Are shoes the cause of breast cancer?

During the last several years I have had the opportunity to carefully observe and study a number of diseases that occur in the United States population, but less often or not at all in other countries. After much persistence, I finally "stumbled" onto a significant discovery concerning our habitual use of footwear since birth, a seemingly irrelevant topic because almost everyone in the United States considers shoes to be harmless. Nonetheless, please keep an open mind to the possibility that scientists and doctors (even the smartest
Nobel Prize winners) have all overlooked something common as the cause of widespread disease during the last two hundred years.

Chiropodist Dr. Simon J. Wikler first proposed in the early 1950's that shoes are a cause of degenerative disease in humans because of the inherent changes to our posture and gait. I believe that his novel idea was the tip of a gigantic iceberg, and I have expanded his discoveries to include many diseases with "no known cause", including seemingly-unrelated conditions such as heart disease, cancer, depression, obesity, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, asthma, osteoporosis and even Alzheimer's disease to name but a few. You may find the complete text and pictures of my explanation, including my thoughts on a possible "cure" and prevention for these conditions, at my aptly-named website:
http://www.shoebusters.com

Dr. Wikler believed that shoes induce poor posture and cause a rounding of the shoulders, placing the breast tissue at a mechanical disadvantage subject to straining and irritation. Breast cancer rarely occurs in Africa where shoes are rarely used. Even Japan, a modern country full of toxins and pollutants, has a breast cancer rate dramatically lower than in the United States. The use of footwear is minimized in Japan, and since the Japanese remove their shoes when in the house, at the office and in restaurants, their postures are better. Other cancers, such as prostate, lung and colon, occur much less often in Japan, and rarely in countries that never use footwear,

alt.support.cancer and others in the hopes of stimulating a discussion.

It is interesting to note that breast cancer occurs in men significantly less often than in women, who tend to have more tissue to support on the front of their skeleton. This indicates to me that breast cancer is purely a mechanical straining of tissue. Breast cancer, like many other cancers, is rare in malnourished countries.
It seems that shoes could actually be the only cause of breast cancer in most people. I do not think this suggestion is as radical as some of the surgeries that take place.

I am extremely interested in all discussion concerning these ideas, and welcome any opinions, skepticism, comments, feedback or any

much.

Yes, this is a truly successful trolling, hence the nomination.

There are two classes of trolls. There are the Norse trolls who are big, ugly and get junior wizard's wands stuck up their noses (or get Grieg to write music for them) and there are maritime trolls, who catch fish while driving. This is definitely nearer to the fisherman.

TV? Advertising? Junk food manufacturers?
Who else? Remember "The Hidden Persuaders"?
Controlling people's behaviour is easy, all you need is $$$.

Although we originally began discussing the relationship of shoes to breast cancer in humans, we are now addressing their relationship to obesity. It was pointed out that the United States exhibits one of the highest rates of obesity in the world, and is one of the largest users of shoes on the planet, but in Japan and other countries, where footwear is used sparingly, obesity is rare or nonexistent.

Several posters believe that things besides shoes are responsible for obesity, suggesting television, refrigerators, and junk food manufacturers, for example. Others suggested obesity is related to subjective qualities such as "willpower", "laziness", and "habits."

Yet obesity has been plaguing those in the United States for over 100 years, well before television, refrigerators, and so-called "junk food" became popular or available in society. It is also difficult to understand how subjective qualities such as "willpower", "laziness" and "habits" affect those younger than two or three years old and considered obese.

Are these two-year olds in America really "lazier" than those in
India, China, Mexico, South America, Africa, Japan and the rest of the
Asia where obesity is rare? Do American toddlers really take fewer steps each day than those in other countries? At only two years old have they already acquired a "habit" that is impossible to break? Do they truly lack "willpower"? If so, then what caused them during those first two years to acquire behavior completely absent in their peers elsewhere around the world?

And the rate is exceptionally lower in Japan. There is a simple difference between all of these cultures and climates that offers a compelling explanation about what causes breast cancer in humans.

You may be among a rare few who actually want a simple answer. The doctors evidently have an enormous supply of patients willing to pay for complicated and traumatic treatments instead of understanding the cause and removing it.

Can you please offer evidence to support your conviction that exposure to ultraviolet radiation causes malignant melanoma?

Melanoma can occur deep inside the body where no sunlight ever shines.
The digestive tract is an example of such skin. Is it possible that you (and most dermatologists) have it backwards? In other words, is melanoma a sunlight-deficiency disease?

And how many two year olds wear shoes?

Is there a serious obesity problem among two year olds in the US, and if so how long has it been going on?

I think the statistics show a worrying -increase- in obesity in recent decades which could be correlated to the above causes. Of course historically the main cause of obesity has been affluence.

Thanks for your comments. You are not alone in your love of shoes.
The typical American, for example, owns about five pairs of shoes, and it is not uncommon to find hundreds of pairs in somebody's closet, representing a significant investment of their hard-earned income.

The Greek ideal of "everything in moderation" includes shoes themselves. Why not enjoy shoes? But does that mean you should wear them all the time? Although nobody has done the study yet, I can imagine that drinking alcohol constantly for 16-hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, could produce some pretty nasty results.
Becoming a "social" user of shoes and alcohol may indeed be a sensible approach.

Breast cancer must be caused by a chemical or a virus - what else could get inside someone's body to attack it - surely 1 in 10 women were not destined to get the disease naturally?

one of the bc nurses here told me that the rate in Queensland, Australia is
1 in 12 - and the american cancer society gives the rate in Canada as 1 in
8.

lots of guys who work in the building industry here are getting melinomas in their forties. they have been working without shirts - so we know that these are not a natural consequence of aging! it has a cause - ultraviolet radiation and wearing a shirt will save you .... if only the cause of bc was that simple to see.

The United States is home to some of the most obese in the world, but in Japan, where shoes are worn much less, obesity is rare. We have already noted that diet, exercise, and "willpower" are not helping most obese people in America to lose weight. A fraction may indeed be successful with some combination of these factors, but most obese people cannot lose weight no matter what diet, which exercises, and at any level of "willpower" (whatever that means anyway).

If the Japanese do not need pills or surgeries to control obesity, then why should Americans? Do nutritionists need another 100 years to discover a "magic diet"? Have fitness gurus simply overlooked the right combination of exercises? Do psychologists need to research a mind trick specially tailored for Americans to give them the undefined quality that you called "willpower"?

Indeed, there appears to be something in our country that is causing more obesity and increased episodes of many other degenerative diseases such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, arthritis, osteoporosis and Alzheimer's.

Until the cause of all of these diseases is known, "blaming it on sneakers" is no more ridiculous than any of the expensive and risky surgeries that doctors commonly perform to "treat" these preventable diseases.

Hi! Thanks for your response. Actually, clothing does indeed keep our private parts private and our bodies warm during the winter, but it also reduces the natural absorption of vitamin D being photosynthesized in the skin from natural sunlight. Vitamin D, as you know, is an essential hormone for regulating calcium in the blood and the heart.

Now, tight underwear has indeed been implicated in male infertility, so why not tight shoes?

Sadly, your statement may need to be modified in the next several decades. We do not yet know the full impact of the modern sneaker.
Those who grew up wearing those shoes constantly are only now reaching their 30's. The American Cancer Society recently released a survey noting a surge in the number of large breast tumors during the 1990's, and so it seems reasonable that younger ages will begin experiencing the problems traditionally seen in those twice their age.

For example, we have already noted huge increases in obesity in the
American population, affecting even younger ages than ever before.
Most obese people are completely unable to lose excess weight despite trying every diet, exercise regimen, drug, and psychological mind trick in the book from the last one hundred years. Therefore, something else is hindering the ability of overweight people to lose excess fat, and the habitual use of shoes is a candidate.

Have you ever tried to bend a toddler's sneaker in half? If you cannot do it with two strong hands, then what kind of a stressful event is that for a 1-year-old learning to walk in such shoes? If you are unable to imagine it, then scale the shoe up to an adult's size, and try walking around in a 3 or 4 inch platform shoe that weighs at least a couple of pounds. Be sure and take 20,000 steps every single day for several years, and keep track of your weight, your blood pressure, your cholesterol, your mood, your blood glucose level, your lung capacity, and even the quality of your vision.

You noted that life expectancies are lower in regions that wear less footwear. Please keep in mind that most degenerative disease that affects young people, occurs rarely in these regions. You do not have to be in your 30's or 40's to get multiple sclerosis, arthritis, depression, asthma, diabetes, and obesity.

Thanks again for your comments.

No. Autopsies are only done if the cause of death is in some way suspicious or uncertain, and even then they are only really looking for cause of death, any other information obtained is rather incidental. So there are no really solid statistics on the prevalence of asymptomatic cancers in the elderly.
However I understand of those that are examined, where the cause of death is found to be other than cancer, a large proportion of the elderly do carry evidence of asymptomatic breast or prostate cancer.

There are some people who are concerned with trace amounts of chemicals and radiation in our food, homes and air, but there is no easy way to measure their quantities or effect. The effect of a heel, however, is much easier to determine, and you only need to stand with more weight on the ball of your foot in order to observe or feel changes to the body column.

According to podiatrist Dr. William Rossi, during the first 20 years, the foot experiences growth spurts that are not regular or precisely predictable. Some bones do not even form, he says, until the third or fourth year. It could be that the few hours that a child is wearing an elevated heel will be the defining moment shaping its life to come.

A shoe can have a flat heel, but come to a sharp point in the front.
Pointed toe fashions are the most common type of shoe in the world, found in most cultures, and they also are meant to deform the foot.
Squeezing of the toes appears to be another significant factor in body mechanics. Natural toes spread and fan out to provide a wide, stable base for walking and standing. Squeezing the toes together eliminates that advantage, and the feet typically turn out to the side, losing support for the pelvis and thus rounding the shoulders.

I propose this thread as winner of the A.S.C.B. Troll of the Year award

For the longest and most blatently pointless discussion raised among the

contributor.

<g>

Tim Jackson

One of the best posts I've seen in here in awhile. The website is cool also

All in all, a rather pleasant diversion.

It's probably the mass of the text you send to Usenet causing a small shift in the earth's orbit.

Better go easy for a bit.

Could be you that's causing global warming too. More credible than
Amazonian butterflies. I thought it was due to Catharine's ex-husband's
SUV, but he got rid of that and it's still happening. Snowed here yesterday mind you, so it might have helped.

but if a jap moves from japan to the usa she experiences the same risk of breast cancer as an american citizen according to the american cancer society - something must be around to double her chances - and wealthy women get it more often expecially in certain areas of LA.

Some infants are considered obese even before they begin walking. In my opinion, socks are also deforming to the foot of a newborn, producing an unnatural stressful event to the body of a child that is fresh out of the womb and in need of protection from such environmental obstacles. We may not be able to get the infant's opinion-- after all, any infant who grows up successfully in socks considers them to be harmless. Perhaps you are one such person who considers socks not worthy of "esteemed" scientific research?

But there are infants who do not grow up at all to reach that state.
Did you know that SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occurs much more often during the winter than during the summer? Researchers have examined all sorts of factors in trying to understand what kills an otherwise-healthy newborn during the winter, but not so much during the summer. However, according to a search for "socks sids" on the
National Library of Medicine's PubMed journal article database (http://pubmed.gov), not one researcher has yet considered that constrictive or tight socks, worn more often of course during the winter, could be placing an enormous amount of stress on the newborn's body, triggering its survival instinct constantly during its first weeks out of the womb.

The incidence of SIDS declines dramatically after the first six months, after which the infant is able to cope with many other sources of environmental stress, and actually begins to walk shortly after.
The cause of SIDS may be closer to the body of the infant than most doctors suspect at present. If socks are thus sufficient to cause death in a healthy newborn, how many other diseases find their genesis in a child just weeks after it is born? Hypertension? Heart disease?
Cancer? Obesity? Asthma? Addictions to drugs?Autoimmune diseases such as MS or Crohn's? Depression in a newborn?

And among the first things that people spend the money on are shoes, especially for the children. At one time, prior to the Industrial
Revolution that spawned disease, shoes were restricted to a small minority of the world's population. Most of the world grew up barefoot as children. It has only been during the 19th and 20th centuries that most people in America and Europe could afford shoes and socks for children. As the living standards are raised around the world in the 21st century, their children will begin wearing shoes and socks, and we can expect degenerative disease to soar in those regions. China is an early example.

And speaking it with a Northern English accent is even more lethal!

It's not the greasy chips and relative poverty, it's the short "a" that does for us.

The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the
British or Americans.

The French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the
British or Americans.

The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

Conclusion: Eat and drink what you like.

Speaking English is what kills you.

You're right, it was the same with me.

Must be that then.
joking!)

Oh!

But I suspect that's the get-out clause and that you really did mean it ...
I mean, two people with the same experience from two people - 100%. Obvious, then, innit!

We've had the "iron" is the cause of everything man, now the DHEA solves

everything man.
Sheesh !

Depends what effect you have in mind. I was thinking suppression.

This thread could get out of hand. I could discuss the symbology of bra's and for example the logic of bra burning, at some length, but I promise I won't.

Well, not here anyway.

What a load of trollocks. I suppose use of underwear causes heart disease too.

The first item Google popped up with on this subject was:
" Breast Cancer Centre of Excellence head Dr Carol-Ann Benn said in a statement that one in 10 South African women run the risk of developing breast cancer"

However I think you'll find that here is indeed a correlation between breast cancer and shoe use. It works like this. Breast cancer mainly occurs in older women. Very poor people in tropical climates tend not to wear shoes and tend not to live very long, especially as not wearing shoes increases their risk of parasitisation. Therefore they have little opportunity to contract breast cancer.

I would like all of you to notice that I haven't posted in this thread because I am a well-trained spouse.

I wear the pants in my house - my wife said I could.

Seems to have been ineffective though

Yes, I believe that too. I understand that most old men die with (not of)
prostate cancer. I wonder how many other people die with (not of) other cancers? Are cancers looked for when they're not the known cause of death?

It may be easier than you suggest. Most doctors know that once the cause is removed, the human body has an amazing ability to return to a state of normalcy with no outside intervention. We have already noted that modifications to diet and exercise have very little lasting effect, if any, in most people trying to lose weight, so we must search elsewhere for the cause. The habitual use of physically-deforming mechanical devices known as shoes may be a worthwhile candidate to consider.

With energetic determination to provide a complete response, I consulted a variety of online dictionaries, and found that the definitions of willpower involve "controlling your own behavior." Are you suggesting that the people who cannot lose weight are unable to
"control their behavior"? If they are not able to "control their behavior", then what could possibly be "controlling" it for them?

Well, it's given us all a lot of fun!

We have enough deep and meaningful conversations here, it's good to escape now and again.

Why not. Why should bc be different from heart disease or Alzheimer's or arthritis or osteoporosis or whatever other disease or degeneration they would get if not bc. Just because most of the diseases we have found cures for had identifiable external causes does not mean they all have to. Some conditions are a natural consequence of aging, and perhaps this is true of cancer. I believe that we will all get cancers of several organs if we live long enough no matter how healthy we are.