingly expose ourselves to.

Not calling cancer an “enemy” that we are “battling” but instead calling it an illness that we are dealing with frames the conversation more constructively. A portion of the Susan Sontag Foundation’s description of her 1978 nonfiction book Illness as Metaphor sums up the reality:

A cancer patient herself when she was writing the book, Sontag shows how the metaphors and myths surrounding certain illnesses, especially cancer, add greatly to the suffering of patients and often inhibit them from seeking proper treatment. By demystifying the fantasies surrounding cancer, Sontag shows cancer for what it is — just a disease.

Sources:

http://ns.umich.edu

http://psp.sagepub.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com

1. Type 2 isn’t serious.

Insulin may not be needed, but the underlying process called “insulin resistance” may link to heart disease, gout, high blood pressure and cancer.

2. Type 2 is an easy diagnosis.

Many go undiagnosed because they don’t have symptoms like excessive thirst, increased urination and fatigue.

3. Herbal Supplements will fix everything.

Don’t be fooled by any quick fixes. Seek specific guidance from your health care practitioner.

4. Sweets cause Type 2

It’s not the sugar that can cause diabetes. It is the obesity, which may be caused by overeating sugar laden processed foods.

5. Exercise won’t help.

On the contrary, exercise may work better than drugs because it burns glucose and makes cells more insulin sensitive.

6. Don’t eat sugar, ever!

An occasional non-GMO sugar dessert is alright. Watch the carbs, keep your portion small.

7. Only obese people get Type 2.

Obesity creates a higher risk, but family history and population genetics mean that people of a healthy weight are also susceptible.

 8. You must give yourself shots.

Insulin shots are rare with Type 2. Many manage their disease with exercise, clean food, stress reduction and oral medication.

9. Your feelings indicate blood sugar levels.

Don’t trust how you feel, because “your brain can adjust.”  Know for sure by taking your blood levels.

10. If you don’t manage Type 2, you’ll eventually have insulin shots.

Only 25% of Type 2 patients will eventually need insulin.

11. Weight gain from insulin is a given.

Some people may gain weight, but that could mean they haven’t adjusted their diet. Seek medical advice about a lowered insulin dosage.

12. Type 2 diabetes is forever.

Quite the contrary. Diabetes may be reversed and the risk reduced significantly with lifestyle changes.

13. All Type 2 is the same.

Diabetes is as individual as the person. Keep a diary of foods and blood sugar reactions two hours after meals.

14. Blindness or loss of limbs will result.

If uncontrolled, diabetes can contribute to heart disease, blindness, obesity and loss of a limb. But early detection, good food choices, exercise and controlling blood sugar can help prevent more serious complications.

Sources:

Cdc.gov

Science.NaturalNews.com

BeforeItsNews.com

Even the hemp industry is not safe anymore — even though it can help support good health. That’s why Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has partnered up with Native Hemp Solutions to provide you with a hemp extract that’s lab-validated, and worthy of trust. Adams’ very own CWC Labs — an independent, ISO-certified lab — tests the CBD content in these hemp extracts to ensure product accuracy. Hemp can help support a healthy inflammatory response, and can even help to reduce stress naturally.

In spite of this, it too has been subject government scrutiny — that’s why growing hemp is so strictly regulated. Of course, nothing really compares to the lies and deception surrounding cannabis.

One of the more ridiculous lies regarding marijuana is that it is worse than tobacco — causing severe lung cancer and damaging the organs beyond repair. This couldn’t be any further from the truth, as evidence shows that marijuana has no connection to lung cancer and doesn’t impair lung function in any noticeable way. In fact, marijuana has actually been proven to decrease the chance of getting lung cancer. Yes, when it comes to the powers that be, up is down and left is right. Nothing makes sense when the puppet masters are pulling the strings — and the wool over our eyes.

Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA explained how this common misconception is incorrect by stating, “The smoke content of marijuana is very similar to that of tobacco. There is a higher concentrate of cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana tar, and it reaches the lungs before any other organ, so there is this idea that they are related in causing the same health issues of the lungs. But through my studies we failed to find any positive association [with cancer].”

Despite the fact that everyone has been led to believe that cannabis is a cancer-causing agent, there is no proof that it actually is. But because those in charge can profit majorly off of the fear of marijuana, they continue to push their lie-filled agenda in order to peddle pharmaceutical drugs that could be made obsolete by the legalization of cannabis.

The truth about cannabis is something that could change the entire world for the better. We need logical, educated people in positions of power to help spread the honest truth instead of the bold-faced lies of the regressives. Our futures could depend on this change, so it is important that we all get started now.

Cancer effects millions of people, so having another method of preventing it legalized helps all of us in the long run. Marijuana is not evil. Marijuana is not harmful. Marijuana could end up saving the day in the end. It’s time to destroy these myths and change our world.

Sources:

AnonNews.com

A diagnosis of breast cancer can be frightening, and many of the known risk factors — genetics, ageing, being a woman — are beyond our control. That is why myths are attractive. They sell us the idea that there is something simple we can do to protect ourselves from cancer. We look at three of the most common myths.

Article by Naomi Ester

Mammogram radiation can cause cancer

Finding breast cancer early reduces your risk of dying from it by up to 25 per cent — which makes the myth that mammograms cause cancer, or make it spread, a particularly dangerous one. The consensus in the medical community is that the benefits of mammograms far outweigh any risk. An annual 20-minute mammogram involves a tiny dose of radiation, less than a chest X-ray and nowhere near enough to increase the risk of developing a cancer.

The process of metastasis, in which cells break off a tumour, spread, and settle in a different place in the body to create a secondary tumour, is biologically complex and can’t be caused by squeezing a tumour.

Mammograms are frightening because of the potential that they will find a cancer, but the mantra that early detection saves lives is true and one of the reasons that what used to be a death sentence is now survived by eight out of every ten women diagnosed with breast cancer. If you are worried about cancer, you can find reliable information from NHS Choices, or the websites and helpline of registered cancer charities such as Cancer Research UK, the Irish Cancer Society or Macmillan Cancer Support. Speak to your doctor if you have any concerns about your health.

A bra could kill you

The idea that wearing an underwired bra can cause breast cancer has been around since 1995, when Sydney Singer and Soma Grismaijer published their book Dressed to Kill, which claimed there was a link. The idea was revived last year when a practitioner of alternative medicine wrote an essay on Gwyneth Paltrow’s website, Goop. What these people have in common is that none of them is a cancer researcher or medical doctor. Singer and Grismaijer’s “study” was not reviewed by medical experts and published in a respected journal, as is the norm for bona fide scientific discoveries. According to a version of their story doing the rounds on Twitter, they interviewed more than 4,000 American women and discovered women who don’t wear bras have a “1 in 168 chance” of developing breast cancer, as opposed to a “3 in 4 chance for those who wear a bra 24 hours a day”.

Their explanation is that underwired bras block circulation of lymphatic fluid, causing breasts to swell with “toxins” (a word more associated with pseudoscience, in my experience, than genuine medical knowledge). It is unlikely, though, that lymph fluid would be trapped by an underwire, because it doesn’t flow in that direction, and a properly fitting bra prevents breast ligaments from overstretching. Scientists have also criticised Dressed to Kill for not taking into account known risk factors for breast cancer, most notably obesity, which increases the likelihood a woman will wear a bra for longer periods.

A comprehensive 2014 study by the globally respected Fred Hutchinson Cancer Centre in Seattle found that no aspect of bra-wearing was associated with breast cancer risk, and Breast Cancer Now, Cancer Research UK, the American Cancer Society, and the US National Institute of Health are just a few of the organisations that have stressed the lack of evidence that wearing bras increases cancer risk.

American obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr Jennifer Gunter has described this myth as “cruel”, saying that it scares women and could cause women with a breast cancer diagnosis to blame themselves for wearing a bra. If you find your bra is painful, you should not panic that you have cancer, but you should head to the high street and get measured for a new bra.

Sweat-free armpits or healthy breasts? Choose

The idea that antiperspirants cause breast cancer is usually justified either by the idea that preventing underarm stickiness blocks “toxins” from being sweated out, or that the aluminium salts used to block the sweat glands are absorbed through the skin and trigger cancer. The source appears to be an email hoax which spread so quickly that cancer charity helplines were overwhelmed by anxious callers worried they had been doomed by their personal hygiene routines.

The vast majority of harmful substances in our bodies are flushed out by the liver and kidneys (which is why we drink lots of water when we are hungover), not sweated out through our armpits. Almost all the studies purporting to show that antiperspirants cause cancer are from a single laboratory, with Dr Philippa Darbre often the only named author. One of the studies that, at first glance, shows aluminium is present in breast tissue is, on a second look, inconclusive because the authors didn’t compare normal (non-cancerous) tissue.

Unless there is significantly more of something in a tumour compared with normal tissue, it isn’t wise to speculate that it has a role in cancer. A 2002 study published by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute studied 1,606 women and found no link between the use of antiperspirants and cancer.

Another study, in 2006, compared women with and without breast cancer and found that 82 per cent of cancer-free women who had used antiperspirant whereas only 52 per cent of the women with breast cancer had.

The author is a writer and scientist researching for a PhD in cancer medicine at the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, supported by the Irish Cancer Society

— Guardian News & Media