The Fashion Revolution

     We live in an age where fashion dominates all that we see. It is as if fashion has always been and the shops are full of clothes that delight the eyes and promise glamour and beauty. Advertisements on television, magazines and catalogues offer all kinds of tempting garments to express oneself in all kinds of ways, but as far as women are concerned, sexuality and the enhancement of one's appearance is the name of the game. It is hard to imagine a time when fashion was not present, and it is easily to forget what history and human biology has to say on the matter. However, history has an important lesson to teach, and by ignoring that lesson women have put themselves in mortal danger.

     Wikopedia, the famous online encyclopaedia, describes the European idea of fashion as a personal statement rather than a cultural expression as having begun in 16th century. ^[1] I certainly agree with that view and as I said in an earlier chapter, the Black Death was the catalyst for the radical change that took place in medieval society at that time. After the plague had ravaged Europe in the middle of the fourteenth century it triggered a new social hierarchy favouring women who were now able to enter professions formerly the exclusive province of men. It left many women a clear path to wealth and one of the various ways of displaying the newfound money was the flamboyant consumption of fabric. Of course, it took a while before Europe recovered from the disaster, and fashion proceeded slowly. Having said that though, a trend was established shortly thereafter, which would establish a breachhead in the fashion revolution that was about to follow. This was the first appearance in France and England of plunging necklines that revealed shoulders and the upper portions of the breasts. These now very visible areas of the body had been formerly been hidden by a higher neckline and the wimple, a portion of the headdress that covered the whole of the neck and even part of the chin.

     It was the turning of the tide. For the first time in a thousand years, since the collapse of the Roman Empire, women began to express their newfound freedom through the clothes they wore and to emphasise their feminine physical characteristics in ways that had not been seen for long time. By the time the sixteenth century arrived, the fashion revolution was in full swing and there was no turning back.

The Corset and the Beginning of Sorrows

     The first fashion that emerged at the beginning of the sixteenth century was to mould the torso into a cylindrical shape, and to flatten and raise the bustline. A tightly fitted under dress known as a kirtle was worn under an outer gown and was used to shape the body into this new fashionable form. Originally the kirtle was a gown that was worn as an outer garment, but was later adapted to become an under gown instead and it is in this context that it is described here. The upper part of the kirtle was stiffened to hold firmly the breasts, and squeeze them tightly in order to gain the cylindrical shape that was most desired at this time. Also, as the rib cage is squeezed it pushed up the breasts to build the cleavage that had now become fashionable. It was this garment than nuns wore and continued to wear long after the fashion had disappeared. However, for a nun it was not fashion that concerned her, but the need to flatten her breasts so that they did not wobble and attract attention. So the kirtle was modified to cover and flatten the entire breast area. This was later reinforced or replaced by a gremial (also known as a bosom). This was a breast cloth that was fastened over the head, around the throat and then the breasts were bound and flattened to prevent them from moving.^[2]

     About 1545 a change in fashion took place. The upper and lower parts of the kirtle was separated so that the lower kirtle formed a decorated skirt, ^[3] probably the origin of the shift worn by women today. Soon after, 1625 the term kirtle had become obsolete. Meanwhile, the upper kirtle was retained as a separate garment as a "payre of bodies", and it became known as a bodice, an early form of corset. The term comes from the fact that the bodice was originally made in two pieces that fastened together, by lacing. The cylindrical shape was now out of fashion and a plunging neckline and cleavage had become in vogue in a big way. The bodice was essential in clenching the lower part of the bosom, and pushing up the cleavage, the tighter the better. The bodice was stiffened first with leather, buckram and as the 16th century neared its end, whalebone or reeds became the preferred method.

     As the bodice evolved, the fashion that had been adopted primarily by the upper classes in Europe was the Spanish farthing. This was a hoop skirt stiffened with osiers (willow cuttings), rope, reeds, or (from about 1580) whalebone. The name comes from Spanish verdugo 'green wood'. The use of this garment in conjunction with the bodice, which promoted cleavage, was now the rage in high society, and it was only natural for the waistline to become the centre of attention. It was at this time that bodice underwent a fundamental change and it became the garment that we are familiar today - the corset

     The bodice was extended in length to cover the abdomen. It was shaped so that the waist could be reduced and the hourglass figure so desired by women (and men) ever since was established. It is said that Catherine de Medici of France (1519 -1589) was responsible for this fashion. She had established a standard at her court for a waistline of fourteen inches and ladies with waists larger than that size was not welcome in her entourage. Thereafter the fashion spread like wild fire throughout aristocratic circles in Europe. Acceptable waistlines varied from era to era, occasionally going to such extremes as thirteen inches during Elizabeth I's reign relaxing to eighteen to twenty inches, then returning to fourteen inches. The bodice now extended became known as the long-bodice or corset, while the original bodice was called a short-bodice or stay meaning to 'stay the body', although in reality its primary purpose was to stay the breasts.

The coming of the Corset was the Beginning of Woes for Women

     The fashion of the farthing, slender waist and voluptuous cleavage continued well into the seventeenth century, but then a new fashion crossed the Channel from France, although the old fashion continued for a time thereafter. Charles I's new wife Henrietta Maria (1609-1669) had changed the uncomfortable elongated Elizabethan torso, so that while the necklines became lower and oval, and cleavage continue to be emphasised even more, skirts grew softer, lighter, fuller and generally more graceful. It was also about this time that seemingly out of nowhere, a mysterious and cruel disease appeared among women of the upper classes - breast cancer. Anne of Austria (1601-1666), wife of King Louis XIII of France became the first woman of note that succumbed to the disease, as I have related elsewhere. Evidently, the fashions of the previous century had been instrumental in the rise of the disease, but how? Remember it is chemicals that are the primary cause of breast cancer so the question remains what was the source of those chemicals?

The Path of Folly

By the time Elizabeth died she was using ceruse that was half an inch thick.

     As the fashion of slim waistlines, hooped skirts and cleavage was established in the sixteenth century, the exposure of so much flesh required further enhancement. As you may recall from an earlier chapter, the idea of a beauty during the middle ages was to have white smooth skin. Pale skin was a sign of nobility, wealth, and delicacy, and was sought after by many women of this social group. In a time when skin problems and the pox were commonplace, sunscreen unheard of and skin creams and ointments out of reach for all but the well-off, smooth, unblemished and pale skin was a rarity. Ceruse, a mixture of white lead and vinegar became the cosmetic favoured by the nobility and by those who could afford it because it covered over such imperfections and the preparation made the skin shimmer like ivory. This white foundation was applied to the neck and bosom as well as the face. Once an ideal whiteness had been achieved blue false veins were often traced onto the bosom (now covered in ceruse) to mimic the semi-transparent breasts of the adolescent. The first record of the use of ceruse was recorded in 1521, and by the time of Queen Elizabeth I of England reigned {1558 to 1603) it was all the rage among the nobility.

     The finest, most expensive and most sought-after ceruse came from Venice. It was also the one that contained the greatest amount of lead but all variations of the cosmetic were deadly. The lead, now known to be carcinogenic, steadily and cumulatively was absorbed into the body, corroding the skin in the process. But women stubbornly continued to use it, such was the desire to have brilliantly smooth white skin that this substance gave. It hid all kinds of blemishes and filled in the wrinkles and pockmarks. Queen Elizabeth used it lavishly, but as the lead took its toll and over time she had to ply a thicker coating on her skin. This only made things worse. By the time Elizabeth died she was using ceruse that was half an inch thick.

     As ceruse and other chemical laden substances were applied to the skin, and it was mainly the upper classes that could afford them, it is hardly surprising therefore that breast cancer began appear in this social group. Chemicals cause cancer and the upper classes were applying all kinds of toxic substances to their faces, neck and breasts. In contrast, the general populace did not succumb to the disease because they could not afford such expensive luxuries as the types of clothes that the nobility wore or the cosmetics that they used. For those of the upper levels of society, the appliance of these crude cosmetics on the skin and the popularity of the new fashion that compressed the breasts, was to prove to be a deadly cocktail as we are about to demonstrate.

The Lymphatic System Revisited

     When breast cancer began to emerge in the seventeenth century, medical science was still in its infancy. True, much progress had been made since the rediscovery of medical documents from ancient Greek and Roman times, thankfully salvaged by later Islamic scholars. However, the understanding of the effects of chemicals on human health was only beginning to become apparent, and without a solid foundation upon which to build, the connection between the cosmetics and breast cancer eluded the best of the medical profession.

The mass of lymphatic nodes in the region of the breast

     Also too was the ignorance of the inner workings of the human body and while all recognised the importance of the cardiac system, few were aware of another vital fluid system that operated inside the body. This was the lymphatic system. Indeed, in 1900, the structure and action of this system remained largely undefined. Even within the last ten years, most students would not have gained awareness that organs such as the tonsils, adenoids, thymus, and spleen were part of the lymphatic system. Nor would they have learned that the lymph system is often the first line of immunological defence against harmful bacteria, toxin concentrations and oxygen starvation of one's cells. It is incredible that so little was known about this system, especially when one considers that lymph fluid plus the cellular fluids it is in contact with constitute 80% of body fluid, with only 20% of blood making up the remainder.

     Today we now understand that the lymphatic system plays a crucial role in protecting the body from harmful substances. I know I will be repeating here some information that I have already mentioned elsewhere, but I think its importance cannot be overstated in what we are discussing here. An understanding how the lymphatic system operates has a direct bearing on the connection between the clothes we wear and breast cancer. So let us begin.

     The lymphatic system as described in another place is closely connected with the blood and circulatory system and it is an extensive drainage system that returns water and proteins from various tissues back to the bloodstream. It is comprised of a network of ducts, called lymph vessels or lymphatic, which carries lymph, a clear, watery fluid that resembles the plasma of blood. The lymphatic system itself is a network of very fine vessels or tubes called lymphatic that drain lymph from all over the body. Lymph is composed of water, protein molecules, salts, glucose, urea, lymphocytes, and other substances. Lymphatics are found in every part of the body except the central nervous system. The major parts of the system are the bone marrow, spleen, thymus gland and lymph nodes. The latter are found concentrated in specific areas of the body, with profusion centred in the region of the breasts of women.

     The lymphatic system is an immune process that is critical for the body's well being. It is the "garbage collector" of the body sucking up metabolic garbage, and toxins from the extracellular fluid of every organ. Water, proteins, and this garbage continuously leak out of tiny blood capillaries into the lymph fluid where it is driven away upwards and away from the place of origin. Everytime the body jerks tiny one-way valves open and the fluid is ejected from the lower layer upwards, and then the valves closes. This shunting continues until the fluid eventually it reaches various disposal points, the sweat glands of the body. The toxic garbage is then expelled via perspiration through the skin, while the remaining fluid continues its ever-upward flow to the upper parts of the body. The fluid is then recycled by flowing back into the bloodstream behind the collarbone and fed back into the tissues, to start the process all over again. Unlike the capillary system where blood is pumped by the heart, lymph fluid has no pump to push it around the body. Its flow is totally reliant on movement, and that flow is always against gravity.

For biological reasons women have an extensive network of lymph vessels and nodes in and around their breasts

     For biological reasons women have an extensive network of lymph vessels and nodes in and around their breasts. One main lymph node area (the armpit, or "axilla") and two secondary lymph node areas (the internal mammary and supraclavicular regions) filter the lymph fluid and drain it away from the breast area. As many patients know, cancer diagnosis often includes an evaluation based on what is found in these lymph nodes. Since it is the job of the lymph nodes to filter out harmful substances such as toxins, bacteria and cancer cells, lymph nodes are a logical place to look for breast cancer cells that have escaped the original tumour. The presence ("node-positive") or absence ("node-negative") of cancer in the lymph nodes is generally perceived to be one of the most important signposts in determining if a woman has breast cancer or not.

     The problem is that we now find our selves in the realm of interpretation and speculation. The fact that cancer cells may be found in lymph nodes have led doctors to the conclusion that unless those lymph node are removed, the cancer cells can be transferred to the blood stream later and cancer can begin elsewhere in the body. Hence the common course of action is to remove as many lymph nodes as is reasonable, which of course lends to the recourse to surgery. When a woman has surgery, doctors typically remove about 10 to 20 lymph nodes to see if any cancer cells have spread into them. The answer from the biopsy determines what treatment needs to be applied. However, the surgery leaves many women with motion problems and less feeling in their shoulder and arm, and up to 20% develops lymphedema, painful and severe arm swellings that will recur throughout their lives. They are also at greater risk of infection because they have now lost so many lymph nodes responsible for draining fluid from the armpit. "Patients often get caught by friendly fire, suffering ill effects from a procedure intended to help save their lives, says Dr. Mark Kissin of the Royal Surrey County Hospital in Gilford, England."^[4]

     Some doctors are hesitant with the use of surgery. They argue that the whole purpose of the lymph system is to rid the body of poisonous substances, and so if left alone this is what the body will do if given a chance. They also argue that it is quite likely that surgery compounds the problem by spreading the cancer cells in the blood as the surgeon disturbs the area under the knife. There is evidence to supports this view. For instance, a Harvard study found that, for about 20 percent of women in their 40s whose breast cancer has spread to their lymph nodes, cancer surgery seems to cause tiny tumours in other parts of their body to grow. Roughly one in 10,000 of these women would die early as a result. But the heightened risk of relapse was not seen in women 50 and older, and it seems to largely disappear for younger women after 18 months. ^[5]

     I am no doctor so I am not in a position to say whether surgery to remove lymph nodes should be carried out or not. However, what worries me is that it is inferred that any cancer cells found in the lymph nodes near or around the breasts originated from them. While this may be highly probable, I am troubled. But by virtue of its nature, lymph fluid flows from every part of the body and travels upwards to the region of the body where the breasts are found, before being reintroduced into the blood stream from behind the neck. Consequently, the cancer cells could have originated anywhere in the body and had been moved to their current location, near or within the breasts. Of course this is conjecture, and if the Cancer industry were to investigate this, it would be money well spent I am sure you will agree. The only concerns I would have with this suggestion is that I would question if any results from such a survey would be independent and unbiased, with no conflict of interests involved. The record of the Cancer Industry, I am afraid to say, does not inspire confidence.

     Irrespective of what the truth is everyone agrees that unless the cancer cells are removed from the lymph nodes and expelled from the body, either by surgery or through the natural process of the lymphatic system, they will spread to other parts of the body. If the lymph fluid vessels have been blocked because they have been compressed and closed for some reason, the body goes into emergency mode and dumps the substances it deems toxic into surrounding fatty tissue as a temporary solution until the fluid flow is restored. If the lymph fluid is flowing in the area of the breasts, where do you think the toxic load will be dispersed too?

Two things are necessary for the lymphatic system to function properly and that is MOVEMENT to push the fluid around, and an unhindered pressure flow of fluid.

     Two things are necessary for the lymphatic system to function properly and that is MOVEMENT to push the fluid around, and an unhindered pressure flow of fluid. The effect of clothing on the proper operation of the lymphatic system is largely influenced by the fact that the lymph vessels are very delicate and for the most part close to the surface of the skin. The lymph vessels are therefore easily constricted by elastic or tight fitting garments. It follows therefore that if breasts have been squashed, as in the case of the use of corsets or stays, then it would not be unreasonable to assume that, since lymph vessels are sensitive to physical pressure, that the lymph fluid will be prevented from flowing. Consequently, as described elsewhere in this book, the body will detect this and take emergency measures. Hence, the body will in effect dump the toxic substances into nearby fatty tissues for temporary storage, of which breasts are bountiful with. Here they will lie, slowly seeping further and deeper into the breast tissue, gradually settling towards the milk ducts and nipple, through the action of gravity. Only breast movement will restore the balance, but if the breasts remain in the grip of any tight garment now holding them, then in due course of time, the chemical toxins will accumulate in pockets and will start to alter cells so that in the end, cancer will develop.

     We can now see why in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with the application of ceruse and other substances on the face, neck and breasts together with the breast binding garments worn then, that breast cancer began to appear at that time. Prior to this, for most of human history women worked or lived either naked or bare breasted or wore loose fitting garments. Women therefore lived under conditions where there was natural BREAST MOVEMENT with every step that they took when they walked or ran or whatever physical work they were involved in. Every subtle bounce of the breast while moving gently massaged the breast and boosted the lymphatic flow and thus cleansed the breast of toxins and wastes that arose from cellular metabolism.

     Even breast feeding a child has a positive effect on the flow of lymph fluid in the breasts. Today, as doctors try to find out why breast-feeding reduces the risk of breast cancer, as studies have shown, looking towards hormones as a possible answer, the real reason is simple, as it is obvious. When a woman breast feeds, the first thing that is done is the breasts are loosened and allowed to dangle freely unhindered by any clothing. Then as the subtle undulating movements of the breast occurs as the infant suckles the nipple, lymph fluid flow is in motion, If that is the case, why was the women of the social elite in the times of which we are speaking, did not benefit from this? The answer is simple. Those women of that social group, those who were wealthy enough to afford to purchase and wear corsets and cosmetics, did not breast-feed their children. That was they paid wet nurses to do. Isn't it amazing how the pieces of the jigsaw fit into place?

     Another piece of the jigsaw reinforces how unhindered breast movement is so important in preventing breast cancer. Various studies have shown that exercise plays a key role in the prevention or the treatment of cancer. When you exercise, breast mobility is inevitable. For example, BBC news said under the heading of "Exercise 'prevents breast cancer" that women of all ages can reduce their risk of breast cancer by exercising regularly. Reporting on a study in the United States involving over 74,000 women and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, it said that the researchers found that women who exercised regularly reduced their risk of developing breast cancer by 20%. Even moderate exercise, such as walking, cycling or swimming, five times a week would have a significant impact. ^[6] Knowing how breast movement shunts lymph fluid around, this and other studies on exercise came as no surprise. In fact if you think about it, it is so logical and obvious, knowing what we now know, that it is hard not to fall down laughing, if it were not for the fact the subject that we are discussing is so serious

     Although the corset and harmful toxins found in medieval cosmetics continued into to the nineteenth century, with fashion going through various stages of evolution as it does, most people today do not wear corsets, accept on special occasions, nor do women use toxic cancer inducing cosmetics - do they? Then how is it that breast cancer has escalated out of control, during the last century, and especially in the last sixty years. The answer is that corsets have now been replaced by another breast confining garment, the brassiere, and even now toxic chemicals are still being used in cosmetics. Worse still, unlike Elizabethan times, the world in which we live is awash with synthetic chemicals and our body burden of these are high.

The Coming of the Bra

     In the 1850's Victorian women, already tottering under the combined weight of whalebone corsets, chemise, drawers and goodness knows how many petticoats, decided to add yet another garment to their wardrobe - a corset cover. This was a simple, short and fairly plain underbodice made of cotton or linen and was worn in conjunction with a corset. By the end of the century some women wore the garment instead of a corset as it was much more comfortable, although it was tight fitting like that of the earlier bodice or stay. It kept the breasts in check and it became known as a camisole. In many respects it fulfilled the same function as the modern bra, only that it was a total upperbody garment, and compressed the breasts rather than supporting them. By 1905 it had become the fashion accessory to have and was called a bodice bra or BB for short. Ten years later the magazine The Lady recorded pretty bust bodices or brassieres as essential wear.

Bra fashion history truly began however with the first bra to be patented and this was done in 1914 by Mary Phelps-Jacobs.

    

     Bra fashion history truly began however with the first bra to be patented and this was done in 1914 by Mary Phelps-Jacobs an American. The story goes like this. Mary had just purchased a sheer evening gown for one of her social events but she discovered that she had a problem. At that time, corsets that were stiffened with whaleback bones were the accepted undergarment but the combination of this and the sheer evening gown, just did not go together well. In one of those great flashes of genius, Mary came up with a great solution. Together with her French maid Marie, Mary took two silk handkerchiefs and tied them tied together with baby ribbon sewn on, to make straps and a seam set in the centre front and off she went to the party. It worked a treat. Seeing an opportunity for advancement, she took this simple idea and patented it under the name of Caresse Crosby. It was called a 'backless brassiere' and was intended to flatten the breasts and not enhance them, just like the stay used to do, but without the rigidity of that garment. Her design did not even have cups to support the breasts. Although Mary saw the potential of her garment, she had no business sense and although she made several hundred devices, but due to lack of publicity, her venture fell at the first fence. So when Warner Brothers Corset Company offered her $1,500 for the patent rights, she grabbed it while she could. That was a great deal of money in those days.

     During the 1920's, a new fashion trend emerged, known as the 'flapper', the first signs of open rebellion against traditional clothing. A fashionable flapper had short sleek hair, a shorter than average shapeless shift dress, a chest as flat as a board, wore make up and applied it in public, smoked with a long cigarette holder, exposed her limbs and epitomised the spirit of a reckless rebel who danced the nights away in the Jazz Age. As a flat chest was in, unless one was born this way, all kinds of methods were used to flatten breasts. Often this included home made solutions with tight fitting garments made of cotton, like camisoles but without any support. Big-busted girls turned to bandaging their breasts flat, but many adopted the Symington Side Lacer, a bra that could be laced at both sides and pulled and pulled in to flatten the chest. Breasts were literally crushed tightly against the chest and completely immobilised. Breast compression was in vogue again. For young ladies with youthful figures a satisfactory bra was the four-sectioned lace bandeau bra, lined in net. None of the bras gave much shape, but few ladies were seeking anything more than stopping the bust from wobbling. As long as they looked boyish they looked fashionable.

     Think of the Charleston, the dance that epitomises the spirit and exuberance of the period, and you will know what I mean. This new generation of 'liberated' women were living through a cultural sea change; they won the right to vote and went to work in new jobs in factories, department stores, and offices as urban economies expanded. Flappers went to jazz clubs at night where they danced provocatively and dated. They drank alcohol openly, a defiant act in the period of Prohibition. Physical intimacy without sexual penetration became much more common, often referred to as petting. Some even threw "petting parties" where petting was the main attraction. Flappers also wore "kissproof" lipstick and a lot of heavy makeup with beaded necklaces and bracelets. They liked to cut their hair into "boyish" bobs, often dying it jet-black.

     Into the frame comes Ida Rosenthal (1883-1973) who decided to buck the trend. An 18-year-old immigrant from Tsarist Russia in 1904, Ida Kaganovich held socialist ideals and believed in women's rights. She married her boyfriend she had met in Russia and had followed to the U.S., William Rosenthal. Unwilling to work for others, Ida bought a Singer sewing machine and started a business as seamstress. William, plagued with poor health, took up sculpting. Her business flourished during World War I, and by 1921, and she opened a dress shop in Manhattan with a partner, Enid Bisset. William soon joined them. Around them the flapper culture flourished but Ida, who can best describe as 'buxom' deplored the fashion. Why fight nature?" she asked. Then the Rosenthals hit on a brilliant idea. To make women look better in their dresses, Enid and William designed a built-in bandeau with cups that separated and supported the breasts. Customers loved the brassieres, and quickly demanded them separately. By 1922, the small dress shop had registered the name Maiden Form and hired a salesman. Word of mouth brought more success, and in 1925, at Ida's urging, the partners stopped dressmaking to focus on their hot product. In 1928, they sold 500,000 bras. The company survived the Great Depression and Enid's retirement, and by the end of the 1930s Maidenform products were sold in department stores across the nation and around the world.

     With good publicity and brilliant advertising campaigns, the bra captured the hearts and 'breasts' of the American public. By the 1930's the true female shape was becoming more popular and the diminutive word "bra" had come into more general use. After many centuries of hiding, the female breasts began to demand recognition. Jean Harlow, Mae West and other movie stars of the time began to show just "what they were made of" and they weren't a bit shy about it. Suddenly, everyone wanted one. Sales grew and grew and other manufacturers joined the bandwagon. The bra was here to stay and Maidenform went from strength to strength, as did the other companies. It was William who devised the standard cup sizes that are familiar to all women, and he even designed the first maternity and nursing bras. Ida did the marketing and she was brilliant at this. She bought ads, negotiated with unions and introduced assembly-line production. They built loyalty by continuing old styles as they introduced new ones, and made sure a wide array of retailers carried their line. Most importantly, they built the brand name with racy ads that debuted in 1949, featuring photographs of women in bras. The "I dreamed... in my Maidenform bra" campaign ran successfully for 20 years. The Bra had by now become ingrained in the female psyche as being an essential item of clothing that all women should have and 'needed'. And so, the gospel of the bra went forth into to the world, and women of other cultures saw, believed and the bra multiplied.

Portents of Things to Come

     The Second World War was over and Europe was devastated and broke. America now took advantage of the chaos, and loaned vast sums to those countries devastated by the war. Britain, Germany and Japan were significant beneficiaries, but there was a catch. American goods and markets had to be opened up to these countries, which was not a difficult decision since the countries concerned was mostly in ruins. During the war, European women especially appreciated the stockings that the GIs brought over with them and so it was natural to wish to continue obtaining these and any other fashion accessories that America was willing to offer. Of course, the bra was a hot item. This had as much to do with American movies as it had with advertising. The movies introduced the idea of sex appeal and glamour something that women had been deprived in the war. So when the Hollywood stars came on the screen that had uplift that almost reached their necks, this exactly what was women wanted. Brand names like Maidenform, Berlei, Triumph and the British Marks & Spencer bras under the St. Michael label became recognised names overnight, and the bras was selling like no tomorrow.

     There were certainly good reasons to celebrate in the 50's and 60's. Europe was recovering from the effects of the war, cities were being rebuilt, transport infrastructures established and for America business was booming. Corporate America was spreading its wares across the globe and people everywhere could not get enough. The bra was one product that enjoyed ever-increasing popularity, a triumph of mass marketing. Sales went through the roof. But in the background other products were reaching the market, which has since left a deadly legacy in our day. The chemical companies were cashing in on the wonder pesticide called DDT, which then was being sprayed on anything that moved without consideration of the consequences to the environment or the balance of nature. Also, new synthetic materials were being made and plastic products made from PVC was reaching the stores in all kinds of guises, from toys to floor coverings. PVC is made from Vinyl Chloride, a chemical whose carcinogenic potential has long been established and until 1974, the chemical was used as an aerosol spray propellant. And guess where women went to do their hair? The accumulation of vinyl chloride vapour in hair salons readily exceeded the NOAEL (NO Adverse Effect Level) exposure guidelines, and is believed to have been responsible for an increase of an order of magnitude of the occurrence of cancer in the most severely affected occupations. The chemical explosion was beginning to take off - and with it so was breast cancer.

     In the 50s and 60s, the fashion of the flappers who flattened their breasts you may recall and smoked heavily, wore thick makeup and generally enjoyed the nightlife in smoke filled rooms, now began to suffer the consequences of their lifestyle. This generation was now amongst the growing statistics of breast cancer sufferers. Don't forget, breast cancer is a slow growing illness that takes many years to develop so that by now, many of the flapper generation was now aged between 50 and 60, the very age when breast cancer usually makes an appearance.

     The medical community was dumbfounded and could not explain why breast cancer statistics had suddenly shot up. They had been aware that in the early 1900's the disease was not a common occurrence. ^[7] As pointed out by Dr. Ralph Moss MD, when referring to the book The Practice of Medicine by A.A. Stevens, MD of the University of Pennsylvania, breast cancer is not even mentioned. This despite the fact that it is a comprehensive work on the full scope of medicine dating from 1922 consisting of over one thousand pages. ^[8] Even so, since the early 20's there has been a slow but steady rise of breast cancer, until by 1940, in America the lifetime risk of the disease was about 1 in 22 (4.5%). Then in a matter of only twenty years, in 1960 that figure had almost doubled to 1 in 14 (7.1%). ^[9]

     As doctors and statisticians laboured to explain this unexpected phenomenon, the only thing that seemed to be consistent was that the disease appeared primarily in North America and Western Europe. This gave rise to the belief that breast cancer was a disease specifically associated with the western lifestyle, but as to why nobody knew. The disease was dubbed "the western disease", but that observation was somewhat premature. In other parts of the world, where once breast cancer was virtually unknown, the disease now began to make its appearance. It was very strange though, because where the disease appeared it occurred in the more affluent urban cosmopolitan centres. What was the connection? This was exactly the place to find the new working woman donning western style clothes in offices that were now flourishing in these areas. And the most significant feature of western fashion as far as women was concerned was the almost mandatory requirement to wear a bra and the widespread use of western cosmetics, now admitted to contain carcinogenic toxic ingredients. The signs were there, but they were ignored - and breast cancer continued to rise alarmingly.

A Connection is Made

     At this point I wanted to describe how the historical record testified to the fact that women were either naked, bared breasted as a normal part of life or wore long flowing gowns that covered the upper body but left the breasts au natural, free to move as nature intended. Further, since many of the menial tasks were done by women and required physical labour and activities, breast movement would have been fundamental. This would therefore have helped the lymphatic system to function as it should and that is why breast cancer, as far as I have been able to determine, was an unknown disease until the seventeenth century. Furthermore, it is also true to say, that while Europe indulged in the fashion revolution three hundred years ago, elsewhere in the world bare breasts were still common. Western culture had as yet not reached these areas, although European explorers were now exploring lands that they had not seen before. So it was that even right up to the beginning of the twentieth century, uncovered breasts were the norm with the indigenous peoples of Australia, Tasmania, the Pacific islands, the Malaysian peninsular, parts of India, Africa and other areas of the world. Where cultures existed in which women had uncovered breasts, breast cancer as far as is known was not a disease that was experienced nor were certain other benign conditions of the breast that we are familiar with today such as fibrocystic breast disease.

     The museums of the world, are full of artefacts, frescos, and images of that demonstrates the truth of what I have said here. There are also numerous accounts by explorers who encountered indigenous peoples, and who described women who were either naked or topless. Examples include the written accounts of Christopher Columbus with his first encounter with natives of the West Indies, to Charles Darwin who described the naked women swimming in the icy seas off the coast of Tierra Del Fuego. And with the invention of the camera in the nineteenth century we could see the evidence before our very eyes. But as I started to write the details, the evidence was so vast that it soon became apparent that it would take another book of equal size to put that evidence in writing. So for the moment, you will have to take my word for it, or research this yourself.

     The purpose of writing about the cultures of the world where women were topless was to emphasise several points. First, women for countless generations did not feel the need to wear anything to restrain or prop-up their breasts. This is a modern convention and not a biological necessity. Secondly, there is nothing to suggest whether by oral tradition or written records, that breast cancer or anything remotely like the disease existed in these cultures. Also too, in the early chapters of this book I demonstrated that prior to the seventeenth century, breast cancer was an unknown disease, and that it only appeared with the advent of the use of toxic chemicals in makeup and with the emergence of breast restrictive garments that occurred at the same time. That being true and with most women in Western based societies now wearing bras of various kinds today, one would have thought that incidents of breast cancer would continue to rise in synchronisation with the distribution and sales of these garments. Indeed, the correlation is remarkable, as it is plain to see - accept there are those who prefer not to give credence to the evidence. So I present that evidence here, and let you decide if there is sufficient justification in the theory to warrant further investigation

Fijian women weaving baskets in 1903.

     The name Fiji is synonymous with paradise, of blue clear waters, white sands and palm trees. This beautiful South Pacific group consists of some 300 islands and atolls dotted across 200,000 square miles of sea. The main island is Viti Levu, the second largest is Vanua Levu, and together they make up 85% of the country's total land area. This is one island that until recently, women lived and worked with limited clothing and uncovered breasts. Topless like the men, women just wore a grass skirt, while the men wore nothing but loin cloths. Skirts were short for single women, and long for married women, with girls wearing virgin locks before marriage. Breasts were bared most of the time and many women had the lower parts of their bodies decorated with tattoos. Then came along the missionaries from the west and the Fijians eventually succumbed to pressure to cover up. I say eventually because well in the 1950's some women continued live with their breasts uncovered. ^[10] Nowadays though, most Fijian women tend to wear a multi-layered tapa cloth on formal occasions. A blouse made of cotton, silk, or satin, is often worn on top as well. Even so, although a top is generally worn but most Fijian women, they still follow traditional practices and leave their breasts unrestrained underneath, and therefore allowed free movement.

     After World War II, with the influx of American culture, tourism and business practices, things began to change. Women started to work in offices and factories just like their American counterparts, and before long the medical authorities noticed that these professional and working women had been developing breast cancer in steadily. increasing numbers." ^[11] The Ministry of Health was baffled and were not able to come up with a clear answer as to why this was happening. It was then that two medical anthropologists, Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer visited the islands to follow up on a theory that they had described in their book Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras that was published in 1995.

     It was during the visit that the two researchers were able to carry out some very interesting investigations that confirmed their hypothesis that there was a link between bras and breast cancer. In their own words: "We then did a follow-up study to our first US study. This time we went to Fiji, where half the population is bra-free. We approached the Health Ministry and asked for their assistance. Once we told them our theory, they exclaimed, "That explains why our working women are now getting breast cancer! They are the ones who wear bras!" Over the next few months we went from village to village and obtained over 20 case histories of breast cancer. All were in women who wore bras. We found that, given women from the same village (genetically related), with the same diet, the ones who developed breast cancer were the ones who wore bras." ^[12]

     Their book Dressed To Kill had described how on examining the bra wearing habits and attitudes of about 4,700 American women, nearly half of whom had had breast cancer. The study results showed that wearing a bra over 12 hours daily dramatically increases breast cancer incidence. According to the results of the study, bra-free women were shown to have about the same incidence of breast cancer as men, a very small percentage indeed. In sharp contrast, those women who wore a bra 18-24 hours daily have over 100 times greater incidence of breast cancer than do bra-free women. When publishing the book, they had expected an open-minded, if not enthusiastic reception to their research showing that bras was a significant factor in the incidence of breast cancer, but instead they were laughed at, ridiculed, or simply ignored.

     What did the American Cancer Society do? Did they say, "well that is interesting? Let us carry out our own researches to see if there is any truth in what these people have said" After all, with millions of dollars in the bank some of that could be earmarked for the study." Oh No! Don't be daft! The ACS responded in their usual pompous manner. "There are 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 according to standard principles of epidemiological research and did not take into consideration other variables, including known risk factors for breast cancer. There is no other, credible research to validate this claim in any way," they said. ^[13] So why did they not do a study themselves? You know the answer to that don't you?

     It seems that this is the way of the world. When Galileo had the gall to suggest that the earth moved round the sun, he was ridiculed by the scientists of the day - the Church. How often have you heard a similar story, when someone discovers something, and then faces condemnation and ridicule only to be found correct later? Too often as you know. It is a tribute to their tenacity that Singer and Grismaijer did not give up, and continue to this day to carry out investigative researches in this and other lifestyle diseases. Even so, the medical profession have in the main, continue to turn a blind eye to the theory and have not carried out any studies. One has to wonder why? It can't be because if studies did reveal that the theory was true, then first the cancer industry would find that they have egg on the face, and secondly the lingerie industry would confront an economic crisis.

     Imagine what would happen if women snapped out of years of indoctrination that told them that they 'needed' a bra, and realised that somehow in the preceding 4900 years women managed to live without one. Imagine the effect of women discarding their bras enmasse with the knowledge that by doing so they would significantly reduce the risk of breast cancer. The multi-billion dollar Cancer industry would have a fit! As Christine Higgins says, writing for the John Hopkins Newsletter, " What, pray tell, would actually happen if indeed a cure for cancer was found? What if this multi-billion dollar industry simply ceased to have a purpose? Where would all its funding, employees and resources go? How far would the leaders of this industry go to prevent just such an occurrence? All American industries are corrupt on some level. Even fields like cancer research, fields that we are convinced are saving lives, care more about profit than life. That is a devastating truth to examine when you ponder how many lives could have been improved by what is now nothing more than scorched earth. We must be aware of the potential malice in even the most outwardly benevolent industries."^[14]

     Since their Fiji researches, Singer and Grismaijer has found similar indicators pointing to the relationship between bra wearers and breast cancer sufferers among other Pacific cultures. For example they have studied the Maori people, the indigenous population of New Zealand. The Maori have largely been integrated into the white culture today, which includes the wearing of bras. And, they now have the same breast cancer rates as whites. In contrast, the Aborigines of Australia, who are mostly not integrated into white culture and generally do no wear bras, have virtually no breast cancer. Such has been the continuity of their findings, that they have made the statement that "Breast disease is only a problem in cultures where women wear bras. Western culture has come to accept bra wearing as normal, and therefore has been unquestioned as a possible health hazard."^[15]

     Taking another example, the two researchers noted that Japanese women had one of the lowest breast cancer rates in the world. When some Japanese women came to live in the United States their breast cancer rate remained much the same, very low. However, incidences of the disease steadily increased among their children and grandchildren so that eventually the statistics approached those of American-born Caucasian women. Why? The answer was simple. The original Japanese women continued to wear their native dress that excluded the wearing of a bra, but their children having adopted Western style dress also adopted the wearing of the bra.

     This observation is not an isolated case. When I looked at India for example I came across almost identical information. The Indian Tribune notes the contradiction between first and second generation Indians with respects to the incidence of breast cancer amongst them. "An interesting study shows that Indian women who migrate to the USA are not as susceptible to breast cancer as American women are, but the second generation of migrants become as vulnerable to breast cancer as their counterparts in the USA." ^[16] Needless to say, the second generation, having been brought up American society, will have adopted western lingerie garments that would include also the brassiere.

     Furthermore, in India itself I discovered, breast cancer is increasing in urban areas where many people will have adopted western lingerie while in the rural areas, such garments are not a common item. Under the heading "Breast cancer incidence rising in urban India" it was reported in the Hindu, the Online edition of India's National Newspaper, of 12th February, 2006 that, "Unfortunately, this is the new trend, indicating that breast cancer has overtaken cancer of cervix in the urban areas and their surroundings," said Vijay Anand P. Reddy, Director, Apollo Cancer Hospital" ^[17] This is backed up by an earlier study by the same paper in 2004 where it was reported that "Breast cancer is the second most common cancer in Indian women". The incidence is more in urban than rural women. It is more prevalent in the higher socio-economic groups. The average incidence rate varies from 22-28 per 100,000 women per year in urban settings to 6 per 100,000 women per year in rural areas." ^[18]

     It is clearly evident that breast cancer is increasing at an alarming rate in India today and that most incidences of the disease is found predominantly among affluent business women who live in urban cities, and who wore a bra as part of their business wardrobe. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that most Indian women wore bras that were either ill fitting, or the wrong cup size. "It is a fact that between 70 and 85 percent of girls out there are not wearing a proper fitting bra. Either they are wearing the wrong size or the wrong style which is appropriate for them", says SeasonIndia.^[19]

     It is one thing to wear a bra that fits well, but one that does not, is only asking for trouble. When the Indian Lingerie Company Gokaldas Intimatewear started developing their Enamor brassiere range, their first concern was to make sure that they produced a bra that was a good fit. The company surveyed and measured 4,000 women across India and to their surprise they found that 80% of Indian women wore ill-fitting bras. What the found was that previously in India, bras were produced only in B and C cup sizes, though Enamor's research found that most Indian women needed A or D cup sizes. The company launched their Enamor product line in 2003 in Bangalore and Hyderabad, and then went national a year later. In other words, most Indian women who were in the higher-economic groups, and who lived in towns and wore a bra, had the highest incidence of breast cancer. In addition, the bras that they wore were either ill fitting or simply the wrong size. No wonder Indian women were having problems. The lymphatic system within the breasts must be seriously blocked, thereby allowing toxins to seep into the fatty tissues and fester.

     Another country worth investigating is South Africa. This is country of about 40 million people divided into 31 million of black/African origin, 5.2 million of white origin, 3.5 million of mixed-race origin, and 1 million of Asian/Indian origin. Approximately 25% to 30% of the population live in urban areas. Today incidents of breast cancer is rising in all ethnic groups but what is most interesting is that several studies have shown that black South African women have a lower incidence of breast cancer compared with other races or population groups. For example, the incidence of breast cancer in black and mixed-race women under the age of 55 years living in a defined area of the Western Cape Province during 1994 to 1997 was similar to that observed in Japanese women - of low incidence. Traditionally, black women did not wear bras such as the Zulu people. If you have seen the movies "Zulu", "Zulu Dawn" or "Shaka Zulu", then you would have observed that in those films the women of this ethnic group were topless. Even now, although their culture is slowly but inevitably being sucked into the western vortex, many still do not wear a bra - accept in the cities where some of them work. It is in the cities that breast cancer cases are to be found in the greatest number. Here Asian and Caucasian communities of women predominate, and these ethnic groups have the highest levels of breast cancer incidents in the country. And what do they have in common? You guessed it. Both ethnic groups wear bras.

The Evidence Continues to Build

     It seems to me that the evidence that I have presented thus far is sufficient to suggest that wearing a bra does have a bearing on the proliferation of breast cancer at the present time. So I have to ask why is it that organisations such as the American Cancer Society have not taken upon themselves to investigate this matter further rather than deny without justification that there is no evidence to suggest there is a connection? I would have thought they would jump at the opportunity to research this line of investigation. From what I have presented here, one does not need to be a professor in medicine to see that there 'might' be a link! Yes, the evidence is circumstantial and statistical, but isn't that how medical breakthrough's in the past originated?

     In the UK I am more hopeful with the main cancer organisations here. Cancer Research UK describes itself as "the world's leading charity dedicated to research on the causes, treatment and prevention of cancer"^[20] According to their website, the charity supports the work of over 3,000 scientists, doctors and nurses working across the UK, with an annual scientific spend of more than £213 million, which has been raised almost entirely through public donations. This is excellent and impressive you have to admit. So have they put some of this donated money towards a study? Not a dicky bird! However, let us not give up hope. Rather than deny the idea out of hand as their American cousins have, they have said that the "following things have been reported in the media as cancer risk factors, but have not been confirmed or have been disproved: Deodorant, Underwired bras, Cuts and bruises, Make-up" ^[21] [bold mine] It does sound like they may be prepared to listen and to do something about - if given the incentive to do so. So how about it Cancer Research UK! Will you finance a study?

     Cancer is caused by chemicals and the mechanism by which these substances alter the cell's genes so that they forget to switch off when reproducing, is well established. Now as I and others have highlighted these chemicals find their way into the fatty tissues of the female breast, because this is how the body reacts when faced with a situation where the normal mechanism of disposing of them have been impaired. That mechanism is the lymphatic system as explained earlier. The evidence herein presented demonstrates that the wearing of tight fitting breast garments, such as stays, corsets, bodices or bras is what restricts the flow of the lymph fluid that is moving the chemicals through the system. When a woman wears a garment that is designed to restrict the movement of breasts, such as a stay, corset, bodice or bra, she subjects her breasts to pressure, closing off the lymphatic pathways from the breast to the nodes. This causes fluid build-up, swelling, tenderness and cyst formation. Toxins must be flushed out via the lymphatics. However, a bra-constricted breast cannot adequately perform this cleansing process, resulting in toxin accumulation in the breast. Over time, these toxins having accumulated in the breast tissues create an environment in which cells can turn cancerous. So the idea that there is a link between breast cancer and bras does have a sound scientific base.

     In 2001 a study was carried out by Japanese researchers which found that increased skin pressure caused by a tight-fitting bra suppressed the nocturnal elevation of the hormone melatonin, which some doctors have claimed could also increase the risk of breast cancer. Another study looked in the effects of a bra on breathing. For lymph fluid to flow, it requires physical movement to shunt it around, and part of that process involves the breathing mechanism. The British School of Osteopathy found that ill-fitting fashion bras put stress on bones and muscles, which caused breathing problems. The study reported that tight and underwired bras supported the breast by pressing on the rib cage, which restricts breathing and puts pressure on the diaphragm. According to the researchers, breathing is undertaken using a number of muscles, one group of which are the accessory muscles. These run from the upper part of the cervical spine and attach to the upper ribs. When wearing such bras, the middle ribs are held tight, which means the upper ribs have to work harder. Sports bras too can cause breathing difficulties if worn for extended periods. These bras, by their nature, are specifically designed to hold the breasts rigidly in place during exercise, and hence, should not be over used because they are much more constrictive than ordinary bras. ^[22]

Bras, the Bare Facts

Evidence shows that Bras and Breast Cancer go hand in hand

     A documentary that was aired on British TV Channel 4 in 2000 discussed the theory that bras were responsible for various breast conditions and probably breast cancer as well. The narrator said that breasts weren't designed by nature to be harnessed by a bra. For years women have had their breasts pushed around in the name of fashion and beauty. From every direction, women are giving the impression that wearing a bra is good for them. Meanwhile, breast problems are on the increase. 2 out of 5 women suffer from pains in their breasts. 7% suffer from lumps in the breasts called cysts. And breast cancer levels in Britain are two thirds higher today than they were thirty years ago. Most researchers looked for explanations in hormones, genetics, and diet but Sydney Singer, who was on the program as a guest, believes that there was with a simpler solution. The narrator then turned to the author of Dressed to Kill, who responded by saying that throughout the world, the only cultures where there is breast cancer is where there are bras. He continued by saying that bras are actually a form of breast binding in the same way that the Chinese bound feet in the name of fashion. For hundreds of years feet were distorted and bones broken. Bras are simply another form of binding, accept it is not feet that are bound, it is breasts. Their purpose is to change the shape of the breast. There is nothing good about them. In fact, there is nothing good in the medical literature saying that women should wear them, that there are a benefit in any way at all. They're just a fashion accessory, and the problem is that our culture has turned breasts into fashion accessories.

     On the program was a woman wearing a bra and Singer demonstrated what he meant by what he said. The fact that a bra snaps shows how tight it is, he said. "This pressure is here too2, he said and demonstrated on the model, "and all along this part of the breast. And it will go under the armpit. Now if you lift your arm, you will see right here how her body goes in with these straps. If you lift this (side band) up, you will marks left by the bra, right here. And then this under wire here is putting marks right in the skin. Lymph nodes are little factories for white blood cell production; they're essential parts of our immune system. They're fed by lymphatic vessels, which go from the tissue and go to the lymph node, flushing the tissue. Now the lymph nodes, most of the lymph nodes for the breasts are in this part of the body (near and in the armpit). So this is where 85% of the breast drains to. So when you have a bra with the strap cutting it off right here (near the underarm), that's constant chronic constriction."

     The narrator now switched to the subject of breast pain and cysts, with bras being a probable cause of these symptoms. The program 'Despatches' had, six months before invited Eminent breast surgeon Professor Robert Mansel in Cardiff (who was later awarded an CBE) and Mr. Cawthorne in Bristol to devise a study to test the proposition that there might be a link between breast pain and cysts and the bra. The six-month trial could not explore any immediate link with cancer, since that takes much longer to develop. However, as Dr. John McDougall, M.D., (and others) states in his book titled The McDougall Program for a Healthy Heart, "After repeated bouts of inflammation, the breasts develop scar tissue in many places, and some of the milk ducts become plugged, forming cysts. Fibrocystic breast disease, not surprisingly, is associated with a higher risk of breast cancer." In other words the evidence suggested that women who suffered from fibrocystic disease, and a likely chance of succumbing to breast cancer later on, hence the trial would have some significance.

     The two Bristol doctors asked women who had either with cysts or regular breast pain that attended their clinic for to participate in the trial, and a hundred women responded. After the first three months of the trial, it was reported that a number of the women had already noticed a difference, and by the time the trial had come to an end, several women who have taken part now have a radically different attitude to wearing bras. Lawrenza Nicholls said that those advertisements that describe "comfort, control and support" gave the impression that this was true and that is why women wear them. But in reality, as she discovered, after three months of not wearing a bra, the advertisement should have read, ""contain, restrain, and pain". Rae Marsh, another volunteer took to wearing a burgundy-coloured camisole and said that this was so comfortable, sexier, had a nice feel to it. In contrast, the bra she had worn, the type she described as the "underwire, hold-it-all-still type", had caused her long-term aches and pains. Her advice - "get rid of bra".

     According to the narrator, the daily records the women had kept showed a marked difference between post-menopausal women and those still having periods. Women with periods who used to suffer pain wearing a bra, found that they had significantly more pain-free days without one. The percentage of days when the pain was moderate to severe was halved. For some individuals like Rae, it feels even better than that. She said that, "The results of this breast study has given me back here freedom. She was able to pick her the children without pain and the pain she had had when wearing a bra had faded more and more into the background. Another woman Marian Godden described her experience as magic. "For me, this whole trial has been magic, absolute magic. I would have never have thought that leaving one part of my garment, my underwear off, would have such an effect on my life. It's magic. I can't see me ever wearing a bra again."

     The narrator summarised the trial by saying that on average in the pre-menopausal group the study revealed in the short period of the study that the number of totally pain-free days went up by 7 percent, which the doctors regard as significant for a problem that is otherwise so hard to treat. ^[23]

     There have been at least thirty published medical and scientific studies that have shown a connection between fibrocystic disease and an increased risk of breast cancer; the most recent was published in 1999. The trial itself although it received a lot of attention in the media the response from the medical profession and the cancer industry was one of apathy. Most doctors in the American medical establishment thumbed their noses at the notion that a mere bra could have some bearing on a disease so devilish, regardless of how tight it is. Dr. Ruby Senie, a Columbia University breast cancer specialist and epidemiologist, called it "a ludicrous idea." And Dr. Stanley Rockson, co-director of Stanford University's Lymphedema Centre, is also unconvinced.^[24]

     According to Elizabeth Vaughan, MD, in "Western society, we've settled on the bra as a way to shield irrationally-sensitive observers from nipple phobia. That phobia is theirs, not yours. If you trash your bra, you may have to find another way to hide your God-given assets, so as not to offend the easily offended." She says that a camisole under a sweater will hide all but the most aggressive of nipples. "Be creative2, she says, "and throw a scarf around your neck and drape it over your chest, or wear a blouse with pockets for example... Many women feel more comfortable wearing bras in public because they either minimise or accentuate their breasts with bras. Worst case, if you're in a situation where only a bra will do, then wear one if that makes you comfortable. But, you make that decision. Don't let someone else make it for you. And, the very minute the event is over, get that bra off. Bras are not good for breasts."

     Dr Vaughan makes an interesting observation. "In exploring the possibility that bras relate to breast cancer, we are about where we were in the 1950s with respect to cigarettes causing lung cancer. Doctors began to see men present with lung cancer who had a long history of smoking. It took 20-30 years to “prove” the connection and 40 years to prove causation. Many physicians — perhaps most physicians — and the American Cancer Society assert that no link has been positively demonstrated between bras and breast cancer. But, then, we waited 50 years for someone to demonstrate a positive link between cigarettes and lung cancer." ^[25]

Could Kylie Minogue's gruelling hectic lifestyle, wearing cosmetics of dubious toxity, botax injections and her ever changing bras (probably ill fitting) and corsets used in her life, business and stage performances (often under hot lights ) have contributed to her contracting breast cancer?

     Let me put matters straight. BRAS DO NOT CAUSE BREAST CANCER per se. It is chemicals that cause the disease, but it is bras and other similar breast binding garments that prevent those substances from being eliminated from the body and breast tissue. Now I am no doctor, I freely admit, but I am a historian and as such I have shown that breast cancer started to appear in Europe, not in ancient times, but in the seventeenth century. This coincided with a dramatic change in fashion that took place a hundred years or so before, when women in the upper strata of society began to wear breast binding garments such as stays, bodices and corsets for the first time. This cannot be a coincidence, and as far as the chemicals are concerned, women of those times spread carcinogenic cosmetics substances on their breasts. From henceforth, breast cancer continued to appear in this social group and as time went on, and other lower social groups also adopted the same clothing to mimic their 'betters' they too began to suffer from disease.

     I do not believe it is coincidence that breast cancer has continued to grow as it has, becoming even more prolific even as the wearing of the bra has become the essential item that is has become. It is in America and Europe that breast cancer is the highest, and it is in these countries that bra wearing is virtually mandatory. Not only have some people noted the significance of bras and breast conditions such as cancer, statistics also suggest the same. When women immigrate to America from countries where bra wearing is of low incidence, within a generation of two as their children become integrated into western culture and where bras are now worn as a matter of course, breast cancer follows. The study Statistics on Asian and Pacific Islander Women & Breast Cancer in the United States from the Vietnamese Medical Association of the USA reports that, third and fourth generations of API women have higher rates of developing breast cancer, which are similar to Caucasian women. Immigrants who have lived in the United States for 10 years or longer are 80 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than more recent immigrants and, Filipino women born in the U.S. have a 60% higher risk for breast cancer than women born in the Philippines.^[27]

     I could quote page after page of similar statistics but that will only bore you. Instead I am going to submit a remarkable historical observation that I have uncovered during my researches that confirms that breast cancer and the wearing of bra-like garments go together like a horse and carriage. And, following this, in the next chapter I shall resolve an issue that has perplexed the medical profession for several centuries namely - why did nuns in particular get breast cancer. This is a world exclusive! See the sample chapter.