Talk:Dressed to Kill (book)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Dressed to Kill (book). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Please do not include Original Research

Support and criticism need to be supported by third-party, notable, verifiable sources. I have recently removed an entire section that offered "supporting" evidence of the validity of the authors claims. This was effectively WP:SYN because the the studies a) were not mentioned by verifiable sources in relation to the book, and b) did not directly address the central hypothesis of the book. Instead, the editor brought in various disparate studies that together might support a point of view he is trying to make. Mattnad (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Proxy

Jan,

(Forgive me if this sounds somehow condescending, but I've dealt with several editors recently who don't speak English as their native language.) Do you know what it means for bra size to be a proxy for something else? Can you imagine any woman who fits a bra size 50F and is not obese?

Or is your goal simply to remove any mention of the other known factors for breast cancer: obesity, number of full-term pregnancies, age at first full-term pregnancy, and so forth? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Four times greater

Can someone fact-check the tobacco assertion in the lead? Is the correlation actually "four times greater" or just "four times"? Four times greater means 500%. Four times means 400%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Editorial comments in criticisms section.

Hi Jan, It's not up to us to editorialize on the strengths and weaknesses of what other people say about a topic. For instance, we did not critique the conclusions of the authors in the sections dedicated to describing the book. Likewise, as an encyclopedia, we must also report with as little bias as possible what others say about the book IF they are notable and verifiable sources. Your efforts to quality the Molete article from the Cancer Association of South Africa with terms like it "claims it has identified..." exceeds what's allowable: see WP:AWW to get some indication of what should be avoided. What is completely fine is adding a counterpoints from other verifiable sources. So for instance, if there were someone who refutes Motele article or one like it, then it's fine to mention that (with appropriate citations of course). Mattnad (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, to Jonathan108, your personal opinion of the validity of the criticism are not enough. Please find reliable sources to support. Mattnad (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you have done your fair share of editorializing in the article. Motele doesn't say anything about "fundamental flaws". Neither her article nor the 1991 study talks about "finding no persuasive evidence" -- as if they actually looked for some. This is all your commentary. When you were scouring the web for material for this article you undoubtedly came across the many articles supporting the theory, but you consistently ignored them. Is this supposed to be an example of NPOV?--Jonathan108 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. In your above comment to Jan, you said that describing Motele's assertions as "claims" would be using a weasel word. Clearly you haven't read WP:AWW very carefully. Weasel words pertain to hearsay evidence, such as "some people claim". Describing Motele's opinion as a "claim" is perfectly valid, especially since she is explaining why she thinks the theory "can't be taken seriously." --Jonathan108 (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to lecture you on scientific method here. But one thing to mention, your efforts to minimize the critiques of the book and it's hypothesis was not paralleled in the "Background" section dedicated to describing Dressed to Kill. Even as people have added unsourced claims in favor of the book's conclusions, I and other editors have not pushed back on them.

So when you edited the criticism section, it was for the purposes of minimizing them. For instance, your addition of complaints that the professional organizations haven't disproved the book's hypothesis were unsourced, your POV, and smacks of circular reasoning.

Of course the irony is that the authors of Dressed to Kill have done nothing to provide proof of their hypothesis either. Instead, they have expressed the hope that the medical/scientific community will do the work (they never bothered to do themselves).

Anyway, if you want to critique the criticism, bring in some credible support. We've heard the author's opinions on this matter, including the suggestion that doctors don't want to prevent disease for financial reasons, so you'll need to do better than them. If you don't like what the American Cancer Association and other professional organizations think, find a credible source. Mattnad (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: they don't have a "theory" as you put it. They have an unproven hypothesis. Please see Scientific method. Mattnad (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my points about weasel words and about your editorializing. Do so unless you want to implicitly concede these points. --Jonathan108 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterizations about "my" editorializing, but you may have a point about weasel words. But note that I've strongly resisted adding similar qualifiers to the "Background" section. This includes leaving in many contributions from an Anonymous editor who happens to come from the the author's home state of Hawaii. In my view (and shared by reputable sources) so much of what these authors write is incomplete and lacks thoroughness. It's not that they "claim" but I think they've "invented". They're good at make plausible leaps, but don't back it up with science. Just as you would like to beat down critiques of their work, I would love to point out what I think is their pure BS. Instead, I've helped to bring up the overall quality of this article. Mattnad (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To say that the "Breast size, handedness and breast cancer risk" study "found no persuasive evidence" is not correct. It would be more correct to say that they found evidence, but they hypothesized it away. I will remove the misleading commentary. --Jonathan108 (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you have missed the point of including this study - it's a scientific study that measured factors including bra use, breast size, weight, and other factors. Bra use was strongly correlated to other known risk factors (e.g. breast size and weight). That's how it's done in science. I'm surprised you don't apply the same skepticism to Dressed to Kill, especially since the authors themselves admit it's merely an anthropological study that has not been evaluated using epidemiological methods. Why didn't the authors factor in known risks in their study? Why didn't they share their data (rather than their conclusions) for peer review? I think I'll now do the same balancing to their work. Mattnad (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying that breast size and obesity are "known risk factors" and that bra use is riding on their coattails. How do you know that the reverse is not true? Why has this possibility been dismissed without a bit of research? The antiperspirant companies have financed studies to disprove that theory, so why don't the bra makers do the same thing? Perhaps they have already done so, and didn't like what they found. --Jonathan108 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything and neither do you. We're editing an encyclopedia. We're not about second guessing the experts. It's one thing to bring in an outsider hypothesis like Dress to Kill - it's another thing to become an advocate for that hypothesis with personal doubts about what the experts say. The experts say obesity and breast size are highly correlated with cancer. The experts also say bra use is not a known cause in the context of dismissing the claims made in Dressed to Kill. This is well documented in the article and the related sites/sources so that's where I'm coming from. Mattnad (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jonathon108, Mattnad's assessment of the correlative factors is accurate. The point behind these statistical analyses is to find independence, because statistical independence is the best indicator (although not proof) of causation. When a factor is not statistically independent, it is very strong evidence that it is not causative. Obesity was independent: when you hold all else (including bra wearing, but also age, size of breasts, and so forth) the same, obesity results in a slight-to-moderate increase in breast cancer. Bra wearing was not independent: when you hold all else the same (obesity, age, size of breasts, and so forth), bra wearing predicts nothing at all about breast cancer. As it happens, I've had the opportunity to be in touch with one of the authors of "Breast size, handedness and breast cancer risk". It is his current opinion, based on a number of his own studies as well as studies by other people, that breast cancer starts before birth, and certainly before adolescence. This further supports his conclusion that bras do not cause breast cancer (since so few babies wear them ;-). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thought: This, BTW, is the major complaint with this study. These authors couldn't be bothered to collect really basic information and run a really simple statistical analysis. For example, they talk about Westernized vs non-Westernized women, but then only collect information about their clothing. Why not also collect information about how many children they had? Westernized women tend to have much smaller families than non-Westernized women. They tend to have their first child much later in life. They breastfeed for shorter periods of time. They tend to take hormonal birth control pills. All of these things are known to affect the likelihood of breast cancer. Would it really have been that hard to ask these women how many children they had? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You say, "when you hold all else the same (obesity, age, size of breasts, and so forth), bra wearing predicts nothing at all about breast cancer." Pretty damning evidence. Strange that Motele and all the other organizations missed that gem. Would you mind sharing the study that you are citing? If it's not available online, scan it in and post it somewhere. Not just the abstract, the whole study. Your credibility is on the line.

I'm also curious to know where they found obese or large-breasted women who don't wear bras. When is the last time you saw such a creature? The advantage of the Singer/Grismaijer study is that they took hours per day of bra wearing into account. --Jonathan108 (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not going to violate copyrights just to save you a trip to a science library. Go read it yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The local university doesn't subscribe to the European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology. Nevertheless, I'm certain that your information about the authors' conclusions is correct (and that your credibility is unimpeachable.) I'm equally certain that their understanding of the relationship between obesity and bra use is flawed. They have overlooked two facts:

1. Bra use is directly proportional to breast size and weight.

2. The constricting effect of the bra on the breast tissue is directly proportional to breast size and weight.

In short, they are not 2 different factors, but are the same factor. So, naturally, if you take obesity into account, bra use appears irrelevant.

I won't belabor this point. This will be my last post on the subject, so you don't have to remind me that this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. --Jonathan108 (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Your point #1 is the reason that we use statistics to control for this (because the fact that "most" obese women wear bras is not the same thing as "all" obese women, and the stats show that obese women who don't wear bras have the same rate of breast cancer as obese women who do wear bras). Your point #2 is just flat wrong, as any person who has tried to find a properly fitting(!) bra will know. Constriction is due to size and style. An obese woman's bra is not necessarily any tighter than a non-obese woman's bra. In fact, a morbidly obese woman should see less constriction, because the layers of fat keep the bra band from pressing tightly against the ribcage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty convincing

3 out of 4 women who wore their bras 24 hours per day developed breast cancer.
1 out of 7 women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not to bed developed breast cancer.

It would be interesting to know what the bra size of these two groups were. Were they comparable? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as anyone knows, the authors of the book didn't bother to find out that potentially useful piece of information, just like they didn't bother to find out other useful information, like how many children the women had, whether they were obese, whether they took hormone replacement therapy, and so forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as the authors of the European Journal study didn't bother to find out the number of hours per day of bra use. To compile statistics based on bra-use-yes-no is like lumping people who smoke 1 cigarette per day with people who smoke 3 packs per day. Clearly a study needs to be done which fixes that oversight as well as the Singer/Grismaijer oversights. --Jonathan108 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Jonathan108, you're as qualified as Singer/Grismaije are do do this kind of study (no joke). They certainly haven't bothered to prove their own hypothesis. Go for it. Mattnad (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't have the time or resources, due to other commitments.

Singer and Grismaijer may not have done a perfect job, but they have certainly presented some compelling evidence. Now, if the research establishment would just let go of their dismissive attitude and give the hypothesis a closer look, I'm sure they will be able to confirm it. --Jonathan108 (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is not compelling and Singer et al don't seem to care about follow up either. They've put more effort into a sanctuary for an invasive frog than doing the digging you expect the "research community" to do. All scientists I know continue to work at finding more evidence when they believe they're on to an important line of research. Without exaggeration, many of the great scientific discoveries in history took years of dedicated and painstaking work. All Singer and Grismaijer want to do is to promote a book that presents a flawed study with a provocative conclusion. Why don't you admonish them to follow through? Have you ever wondered why they don't? Mattnad (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The article on Ignaz Semmelweis may help you understand. --Jonathan108 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Ignaz Semmelweis article points out that at the time, there were no tools to test Semmelweis hypothesis. So while it's a good example of the right idea before its time, it doesn't parallel our discussion here. In the case of Singer/Grismaijer, there are very well established tools. They just haven't bothered to apply them. Instead, they accuse doctors of being motivated by the profits they make by keeping people sick. Another point you keep forgetting is that their conclusions cannot be trusted. They've failed to do basic work to isolate the variable of bra use vs. other known factors. You might be interested in reading How to Lie with Statistics. It's an easy read and designed for the non-statistician. The first chapter is all about Biased samples - the basic issue with the Singer/Grismaijer study. Mattnad (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that statistics are regarded with great suspicion. Singer probably feels that no matter how strong a statistical proof he presents it will be suspected, or his data collection methods questioned, or his honesty in general attacked. After all, he protects vicious invasive frogs, doesn't he?

As Semmelweis found, it is exhausting -- physically, emotionally and financially -- to do battle with entrenched ignorance.

Here's an example from this very article:

The National Institutes of Health states, "Breast implants, using antiperspirants, and wearing underwire bras do not raise your risk for breast cancer."

Now, how do they know this (regarding bras)? If the NIH finds fault with Singer's methodology, does that prove that his hypothesis is false?

It's this kind of irrational bias that makes someone feel that research is a waste of time. Semmelweis did research that would have convinced any reasonable person, even in the middle of the 19th century. But the theory was too threatening, so his colleagues were blinded by their fear. To paraphrase Einstein, "The theory determines what you can perceive." --Jonathan108 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, argue your case elsewhere. This is an article talk page. Do you have a specific suggestion for improving the article text? MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Overwhelming bias

I must protest Mattnad's reversion of my last edit. The article repeats, over and over again, the book's condemnation by the "medical authorities" but does not allow a proper rebuttal. My edit was as follows: "The authors counter that these organizations all denied the link between smoking and lung cancer for decades after the initial research was published indicating such a link." Mattnad claims that this rebuttal is redundant, even though it appears nowhere else in the article. The article is a violation of NPOV and I am trying to restore some much-needed balance. --Jonathan108 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan108, your brought in counter-criticism that are already covered at a high level in the Background section of the article. The purpose of segmenting the article is that we don't have tit-for-tat criticism and counter-criticism.

So in the sections dedicate to explaining the book or the authors, we don't bring in the critiques but leave that for a separate area. This is a common approach in Wikipedia. The Background section already mentions that the research community didn't embrace their study, and even allows for their conspiracy theories that the healthcare industry wants to keep patients sick because it's profitable. If you want to add more of their excuses for why their study was dismissed in that section, I suppose we could have a few more examples. But if you're trying to bring in "rebuttal" arguments to defend the book, you may be crossing the line into POV territory. It's a fine line, but it has to do with the differences between being an editor vs. an advocate for a position.

As an aside, it's a pretty pathetic argument for the authors to make - to suggest their study is somehow valid because it's being ignored like unrelated research conducted 40-50 years ago.Mattnad (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that the word "claim" is used 10 times in relation to the authors and just once in relation to their critics? Is this another "common approach in Wikipedia?"--Jonathan108 (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple of reasons for that. This is an article about a controversial hypothesis that has little to no confirmation outside of the authors book. And then the authors have the lions share of creative ideas that need support. Singer is particularly fanciful with his inventions in epidemiology and societal commentary. And again, review Hypothesis and Scientific method to see why the burden is on them to support their claims. Not the other way around as you have suggested it ought to be. Mattnad (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The authors' counterargument is both silly and historically inaccurate. It's silly because some of the organizations that oppose their idea didn't even exist in 1929, when the link between tobacco and lung cancer was first proposed. The major charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure, for example, was founded in 1982. It's historically inaccurate because the first anti-tobacco campaigns run on grounds of lung cancer were almost immediately undertaken in Germany (the origin of the 1929 paper). The first widely accepted set of studies was published during the 1950s, and most developed countries undertook anti-tobacco campaigns no later the 1960s, so we're really talking about 35 years total from first proposal to widespread acceptance and social changes, not 40 or 50. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The figure of 40 to 50 came from Mattnad, not from me or from the authors. Their point remains valid that the NIH, the AMA and the Cancer Society -- undoubtedly influenced by tobacco money -- stalled for decades. A lot of people suffered and died as a result. --Jonathan108 (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The American Cancer Society funded the 1954 study that confirmed the link between smoking and lung cancer. That's 15 years after the first German publication, and it does actually take some time to conduct these studies. Does that sound like a group that's "stalling for decades" or "undoubtedly influenced by tobacco money"?

The point is that just because some organizations and governments ignored some previous research, with unfortunate effects, doesn't prove anything at all about whether or not the same thing is happening here. We could, with equal ease, create a list of some absolute quackery that was promptly investigated and rightfully rejected, and claim that this is what happened here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The lung cancer article says that the initial German research was published in 1929. So, the delay was more like 25 years, not 15. According to Singer's book, Get it Off!, "It took the National Cancer Institute another 25 years, into the mid-1970's, to even mention the connection."

No, the corruption (or incompetence) of some organizations in the past doesn't prove that the same thing is happening here, but it does suggest a systemic tradition of obstructionism. Even today, the FDA and the NIH have been exposed as rife with political influence and hidden agendas. --Jonathan108 (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

But I think this would only have relevance to this article if anyone could demonstrate that it has something do with bras and breast cancer. The authors have not and your opinion, even if correct, qualifies as WP:OR. Given that I added their silly argument to the article in an appropriate section, can we stop this thread? And just to clarify the 40-50 year comment, that was a reference to when the studies were done, not that it took that long for the health organizations to react. Mattnad (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"An appropriate section" means that you emasculated the rebuttal by keeping it far away from the argument being rebutted. The article makes a mockery of the principle of NPOV. --Jonathan108 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that they (and you) make such ad hominem attacks on the medical establishment, it's hard to justify even keeping it in the article. But you're passionate about it and I felt it was a reasonable compromise to group with their other yawps.Mattnad (talk)

This is going nowhere fast. Jonathan, if you truly feel this article is non-neutral, then you can either try to convince us or seek outside input via the dispute resolution pathway. Enough poorly informed back-and-forth - that's not what article talk pages are for. MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous women

That study said nothing about bras. It's just a racial criterion, and all races have adopted western customs, including sitting down for bodily functions and wearing bras. It's a completely inappropriate argument and has no place in this article. Please remove it. --Jonathan108 (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this book (according to the anti-bra/pro-book editor that started this page) asserts that essentially all Aboriginal women are bra-free and have practically no breast cancer. Therefore the fact that the women in this group actually get breast cancer at about three-quarters the rate of non-indigenous women in the same country is obviously very different from what the book says, and another example of an apparent error in the book. If you think that we are misrepresenting the contents of the book, please provide the page numbers from the book that contain the relevant information about Aboriginal women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start this article. Mattnad did. The book doesn't say that all Aboriginal women are bra-free and have practically no breast cancer. It says that as native women in the developing world start wearing bras in order to fit into the westernized business world, their rates of breast cancer rise proportionately. They cite a study in Fiji, which they also discuss at this link.

I will delete your misinformed edit (which also constitutes original research.) --Jonathan108 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't pin this article on me! Another editor started it. We just made it encyclopedic. I think in the matter of this new material, it does seem like borderline OR to me, but I'll admit I'm not that close to the details.Mattnad (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The information was added by User:Jan Storms here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on that statement quoted by Jan, it would seem that breast cancer is a recent development in this population. What has changed? Have they started wearing bras? Some researcher from Australia should find the answers and test this theory once and for all. --Jonathan108 (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much weight on that statement. It's a summary of a summary from a book that is not being praised for thoroughness by experts in the breast cancer field. Again, I'm puzzled why Singer/Grismaijer stopped work on such an important topic and instead complain that nobody else will work to validate their hypothesis. Mattnad (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

criticisms

I've removed the section, it is a little redundant. The entire article is basically a criticism of the book or the authors. I have noticed a bit of bias we probably need to work on neutralizing the article. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I restored the section. That was a pretty "bold edit" and you'll find that there are other editors who think this is relevant for such a controversial book. In science, there's a dialog and the criticisms section represents that. I personally feel that it's factual and well sourced. The Book created enough of a stir that professionals in the field of breast cancer research have written about it. If you think there's bias, please identify which parts, and we can discuss. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Addendum - Third-party review I've read of this book present both the book and the critiques. Why should this Wikipedia article be any different? Here are two [http://www.helium.com/items/1058126-bras-and-breast-cancer], and [1]. I don't think we're being particularly aggressive in our exposition when you see the published material.Mattnad (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article

Mattnad mentioned this article above but I wanted to call attention to it. The authors clearly describe the methods and motives of the organizations who are threatened by Dressed to Kill: ezinearticles.com/?Bras-and-the-Breast-Cancer-Cover-Up&id=795041 (Copy and paste the url into your browser, because wikipedia, in its infinite wisdom, has blacklisted the domain.) --Jonathan108 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you liked that one, he has a whole bunch of others related to his views on health and medicine in ezine.Mattnad (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to add a reminder about self-published sources. Ezine allows people to basically self-publish so we need to treat this content with care if an editor wants to put it in this article. I think it's OK to quote Singer when it's part of the background section advancing his book, and telling the story of how it was received. I would resist adding this as rebuttal in the criticisms section. Mattnad (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Poor-quality self-published sources affiliated with the article subject are not encyclopedic. Not only would the use of such sources constitute poor editing, but since the domain has been spam-blacklisted, the sources cannot be used in the article on very fundamental grounds. Therefore, this thread can only be an attempt to promote a self-published webpage which has no prospect of being used in the article. As such, it violates the talk page guidelines. Jonathan108, please use this article talk page to discuss specific improvements to the associated Wikipedia article. Continued off-topic and irrelevant discussion such as this is inappropriate and will likely be removed. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

about the author

I removed the last bit about where and how they sleep. The article is more about the book, as opposed to the actual authors. I think writing about the authors in this way is a bit out of the article subject. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread that sentence, but it's not that important. I'll restore it for now, but if you really think it's not relevant, then I won't stand in the way of you removing it. From their site "Currently, they are spearheading an international campaign to educate the public about the hazards of flat sleeping."[2].Mattnad (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually took the whole section, I don't see how the article should be about the authors, should we start a new article on the authors if they are notable? If you add it back, I won't count that as a reversion, but I do want to discuss it either way if you are inclined. Why have the section? NonvocalScream (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The book was controversial in part because of the way the authors approached their research and disseminated it. They have novel, and perhaps unconventional positions on science, society, and medicine. Background on the authors helps bring context to the book, the controversies, and the reaction to it. But even for uncontroversial material, it's standard practice for books to include biographic and bibliographic information. Grab a book off the shelf and take a look at the jacket. Finally, in the world of Wikipedia, if the authors were better known outside of this book, we would create an other article about them, and link the articles. Perhaps we might do that in the future, but for now the information about the authors can coexist with the book. I will restore that section, but I hope you now understand our rationale for including it. Mattnad (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that including information about the authors is a very common approach to articles about books. It gets reduced if you can link to a bio, but it's almost always present somehow or another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not joking

Mastcell, your comment on my edit was: "Either you're joking, or you have a fairly deep misunderstanding of the scientific method and the current state of evidence." I am not joking, so I would kindly ask you to cite the studies that disprove the book's thesis. --Jonathan108 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. See Scientific hypothesis and Scientific Method. The onus is on the authors to present credible evidence of their hypothesis. They have not and there is ample evidence for alternative explanations as noted in the critiques of the book in this article. What you are doing now is similar to the efforts of Creationists who are against teaching Evolution. Like you, they claim that no one has debunked Intelligent design and they demand we Teach the controversy in schools.Mattnad (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying that the authors' study lacks rigor and saying that their hypothesis is false. The organizations are saying, as a proven fact, that "there is no link between bra use and breast cancer". They have no basis for such an assertion. Such tactics call their motives into question. --Jonathan108 (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a high-quality, independent reliable source that says that the organizations "have no basis for such an assertion", or is this your personal, non-expert opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

All right then, tell me what their basis is. --Jonathan108 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been covered before, but the criticism section of this article has material you can read, with links to more. But I noticed you side-stepped WhatamIdoing's question. We're open to considering reliable sources, per WP:RS that support your contention. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms section says nothing to justify the statement that "there is no link between bra use and breast cancer". --Jonathan108 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

To me that statement is correct based on published expert statements about the matter. I suppose we could qualify it by saying "there is no scientifically proven link" given there is an imaginary link (invented by the authors). In the end, even if you're not convinced, it doesn't matter since you are not a reliable source. And quite honestly, neither am I. We must both depend upon is what the experts say. Right now, they say the the book's hypothesis is based upon a flawed study and unsupported conclusions. Therefore - as far as this article's concerned - there is no link between bra use and cancer.Mattnad (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan108, you're missing the point. Every single sentence in Wikipedia must be verifiable. So you want to include a statement that there's no basis for the scientists' conclusions. Fine: Just point us at the independent, published reliable source that says that there's no basis. We must have a source. In the absence of a source -- if, for example, the reasoning is, "I don't know of any basis, and my personal ignorance of any basis proves that no basis exists" -- then we have a direct violation of WP:NOR and we cannot include the statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't make up an idea and then demand that other people conduct studies to disprove it. Surprisingly, that's not how science works. If you want your claims to be accepted by the scientific community, then you need to produce convincing empiric evidence to support them. In this case, every scientific and medical body that has examined this question has found no scientific evidence that bra use causes breast cancer. Ample citations are provided in the article. End. of. story.

Incidentally, Jonathan108, please consider this an official notification of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, particularly the associated discretionary sanctions. Given recurrent problems with these areas on Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee has promulgated discretionary sanctions, meaning that editors who repeatedly and seriously fail to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and principles may be sanctioned. I believe that constant, laserlike advocacy for this particular fringe belief, at the expense of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, undue weight, and original research, constitutes an abuse of Wikipedia. If it continues, I'll probably see if anyone at WP:AE agrees with me. MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoting the CANSA article by Martha Molete

The criticsms quote the website of CANSA in South Africa, written by their communications officer Martha Molete (a history graduate ^[1] ). In this article Molete quotes liberally from this now anonymous Amazon review ^[2] and attributes it to Elizabeth Cates Ph.D. Google found me a Dr Cates, with a PhD in Chemistry, who has suffered from cancer and has, interestingly, set up a company called Invenca "Invenca's products are going to help speed up discovery and production of new clinical therapies". Could this be the same Elizabeth Cates? ^[3]

I'd be interested to know why the Amazon review is now anonymous and whether I have found the right Dr Cates. 88.217.57.238 (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Molete article is a reliable source because it appears on a professional organization dedicated to cancer research. The molete article nicely encapsulates other criticisms published in parallel including those in Scientific American.Mattnad (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

kind of POV for me (but hey thats just me)

as someone who has not read the book, reading the article made it seem like the guy who wrote it is trying to convince me not to read the book. it seemed almost condescending at times. the words "they claim" "argue that" "claim to have noticed" "interperet" just seem really down on the authors. also having the links "fringe theory" "pseudoscience" and "junk science" just seems like too much for me. i think some better links might be "cancer" "bras" "breast cancer". also the part that says that the authors claim breast cancer is "not a problem" in non-western cultures seems like you're putting words into their mouth. "not a problem" might not be the best choice of words, because i'm sure it's a problem to whoever has it. on the other hand, if that is a direct quote it'd be good to be there. it would be nice to have some actual quotes from the book rather than a summary that looks like some 17 year old threw together a few days before he had to turn in some report at school.

NO HARD FEELINGS BROS. I LOVE YOU ALL ALOT AND I HOPE NONE OF YOU GET BREAST CANCER! peace, much love, dallon j —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.225.121.180 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Never read the book but this article definitely needs to be improved. It's packed with primary research NestedVariable (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Nov. 2012

Hi there. I am in the healthcare field and know about the research of Singer and Grismaijer. I am trying to make some changes to the article and the changes are rejected.

1. The original publication information is wrong. This was not self published. IT was published by Avery Publishing Group in 1995, which was acquired by Penguin Putnam in 1998. ISCD Press is the current publisher of the 2005 edition.

2. The About the Authors section discusses in very poor way their other titles, and misrepresents their contents. The presentation is very biased against these authors, and has nothing to do with Dressed To Kill, which is the subject of this entry. I think the paragraph describing their other books be deleted or reference the books at the bottom, but don't present these books contents here. It seems this section tried to discredit the authors. Even the reference to the coqui frogs as "invasive, non-native" is irrelevant to Dressed To Kill, and clearly is designed to make the authors seem weird or wacko.

3. Molete is not a physician, and there is no reason why her comments are acceptable as true. The link to her page is not working. And the statements she makes are not true, such as lack of proof that the pressure exerted by a bra reduces the flow of lymph. Any lymphatics expert will tell you otherwise, and cancer experts advise women not to wear tight bras to prevent lymphoedema. Her other comments are also flawed.

4. No Supporting Research section is wrong. The 1991 Harvard study mentioned in the next section shows there is support. While the conclusion of the researchers tried to explain another reason for the 50% reduced incidence of breast cancer for braless women, the data showed a big link. This should be considered supporting research. It should also be made clear that there are no studies that have been done that refute the bra/cancer link. I believe these changes make this entry more accurate and unbiased. I will try again to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthforachange (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A lot of this has been discussed in the past but I'll address your comments:

Go ahead and add the original publication, but currently the book is self published by the authors under their ISCD press name.
The about the authors section is there to provide some background on them because they are not notable enough to have their own article outside of this book. If you feel the content can be clarified, please offer improvements. Regarding the detail on the coqui frog, is that inaccurate? My understanding is that it is not native to Hawaii and there are efforts to eradicate it. [3]
Re: Molete - not sure what her profession has to do with it. She was writing on the behalf of a Cancer Society. That's the authority. However, if being a physician is requirement for doing breast cancer research, then neither author of the book qualify. Furthermore, Molete's review is supported by the American Cancer Society, the Nation Institutes of Heath, and others with more scientific background than you or I have.
"Supporting research" means a study that suggests causation, not just a weak correlation. The Harvard Study was explicit that cancer causation was most likely obesity and breast size which are know risk factors. The article already provides a detailed explanation of this study in the criticism section.Mattnad (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"Don't wear a tight bra to prevent lymphedema (now that we've surgically removed all your lymph nodes)" is rather different from "don't wear a properly fitting bra to prevent cancer".

Yes, the stuff about the frogs is accurate (or was, as of source date). They apparently hold a number of minority views.

As a point of sourcing policy, we can't say "no studies refute their theory" unless we have an independent, published reliable source that directly makes a statement like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

POV edits to this article

WP admins, the next time you decide to do to an article like one of you just did here, at least buy the article's subject some dinner first. Removing all the supporting text and then adding synthesis in POV language might be going a little too far. We're not supposed to take sides on an issue, remember? Interesting to see a WP admin not even bothering to follow the NPOV policy when editing an article. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, using any source to counterargue against this book's claims that doesn't actually mention the book violates WP:SYN. This means that most of the sources being used against the book probably should be removed in order to get this article in line with our policies and guidelines. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not WP:Syn to include a source that directly addresses bras and cancer. Just because the book is not mentioned does not preclude reliable sources that comment on the core arguments of the book.Mattnad (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dressed to Kill (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925142256/http://www.cancer.org:80/docroot/MED/content/MED_6_1x_Underwire_Bras.asp?sitearea=MED to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_6_1x_Underwire_Bras.asp?sitearea=MED

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Self publishing

I've removed the self publishing remark. Two issues here: 1) To say something is self published may be OR in itself. 2) The book is published by Avery group. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There is an older Avery edition, but now all of their books are published by ISCD press which is part of the self study center [4], their organization.Mattnad (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Singer on this topic, "Our original publisher, Avery, was purchased by giant Penguin Putnam in 1998. The new publisher did not list the book for three years and refused to revert publication rights to the copywrite holders, Singer and Grismaijer. The book was virtually unavailable, and it was thought to have gone out of print. Finally, after repeated requests, the publishing rights were released to us in October, 2001. (ISCD Press has been keeping it in print since then.)" Here's the link (you'll need to add http: etc. since Ezine is blacklisted for spamming): ezinearticles.com/?Bras-and-the-Breast-Cancer-Cover-Up&id=795041

It's clearly self-published.Mattnad (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this book is clearly being self-published, but Mattnad, that's a lousy source. I'd almost rather see something from *.about.com (another source of self-published "articles"). I'm not convinced that it needs a source; I remember that it didn't take very long to discover its self-published status in the first place, and presumably our readers are just as good at talking to Mr Google as I am. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This was more for the talk page. I figured those editors claiming bias could hardly disagree with the author himself. It's not needed for the article and I didn't add it there. Mattnad (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As primarily a reader vs. editor of wiki, I noticed a slight anti-outsider view bias in this article. The "self-published" decision is one of the additions that seem obviously included to weaken the authors' credibility. Either include the full publishing background of the book or not at all. I say leave it out - it is very tangential. Let me make it clear that I have no opinion on whether the association the authors propose is correct or not (how can I when no appropriate study has been done to either support or refute their hypothesis?), I just felt distaste for the way the article was written. The bias is slight, but palpable. 96.46.199.15 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That they are self published is a comment to qualify their work. This is relevant in that they present their findings as scientific but have not been published in any peer reviewed journals. Likewise, no non-scientific publisher is willing to promote their book. In Wikipidia, we treat self-published sources with caution. Quoting the guidelines:

"Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[1] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[2]"

I will restore the detail.Mattnad (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the self-publication note. As outlined in the discussion above the original book was not self-published. The next version was published by ISCD which was the rationale for including the self-publishing comment. But the latest edition is published by Square One Publishers. naturist (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary Section Needs Work

I think simply reversing all of my changes is a bit insulting to the effort I made to make the article more factual. If someone wishes to reverse what I wrote, I think they need to justify each change instead of doing a wholesale reversal. Here are my rationales for my changes:

- The book (which I have read) reports on research that finds a correlation. The causal relationship is the authors' hypothesis. To lump the two together is not accurate.

- The cited works only provide evidence of those two organizations having dismissed it. (albeit important organizations) To claim a larger consensus would require more sources in my opinion.

I am therefore restoring my changes. naturist (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There has been at least 1 large, well-conducted study (from 2014, cited in the article) debunking the claims in the book, which were poorly supported to begin with. Major medical bodies are unanimous in finding the book's claims untrue. We have a responsibility to the reader to provide accurate, honest information - especially on a topic as important and sensitive as cancer risk factors. In that context, I am not okay with your efforts to promote the book's claims and to downplay the unanimous view of reputable scientific bodies that its claims are false. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell. This book promotes an idea that has been repeatedly debunked. The article should accurately communicate this reality to the Wikipedia reader. On a subject that is as lopsided as this one, an "even-Steven" approach to "let the reader make up his own mind" does not comply with the WP:NPOV policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Questioning the application of WP:MEDRS in the synopsis section of an article on a book; major improvements completely wiped out

Mastcell, rather than start an edit war, I'd appreciate a discussion on the obliteration you have done to the changes I have made in this article, which I believe were improvements on revealing the true content of the book. I recognize you and WhatamIdoing are major contributors to WP:MEDRS and I support your objectives to ensure Wikipedia does not become a source for false information. I do assume we all want to present as much truth as possible in an unbiased way. And we must do it through reliable sources and follow the WP guidelines established for writing articles. With that in mind, here are my points I would like to discuss.

Your edit summary descriptions for why you keep reverting edits from others trying to improve the article by including material either cited directly in the book or related to the book makes me believe you view this article as a general article on bras and the link to breast cancer. If that was the case, I am more likely to be in support of many of your comments relative to WP:MEDRS. However, this is an article about a book which talks about that topic. Like all book articles, it includes a synopsis section. As editors, we have a responsibility to present an unbiased view of the book and its contents, and not on the general topic it discusses.

I see in the following FA ad GA book articles, there is ample material directly presenting the author's opinion or specifically what they wrote on their topic in the book.

These other GA media articles also support my opinion that the topic of the article is allowed to be presented as it is published irrespective of criticisms of the content.

An Inconvenient Truth

What is consistent is that none of these articles are restricted from presenting anything that is covered in the book in the synopsis section.

I will also point out The Bell Curve (you are likely aware of this one) is another book with a similarly controversial topic at the core of the book. The entire first section of the article titled Synopsis covers just that, a synopsis of the book showing all the key points of the book, including a table of IQ levels for different economic and social criteria. Numerous entries in that section cite the book itself. This article is subject to active arbitration remedies to ensure WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, & WP:PSTS (which you are likely already aware).

If you believe this discussion should be taken to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (or any other location you recommend), I'd be happy to do so.

To my specific concerns in Dressed to Kill:

1. You removed the new section discussing all the studies noted in the book. You said "absolutely not; this is a canonical violation of WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT; we *cannot* misinform readers and scare them by making it sound like this book's claims have significant scientific support when there is, in fact, a clear scientific consensus that bras don't cause breast cancer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dressed_to_Kill_(book)&diff=next&oldid=850563204

My concern is that the article is about the book and 100% of that synopsis material is in the book. Each of those studies was discussed in the book. If other FA and GA book articles include content presented by the author of the book, then this is no different.

But even in the case that WP:MEDRS applied directly to what an author says in the book about which the article is written, in all but one case, the studies listed were other studies not conducted by the book's authors. Dressed to Kill is, therefore, a secondary source for those studies. I see in Review article "The concept of "review article" is separate from the concept of peer-reviewed literature. It is possible for a review article itself to be peer-reviewed or non-peer-reviewed." I see nothing that says a book cannot serve as a review article and therefore a secondary source.

Secondary source says: "...a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere...A secondary source is one that gives information about a primary source. These sources contain second hand [sic] information that has already appeared in primary documents."

All of the studies (excluding the 1995 Singer & Grismaijer study) included source links to the primary research shown in the book and confirmed with direct searches for those studies.

But since I contend WP:MEDRS does not apply to the book about which an article is written for the synopsis section, I request all of the entries I added which were cited in the book be restored.

Your systematic reversal of the changes in that one prior edit also made the following unsubstantiated changes. I would request that each of them be returned to the article, or explain why you reverted them.

1. Removed my newly added inline citations - you removed a number of additional inline citations I added that point to the specific pages of the book that make each point as is recommended WP practice in controversial topics.

2. WP:CLAIM - you removed the changes I made around the WP:CLAIM fixes I made. Possibly you or others have reverted similar edits to this article in the past as well. Is there a reason you are violating this WP:MOS guideline? This also seems to violate WP:IMPARTIAL.

3. Author name order - you reverted all the corrections I made to fix the order of the authors to match the actual books in numerous entries.

4. Specific values with citations removed - you reverted what appears to be multiple clarifications I made to values from generalizations to more specific values with page citations to confirm them.

5. Word change (course > flow) for improved understanding - you reverted an improvement I made to a word choice that was confusing with the use of "course" and I replaced it with "flow", thereby eliminating the confusion.

6. Removal of book content and subsequent over simplification - you reverted my improvement of a prior point from:

Among the many results reported from their study, they said that women who wore a bra 24 hours a day were 125 times more likely to develop breast cancer than women who were bra-free.^[4] Those women who wore their bra more than 12 hours, but not to bed were associated with a lower instance of cancer, but much higher than the bra-free women.^[4] Their study also said that bra-free women have about the same incidence of breast cancer as men.^[5]

References

to:

They argue that women who wear a bra 24 hours a day are 125 times more likely to have breast cancer than women who are bra-free. Their study also claims that bra-free women have about the same incidence of breast cancer as men.

I don't believe this over simplification was needed.

7. Removal of author's content without explanation - you removed the following content with inline citations from the book in the synopsis section with an edit summary of "amend". I believe that content is relevant to the context of discussing the book. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dressed_to_Kill_(book)&diff=next&oldid=850583544

In addition, they state carcinogenic substances that we take into our bodies through petrochemically polluted food, air, and water flow throughout the body, including the breast tissue, need to be flushed from the tissues by the lymphatic system.

8. ACS site quotation change - The original ACS entry used a quote from their website from a web archive. I found a current quote from their website. You reverted my change to show the old quote in the main page and then added the current quote as a footnote in the references with an explanation of "fix acs ref". It appears you now have an actual quote for the ACS with no link to a source showing it. Why would you change what I improved with a more current quote?

9. Removal of lung cancer reference - you removed an entry based on the book itself with the following edit summary "rm; this isn't true and would require a better source" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dressed_to_Kill_(book)&diff=next&oldid=850585052

To dismiss critics of their work, they claim the mainstream medical organizations all denied the link between smoking and lung cancer for decades after the initial research was published.

That reference used an inline citation of the book with pages 146-148 (before your initial revert). How is the book itself not a good enough source for discussing something said in the book in the synopsis section? And if they said it in the book, why are you saying it is not true?

10. Self Publishing - The second edition of Dressed to Kill is traditionally published by Square One Publishers. The original first edition was traditionally published by Avery Press. There was a short time that the first edition was self-published and that was explained previously by another editor. The fact that it is currently in print in its second edition with a traditional publisher should overrule any mention of being self-published. Also, the current sentence says "After self-publishing Dressed to Kill, Singer and Grismaijer wrote..." That is not even accurate for the time they were self-published. They self published in either 2002 or 2006 (it is unclear from their ISCD printed version copyright information). Their other books were all published before 2002. So the true statement would be "After publishing Dressed to Kill, Singer and Grismaijer wrote..." because before 2002 the only version of the book available was the Avery Press traditionally published version not the self-published version.

11. Removal of Maori of New Zealand and Westernized cultures - you removed this content that was discussed in the book with the following edit summary: "rm; we have to be careful about uncritically repeating dubious claims from the book, given its poor reception by reputable sources) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dressed_to_Kill_(book)&diff=next&oldid=850585115 The original citation included the inline source from the book where they made that statement as included in the synopsis section. How is that a repeat of anything in the article? Again, I see other FA and GA book and media articles which include what the author/writer says in their book/media regardless of the reception. See initial disagreement over carrying WP:MEDRS restriction to the author of the book on which the article is based in the synopsis section.

I appreciate your consideration of my points and look forward to the restoration of these reverted items if you agree with my opinion. I'm happy to do that for you if that is more convenient. § Music Sorter § (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Well... I am generally biased towards trying to keep something from anyone who contributes to an article, but, wow: those edits are really misleading. Consider this sentence, which was proposed for the first paragraph: "Support for the bra-cancer link is mixed. Since the original publication of the book, additional studies around the world have been conducted which support the link, while others state more research is needed."

Candidly – and I'm sure this isn't intentional - this sounds like something straight out of the authors' publicity campaign materials. I mean, really: a couple of cherry-picked "additional studies support the link" – cited to the authors themselves, who could hardly be an unbiased, or even competent, source of information – and "more research is needed" for the opposite POV? What happened to the fact that every major scientific organization says this idea is factually wrong? Seriously, this idea, which basically originated with these two, gets described under titles like "Ridiculous Claim of the Week: Bras Can Cause Cancer" and "The unsinkable rubber duck of a myth" and "One more time: No, wearing a bra does not cause breast cancer". (I recommend reading every single paragraph in all three of those links.) Where's that POV in this sentence? The mainstream medical POV isn't that there's something worth investigating here; it's that these non-scientists had an interesting idea based on very limited field research, it didn't happen to pan out, and if they were actually scientists rather than social studies people, they'd stop pushing this idea and try to come up with another idea.

And just in case it's not clear what I mean by "very limited field research", let me explain: Counting up who self-reports bra-wearing and who doesn't is an okay place to start, but it's just not enough. You need to also count up who has any of the known risk factors and who doesn't, including, to name only a few: who has adopted, right along with their Western clothing, the high-sugar, high-fat Western diet, the Western levels of alcohol consumption (a factor that single-handedly causes 16% of breast cancer in developed countries!), the Western use of tobacco, the higher Western age at first birth, the lower Western number of pregnancies, the limited Western engagement in breastfeeding, the Western use of hormonal contraceptives, the Western sedentary lifestyle, and the Western overconsumption of food. Oh, and the Western tendency for most women to survive past menopause (because if you die from complications of childbirth or diarrhea or pneumonia or injuries when you're young, then you tend not to develop breast cancer) and the Western tendency to get screened for, and therefore diagnosed with, breast cancer – and to know that it's actually breast cancer, and not, e.g., melanoma or lymphoma or lung cancer that is first noticed when it spreads to the breast. Like I said: "very limited field research", and completely inadequate for sustaining this hypothesis. A hypothesis, by the way, that seems to have started with a Fijian woman asking his wife whether her ill-fitting bra was comfortable, and their research was mostly conducted in an ethnic group where most women died before the average age that breast cancer strikes, and where "non-Westernized" women usually died substantially before the "Westernized" ones. This is hardly a convincing basis for their claim, and in the end, their beautiful theory has been destroyed by some ugly facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Basically, what she said. To be clear, my overriding motivation is ensuring that people visiting this site are accurately informed, or at least not actively misinformed, about medical issues. The central claim of this book—that bra-wearing causes breast cancer—has been pretty conclusively debunked and rejected by reputable researchers and medical bodies. I found your edits extremely misleading because they sought to "teach the controversy" where none actually exists. If someone reads this article and goes away thinking that bra-wearing caused their breast cancer, or is increasing their risk of developing breast cancer, then we've failed in a pretty basic ethical responsibility.

To take your specific points:

Words like "claimed" are completely appropriate in cases where a claim has been substantially debunked or shown to be false. This is such a case.
Author name order: if you'd like to switch the author name order back, go ahead. I don't feel strongly about it.
Self-publishing: If you think this is incorrect then I'm fine with removing the words "self-published".

Generally, when we summarize the book's content, we should do so using reliable secondary sources to identify points of emphasis. If we just pick ideas from the book and string them together into a synopsis, then we run the risk of original research. After all, I might choose one set of quotes/claims from the book to emphasize, and you might choose another. The best solution to this dilemma is to rely on summaries of the book's content from independent, reliable secondary sources, which is what my edits aimed to do. MastCell ^Talk 00:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

MastCell (and WhatamIdoing),

Thanks for replying and explaining your edits and perspective on this article.

Author Name order - I appreciate that you will not resist my correcting the author name order to that which is printed in the book. I will make those changes.
Self-Publishing - I appreciate that you will not resist my correcting the facts around the self-publishing entry. I will make those changes.

Mastcell, to my initial comments, I listed 11 points of concern for my edits which were reverted with confusing, little, or no edit summary explaining the removal, but you only responded to a few of them. If you want, I can relist each of them which you have not responded, but I would sincerely appreciate a brief summary on each of the remaining unanswered questions from the original 11. I look forward to your response on any of these items for which you believe I am wrong and without WP guidelines or MoS support.

Also, I’m not judging or saying it is a requirement, but did either of you actually read the book to better understand what the authors are contending in order to comment on any summary of the book? I'm not proposing original research, but I am proposing we follow the WP guidelines. I am concerned that you both seem to have a very biased opinion on this topic solely based on the commentary from the critics you seem to be citing. In the review to Delete the page in 2008, MastCell called it "notable nonsense." I would argue that is a very biased statement and may cause question as to the neutrality of any edits from someone with that opinion.

WP:CLAIM - MastCell, you said: "Words like "claimed" are completely appropriate in cases where a claim has been substantially debunked or shown to be false. This is such a case." I have reviewed all the WP guidelines and I have not seen that reference. What is your WP source for that statement? Also, under what criteria has this claim been substantially debunked or shown to be false? If you read through the rest of this post, you will see my opinion that there is substantially more support for the claim than not. But it is certainly not debunked based on everything I have seen so far. The ACS statement in the article addressing this issue states, "There is no good scientific or clinical basis for this claim, and a 2014 study of more than 1,500 women found no association between wearing a bra and breast cancer risk.” Of course, one study does not debunk an issue, especially when there are numerous studies which show an association. The NCI statement in the article is, "Breast implants, using antiperspirants, and wearing underwire bras do not increase the risk for breast cancer.” This is merely a statement, and with no justification or citations to support their statement. Medical theories are not “substantially debunked” by statements of opinion and one study.

Book Summary/Synopsis - MastCell, you said a few things I wanted to discuss further. You said:

"...ensuring that people visiting this site are accurately informed, or at least not actively misinformed, about medical issues."
"The book has been conclusively debunked and rejected by reputable researchers and medical bodies."
"The edits sought to "teach the controversy" where none actually exists."
"If someone reads this article and goes away thinking that bra-wearing caused their breast cancer, or is increasing their risk of developing breast cancer, then we've failed in a pretty basic ethical responsibility.”

These comments suggest you want to censor this book, presumably to protect the public from what you consider medical misinformation. That is not our role as editors according to WP:NOTCENSORED.

I contend that this article is a review of the book Dressed to Kill. I also contend this is clearly a controversial issue and must follow the same WP policies and MoS that the other previously noted controversial books follow. Assuming you agree this book covers a controversial topic, I point to WP:CONTROVERSY. In the first section we are asked to "Describe the controversy": "Next, the article should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Where a person or organization has released published statements about their aims or objectives, these can be summarized for the reader". Well, this is easy enough. They wrote a book about their theory. It seems we should be stating their view and using the book as the source of that information.

While this WP entry is a book review, not a public debate, it needs to show both sides of the debate/controversy, not just the opposition. Critics of the book argue that there are no scientific studies which support the link. However, the authors wrote in the book about quite a few studies which support the link that were conducted before and after their own studies. I have found no WP guideline or MoS entry that supports omitting the “evidence” that the authors use to claim support for their theory/notion/idea. I have found no WP guideline or MoS entry that says a book summary must come from a secondary source to identify points of emphasis.

Therefore, I believe it is very relevant and non-controversial from either perspective to include in the summary all the studies identified in the book. In the critic section, we would then add any other rebuttals from critics. That is how all the other controversial book articles are written that I linked for your review in the original post. If you are concerned that I would somehow cherry pick ideas from the book that would only have one perspective and you would have a different one, then, by all means, add any other relevant material to the synopsis that you believe is relevant. At this point, I think the studies are key and should be included as I entered them before you removed them.

As a reminder, here is what I added to the synopsis. The numbers are references to the now removed citations of the book page and the actual study, article, and patent that are all noted in the book:

Covered by the book
The following studies, medical articles, and patents were discussed in the second edition of Dressed to Kill. The majority of them either indicate a positive link between wearing a bra and breast cancer or recommend further investigation.

1929 - Dr. W. Sampson Handley told the British Medical Association that he believed "the origin of cancer is intimately associated with local obstruction of the lymph vessels in the area where the cancer arises."[14][15]
1931 - Dr. William Mayo published an article that reasoned "cancer of the breast occurs largely among civilized women. In those countries where breasts are allowed to be exposed, that is, are not compressed or irritated by clothing, it is rare.”[16][17]
1939 - Dr. M.A.R. Young published an article discussing a study of the rarity of breast cancer in Ukrainian women living in Canada. He surmised that both increased lactation and non-constrictive clothing contribute to this state and suggested further study of the Canadian-born Ukranian women.[16][18]
1942 - Catherine Elberfeld was granted a patent for a new bra design which stated one of the objectives of the design was "to permit easy breathing and to avoid cutting or chafing, which might give rise to cancer or other serious trouble."[16][19]
1950 - Henry Plehn was granted a patent for an improved bra design which noted "Even in the proper breast size, most brassieres envelop or bind the breast in such a fashion that normal circulation and freedom of movement is constricted. Many cases of breast cancer have been attributed to such breast constriction as caused by improperly fitted brassires [sic]."[16][20]
1991 - CC Hsieh, D Trichopoulos published results from their study which found, “Premenopausal women who do not wear bras had half the risk of breast cancer compared with bra users (P about 0.09), possibly because they are thinner and likely to have smaller breasts.”[16][21]
1995 - Sydney Singer and Soma Grismaijer published the results of their US study of 4,720 women which proposed a link between bras and breast cancer, recommending further study is warranted.[22]
1996 - Dr. Michael Schachter wrote that poor lymphatic drainage may play a role in breast cancer formation. "The nature of the bra, the tightness, and the length of time worn, will all influence the degree of blockage of lymphatic drainage. Thus, wearing a bra might contribute to the development of breast cancer as a result of cutting off lymphatic drainage, so that toxic chemicals are trapped in the breast."[23][24]
2000 - Sydney Singer and Soma Grismaijer published a follow-up study of 28 Fijian women with breast cancer noting that all of them wore bras in a country were roughly 50% of all women wore bras.[25][26]
2009 - A Chinese study of women investigating the risk factors for breast cancer found bras with underwires and sleeping in a bra had a positive relationship to breast cancer development.[27][28]
2009 - Ted Gansler of the American Cancer Society published a letter to the editor[29] noting that results from a National Cancer Institute study of armpit lymph node removal as part of melanoma treatment:[30] "The surgery, which is known to block lymph drainage from breast tissue, did not detectably increase breast cancer rates, the study found, meaning that it is extremely unlikely that wearing a bra, which affects lymph flow minimally if at all, would do so."[31] In response to the study, Singer noted three concerns. First, bras harm the breasts over decades, not the ten years or less for each patient in this study. Second, the study said that the lack of increase in breast cancer incidences was statistically insignificant to be conclusive. Third, skin cancer rates increased by 700% indicating a link between lymphatic impairment and cancer.[29]
2009 - Dr. Arunachalam Kumar published an article that hypothesizes that heating of the breasts by bras causes breast cancer.[32][33]
2011 - Marcos Eduardo Quijada Stanovich published his study of 73 women concluded that wearing a bra for more than 12 hours per day increased the chances of breast cancer.[32][34]
2014 - Lu Chen, et al., at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center conducted a study funded by the National Cancer Institute to review the bra wearing habits and breast cancer risk of 1,513 postmenopausal women. Their study found "no aspect of bra wearing, including bra cup size, recency, average number of hours a day worn, wearing a bra with an underwire, or age first began regularly wearing a bra, was associated with risks" of breast cancer.[35] The study included a detailed examination of women's lifestyle and bra-wearing habits and found no correlation between bra use and cancer.[31][36] The study also noted it did not compare women who wear a bra to women who do not wear a bra.[35] Singer noted the exclusion of women under 55 and lacking a control group of bra-free women made this study similar to examining lung cancer among smokers without a non-smoking control group, only looking at lifetime smokers, and concluding smoking has no effect on lung cancer.[37]
2015 - N. A. Othieno-Abinya, et al., at the University of Nairobi, Kenya, studied 694 women to look at known risk factors associated with breast cancer. They found, "Women who wore brassieres all the time, even when in bed were significantly associated with breast cancer occurrence as compared with those who never wore brassieres, or those whom only did so on important occasions (p<0.001).”[32][38]
2015 - Winnie KW So, et al., at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, studied 12 prior studies on breast cancer and bra use and determined bra wearing during sleep was associated with a 100% increase in breast cancer probability but further research was needed to draw reliable conclusions about bra use during waking hours.[25][39]
2016 - Salete da Silva, et. al., studied 304 women looking at the number of hours women wore a bra and the percentage of stretch of that bra and found, "a correlation between wearing a tight bra for several hours per day and an increased risk of developing breast cancer.”[32][40]
2016 - Dr. Parvis Gamagami published a book based on his 50 years of medical expertise observing over 350,000 mammograms. He reported 20%-30% of breast cancer cases developed in a semi-circular line around the breast where the bra underwire presses hard, convincing him that bras can provoke breast cancer.[32][41]

Published after the book
The following related article was released after the second edition of Dressed to Kill was published.

2018 - Sydney Singer published an article discussing the link between lymph stasis and cancer[42][43] and how constriction from the bra is likely contributing to the lymph stasis and increasing the incidence of breast cancer. He recommended further study.[44]

This list above is not a cherry-picked list of studies. These are all the studies listed in the book either supporting the link or saying there is no link. If there are other studies that disprove (or prove) this link, please show me. I have searched for any other studies, and I have found none. I only find articles from critics which:

Cite the 2014 Hutch study,
Are the opinions of the author of the article critical of the bra-breast cancer link, or
Are the opinions of a cancer professional or a doctor interviewed in the article critical of the bra-breast cancer link.

Note that I certainly respect the opinions of doctors and researchers, but I do so on both sides of any debate as I try to understand the facts.

As stated earlier, I only found the 2014 Fred Hutch/Lu Chen study, that the anti-cancer link advocates always discuss, that has any statement concluding that their (Hutch) study disproves the link between bras and breast cancer. However, that study also includes a statement in their section on study limitations that they did not include any control group of women who don't wear bras. They said that bra wearing was too ubiquitous to find any women who didn't wear bras. That sounds pretty strange given that we have three sources on Bra#Usage that claim it is somewhere between 5 and 25%. The other studies noted that they were able to find the non-bra wearing women for their studies. So why is a study focused on debunking a claim of the bra and breast cancer link not considering any women who never wore a bra? If you only look at bra-wearing women, how can you conclude the impact of bra use if 100% of all the women in the study were subject to the very article for which they were trying to disprove an association? This is why there are control groups in scientific studies.

By analogy, let’s say we will determine if drinking alcohol can lead to a driving accident by doing a study similar to this Hutchinson study. We set up a study to only test drunk drivers and ask them how many drinks they typically have before driving drunk, and see if there is an association with the number of drinks consumed and the incidence of accidents from drunk driving. We see that some drunk drivers crash (some bra-wearers get cancer) and others don't (some bra wearers don't get cancer), and it doesn’t seem to matter if they had three, four or five drinks before driving drunk. We therefore conclude that alcohol was not a contributing factor in crashes for drunk drivers. Hopefully, it is clear to everyone that the test fails to include a control group of non-drunk drivers by which you can compare the ratio of drunk accidents vs. non-drunk accidents. I think most high school science students would understand this problem.

The only other “study” used by anti-cancer link advocates to discredit the link was not peer-reviewed and was not directly about the bra issue. It was a letter to the editor written by Ted Gansler of the ACS, discussing his analysis of NCI data regarding melanoma patients who had had lymph nodes removed. Ted Gansler wrote a letter with his opinion of the study. He said, "The surgery, which is known to block lymph drainage from breast tissue, did not detectably increase breast cancer rates, the study found, meaning that it is extremely unlikely that wearing a bra, which affects lymph flow minimally if at all, would do so." The book noted three concerns with Ted Gansler assertation. First, bras harm the breasts over decades, not the ten years or less for each patient in this study. Second, the study said that the lack of increase in breast cancer incidences was statistically insignificant to be conclusive. Third, skin cancer rates increased by 700% indicating a link between lymphatic impairment and cancer.

Besides this letter and the Hutch study, there are no other studies that are used to refute the link. Do you know of any others?

I have seen reports, and WhatamIdoing has commented, that the Singer/Grismaijer study was flawed because it did not account for other known causes of cancer. The authors argue in the book that certain factors that would not affect bra usage could be excluded, because these factors should be the same for the different groups being studied. The authors state in the book that number of children, for example, which is related to breast cancer risk, was not included in their study because it was not relevant to bra wearing attitudes and behaviors, which is what the authors were studying. However, while number of children was excluded, they did study whether the women breastfed, which the authors state is a relevant factor that could affect bra usage. I would like to also note that this criticism of not including all variables and factors can be made against any study, since all studies necessarily limit their scope to relevant factors/variables, and there are always unknown factors/variables that may affect results. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that, if the authors are correct in their claim about bras causing cancer, then this criticism of ignoring relevant variables/factors could also be leveled against breast cancer research that has ignored bra usage.

WhatamIdoing - You said "A hypothesis, by the way, that seems to have started with a Fijian woman asking his wife whether her ill-fitting bra was comfortable, and their research was mostly conducted in an ethnic group where most women died before the average age that breast cancer strikes, and where "non-Westernized" women usually died substantially before the "Westernized" ones. This is hardly a convincing basis for their claim, and in the end, their beautiful theory has been destroyed by some ugly facts." If you stop reading the book on page 5, you might draw that conclusion. But if you read on, you will find that the study on which the authors wrote the book is completely different from what you may have been led to believe. Their study was discussed on page 78 (2nd ed) and says their study included:

5 major cities across the US (SF, Denver, Phoenix, Dallas, & NY).
Exclusively caucasian women to keep the study population as consistent as possible.
4,730 women; approx 400 women per city who had been diagnosed with breast cancer & approx 500 women who had no known diagnosis of breast cancer.

Even if you believe the anti-cancer link advocates who say the Singer/Grismaijer 1995 study is flawed, how can you ignore the other studies? (These are all in the book and I had full inline citations from the book and each of the studies.)

1991 - CC Hsieh - study - “Premenopausal women who do not wear bras had half the risk of breast cancer compared with bra users (P about 0.09), possibly because they are thinner and likely to have smaller breasts.”
2000 - Singer and Grismaijer - follow-up study - 28 Fijian women with breast cancer; 100% of them wore bras in a country were roughly 50% of all women wore bras.
2009 - Chinese study - "bras with underwires and sleeping in a bra had a positive relationship to breast cancer development."
2011 - Marcos Eduardo Quijada Stanovich - study - wearing a bra for more than 12 hours per day increased the chances of breast cancer.
2015 - N. A. Othieno-Abinya - study - "Women who wore brassieres all the time, even when in bed were significantly associated with breast cancer occurrence as compared with those who never wore brassieres, or those whom only did so on important occasions (p<0.001).”
2015 - Winnie KW So - secondary source study - studied 12 prior studies on breast cancer and bra use and determined bra wearing during sleep was associated with a 100% increase in breast cancer probability but further research was needed to draw reliable conclusions about bra use during waking hours.
2016 - Salete da Silva - study - found "a correlation between wearing a tight bra for several hours per day and an increased risk of developing breast cancer.”
2016 - Dr. Parvis Gamagami - study - 20%-30% of breast cancer cases developed in a semi-circular line around the breast where the bra underwire presses hard, convincing him that bras can provoke breast cancer.

I count 8 other studies all noted in the book that show a link between bra wearing and breast cancer. I have not seen any evidence to say all these studies are wrong. Aside from the 2014 Fred Hutch study (with the comments noted earlier), I have not seen any other studies that say they disprove the bra-breast cancer link. I don't believe that any scientist or doctor would ever contend that a single study could adequately disprove any theory.

So, therefore, I think my originally proposed introductory paragraph adjustment is appropriate given the evidence available to us as editors creating an unbiased book review synopsis based on what is in the book. But WhatamIdoing's comment that my addition is not appropriate and very one-sided did not include the rest of the paragraph, which shows the original two organizations that dismiss the claim. Together it appears we have both sides of the story. The support for the claim is in fact mixed. 8 studies say there is a link and one study says there is not. To be honest, I think this intro paragraph is very appropriate given the known studies. "Support for the bra-cancer link is mixed. Since the original publication of the book, additional studies around the world have been conducted which support the link,[2] while others state more research is needed.[2][3] Some major medical and cancer organizations, including the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society, dismiss the claim as unsubstantiated.[4][5]"

As for the links provided by WhatamIdoing, I read each link clear through to the end as requested and found the following:

-- Dr. David Gorski - Opinion - Many of his blog entries start with quackery in the first paragraph. After reading a few of the posts on Sciencebasedmedicine.org, read this for another perspective. May I ask that you read this one through to the end as I did for yours? https://www.selfhacked.com/blog/a-critical-review-of-science-based-medicine/

-- Orac - Unsinkable rubber duck - Opinion (same blog with another name) - This entry is a carbon copy of David Gorski that was originally posted just two days later. Is there a reason for showing the same identical content as another entry when it is clearly the same blog at a different site?

-- Evan Bernstein - Opinion - Cited Dr. David Gorski to refute the Gwyneth Paltrow/Goop article supporting the Bra/Cancer link.

I look forward to your response on any of these items for which you believe I am wrong and without WP guidelines or MoS support.

§ Music Sorter § (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, a 23,919 byte comment? Your arguments would be much more effective if you could present them in a more direct and concise way. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I've spent more than 10 years here explaining the basics of how science works to editors who are angry about Wikipedia's treatment of dubious health claims. I don't really have the patience to do so anymore. WhatamIdoing has done a good job of explaining the basic fallacies underlying the claims in this book. One of my colleagues actually uses this book's claims to illustrate the impact of unmeasured confounders and sloppy thinking in an introductory course on clinical statistics; maybe I can just find a link to one of her lectures to forward to you.

In any case, the key is understanding how the book's claims have been viewed by credible, reputable, knowledgeable bodies. It seems clear that:

No reputable major medical body considers bra use to be a risk factor for breast cancer; and
The two most prominent and credible expert bodies on cancer in the US (the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society) both explicitly say that bra use is not a risk factor for breast cancer.

You (MusicSorter) seem intent on arranging an alternative timeline of cherry-picked sources in order to "rebut" the conclusions of experts in the field, or at least to muddy the waters by "teaching the controversy". That's not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

MastCell, in case you didn't have a chance to read my last two replies in detail, here is a summary of my concerns for your reverts on my changes to this article:

1. You have not provided edit summaries for why you reverted all 11 of my originally requested list in this thread. You only responded to three or four. I don't think the number of years or times you reply to other editors has any basis for your responding to my questions on reverts to my edits that I have not seen made to this article in the past. I believe all of my changes are in compliance with WP:CONTROVERSY, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CLAIM, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:PSTS, and WP:CHERRYPICKING.

2. There are no WP guidelines which require an external source to be used for a book article when creating the summary section of the book, no matter the content or subject of the book.

3. In response to your specific statement: "You (MusicSorter) seem intent on arranging an alternative timeline of cherry-picked sources in order to "rebut" the conclusions of experts in the field, or at least to muddy the waters by "teaching the controversy". Anyone can review my edits and see I was simply adding the list of all studies noted in the book as part of the book summary. I included the comments from the authors noting the issues with various studies. I included the non-supporting studies as well to ensure WP:NPOV. No studies have been excluded, so how do you claim WP:CHERRYPICKING with me? Show me a study I did not include. My timeline of the studies was chronological. What timeline would you propose? By including the studies, we give the reader a summary of what the critics are critical of in the first place. Your refusal to include a summary of known studies on both sides of this controversy appears to violate just about every WP guideline I have noted in point 1 above.

If you are willing to discuss each of my changes one by one, I am willing to do so with you. That way I can propose a change and you can identify what WP guideline you believe it violates. I think this is the only way to get to the next step here. § Music Sorter § (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

A few replies, doubtless incomplete:

Yes, I read this book a few years back. I can no longer remember whether I finished it, but I read more of it than I wanted to at the time.
Yes, I read the SBM critic. I did not find "Joe" persuasive. I copied a few lines that struck me as being particularly strange:
- "This means you shouldn’t form beliefs one way or the other. Your attitude should be one of not knowing if you want to be truly skeptical." In other words, his mind is so open that his brains fell out.
- "If you ask them about any remedy that isn’t proven by science, they will tell you the chance is close to zero that it works." Although I see that SBM has disagreed with this, I think this is a perfectly fair starting position, since it's what you find in pharmaceutical research. The chance that any given molecule will do what you hope it will do is close to zero.
- "I know supplements have an effect because I keep upping the dosage until I’m certain I feel an effect." I found myself wondering how often "an effect" was synonymous with "constipation". Or diarrhea.
- "The FDA declares a chemical safe based on animal studies." I'm sure that the pharma folks would be very happy to discover that animal studies are sufficient, but the FDA still seems to be insisting that they conduct Phase I (aka "safety") trials, and indeed that they track safety through Phase II and III trials, and sometimes even in the so-called "Phase IV clinical research", after the FDA has given them marketing authorization.
No, you're probably not going to get a detailed reply to each and every point from this enormous wall of text, from anyone, ever. WP:TLDR is the law of the internet. It is my own experience that trying to push through 11 points at once is always doomed to failure.
I don't think that anyone else (except the authors of the book, who are doubtless grateful for your efforts) has any real interest in "getting to the next step here". I think that the relative silence you're getting means that all, or at least nearly all, of the changes you made were a net negative for the article (according to other editors, of course) and that nobody really believes that engaging with you is going to improve the article. I'm sorry if that is blunt to the point of seeming unpleasant, but perhaps it's better for you to know where (IMO) things stand at the moment, so that you can make a clear decision about whether you want to keep "throwing good money (or time) after bad".

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.linkedin.com/pub/martha-molete/13/447/62b

[2] ttp://www.amazon.com/Dressed-Kill-between-Breast-Cancer/product-reviews/1930858051/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

[3] ttp://www.startupchicks.net/profile/ElizabethCates

[FOOTNOTESinger_and_Grismaijer2017103-4] Singer and Grismaijer 2017, pp. 103.

[FOOTNOTESinger_and_Grismaijer2017104-5] Singer and Grismaijer 2017, pp. 104.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]