Monday, April 22, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 3

    Local Hawai’i Organizations get a Boost!

    Pam Hinsdale
    -
    0
    Local Hawai’i Organizations get a Boost!

    Seven of Hawai’i’s local non-profit and governmental organizations got a boost from 26 college students from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) – Worcester, Massachusetts.   Over 7 weeks in Honolulu, these students experienced our culture, our people, and lent their science and technology skills to address real world problems/challenges that these organizations face.

    How it works:

    WPI develops collaborative relationships with local organizations who sponsor student projects. The most important contribution sponsors make is to provide student teams with a real problem of interest and chosen by the organization. Students thrive when tasked with a problem that is meaningful to them and that matters to someone else. Especially significant is that the students, very technically proficient apply their skills to real problems and situations. The university does not ask for project fees from sponsors, instead students receive academic credit for their project work.  The Hawaii organizations get a boost in the form of student work product.    It’s a win-win. 

    This year’s projects and recipients were:  

    Genki Ala Wai:  

    The Genki Ala Wai Project’s mission is to transform one of Hawaii’s most polluted waterways into a “swimmable and fishable” water body in a few short years. By engaging the K-12 schools and the broader community, including visitors.   WPI Project:  Developed a Website That Fosters Enhanced Interaction Among Teachers, Students, and the Community. Website: Genki Ala Wai Project

    Genki Balls
    Genki Balls for Genki Ala Wai project

    Maka’ alamihi Gardens:  

    Hawaii imports approximately 80-85% of its food from the mainland and relies heavily on cargo ships to deliver the goods. As the most isolated land mass in the world, reliant on imported food, Hawaii is a long way from being food secure. There is merit to tapping into home grown produce to augment food availability in our community. WPI students designed a collaborative and presented it at the Capitol.       Project:  Designed a Model Community Food Security Collaborative       Sponsors: Stacy and Carl Evensen

    Conservation International Hawaii:   

    Conservation International (CI) is a global conservation organization working collaboratively with local communities, governments, and other organizations in over 30 countries towards a healthier and more sustainable future. WPI students studied market feasibility of fish leather and fish broth. Project: Feasibility of value added products to reduce seafood waste in Hawaii. Website: Hawai’i (conservation.org)

    Lyon Arboretum:

    The Arboretum spans nearly 200 acres and is open to the public Monday through Friday. It offers 7 miles of hiking trails, and visitors can observe over 5000 taxa of plants from tropical and subtropical regions. The Arboretum’s mission is to “inspire and cultivate the conservation of tropical plant biodiversity and connect it to the culture of Hawai’i through education and research.” Project:  Designed interpretive and wayfinding signage. Website:  Lyon Arboretum | A University of Hawaii Research Unit

    Honolulu Botanical Gardens- Ho’omaluhia:

    An average of 1600 visitors come to explore the garden daily. That’s 600,000 visitors annually! As a result, stressors on visitor experience rose dramatically: over-using easily accessible areas while underutilizing others, self-limiting visits for lack of directions and guidance, and hesitations to explore trails for fear of being lost. Project: Wayfinding Enhancement Study  Website: HBG Ho`omaluhia (honolulu.gov)

    Surfrider Foundation:

    The Surfrider Foundation is dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world’s ocean, waves and beaches, for all people. The protection and restoration of the Wāwāmalu coastline has been a focus of the community however, restoration efforts are challenged by the lack of available fresh water. Project:  Wāwāmalu Dune Restoration-water tank solution.  Website:  Hawai’i Region | Surfrider Foundation

    Amazing Care Network (ACN):   

    ACN is an organization dedicated to the notion that it takes a village to age well. Its programs are designed to educate adults- including those in or entering their senior years, and their families, about the issues that confront us as we age.  Project: Identified support needs of our aging community members and their caregivers. Website: Amazing Care Network | It Takes a Village To Age Well.

    Award Winning Worcester Polytechnic Institute – Global Program in Hawaii

    Worcester?  How do you pronounce that?  Worchestershire? No.  “Wister”, like in twister!  Hawaii folks, know Boston, Harvard, Yale, Boston College.   Add Worcester Polytechnic Institute to that list. WPI is quite impressive.   The Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) is a private research university in Worcester, Massachusetts, its’ curriculum is focused on project-based learning, US News and World Reports 2024 college rankings has WPI solidly in the top 20% of National Universities, and Best Value Schools.  Founded in 1865, WPI was one of the United States’ first engineering and technology universities and now has 14 academic departments with over 50 undergraduate and graduate degree programs in science, engineering, technology, management, the social sciences, and the humanities and arts. WPI awards bachelor’s, master’s and Ph.D. degrees.

    As a signature element of WPI’s project-based learning, the Global Projects Program gives students the opportunity to complete required research projects off-campus.  WPI has over 50 global project centers, spanning 6 continents.       The directory reads exotic places like Ghana, Uruguay, Thailand, China, Romania, Costa Rica, Panama… and lucky us, HAWAII!  

    Dr. Lauren Mathews, WPI’s Global Project Director: 

    “This year we had a total of 24 students that worked on their “junior year” Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP).   The IQP is a “project which relates technology and science to society or human needs.” Generally, IQPs solve a societal problem using technology. The IQP serves to emphasize team-based work and introduces a real-world responsibility absent from courses.   

    We also had 2 students who worked on their “senior year” Major Qualifying Project (MQP)  The MQP assesses knowledge in a student’s field of study. This project is similar to a senior thesis, with students doing independent research or design. Hawaii Center students worked with the Surfrider Foundation to design irrigation solutions for the Kaiwi Coast restoration.  

    We are excited about our Hawaii Project Center, students become well-rounded and globally aware by working as part of a team to apply classroom knowledge and analytical thinking skills to real-world challenges. Hawaii is a very unique place, culturally rich and diverse.”

    We are currently selecting organizations for 10 projects that will run in the Fall 2024, and Spring 2025.  For more information about getting involved or applying for a project for an organization, contact pamela.hinsdale@gmail.com

    Amended Return Equals Guilty Plea

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    Amended Return Equals Guilty Plea

    We have been hearing through the grapevine that a number of examiners and auditors at the Department of Taxation have been using a “please amend your return” tactic.  It’s by no means a new strategy, but for those who haven’t gone through an audit before it can have a very profound side effect…that they know of and the poor taxpayer probably doesn’t.

    Here’s how the strategy works.  An examiner or auditor comes to you and begins a state tax audit.  The auditor will probably ask for some documents or information, perhaps with a little back-and-forth.

    Then, the auditor says: “Okay, I found these items of gross income that haven’t been reported.  Please amend your returns to include them.  When you do that, I will close the audit.”

    Being the law-abiding and upstanding citizen that you are, you want to do what the auditor says to minimize the trouble that you are already in.

    Now, here is what they know and you don’t.

    If you amend your return, then the change to the tax return is considered to come from you, not from them.  Meaning that whether or not the amended return is correct, it’s your return and you can’t appeal it.

    In the tax world, an amended return is the equivalent of pleading guilty.  Even if you might not have actually committed a crime, your amended return is basically a confession that you did, and the consequences that then befall you—fines, community service, prison time—are something that you yourself have opted into.

    So let’s get back to the audit situation.  Should you amend that return?

    If you completely agree with the auditor’s logic and conclusion, perhaps after asking a tax practitioner who has some experience in the issue you are being audited on, then maybe it’s okay to do that.  Know, however, that there will be penalties and interest to pay.

    But if you have doubts that the auditor’s adjustments are correct, for example if the auditor is clobbering you for “insufficient documentation” and you have documentation that you thought was sufficient, you might want to consider fighting instead.  Ask the auditor to make his or her adjustments by assessment.  You will still have a tax bill to pay, but you will also have appeal rights.  If you amend your return, you don’t.

    If you have appeal rights, you might be able to take your case to the Administrative Appeals Office within the Department, or to the Board of Review, or to Tax Appeal Court.  At this point you probably should have a practitioner advising you so you can know what your options are and the differences between them.  Some of your options, for example, require that you pay the disputed tax, penalty, and interest up front.  Other options don’t require you to do that.

    And, once you perfect an appeal, you will be in a position to negotiate with the Department about settling your appeal.  After all, cases are seldom black and white.  They may be willing to give up something if you give up something.  About 90% of all lawsuits are settled this way, and many tax cases get settled as well.  Again, if you have no appeal rights the Department has no reason to negotiate with you.  If you’ve confessed to your tax deficiency, all that remains is for you to pay it or for them to beat it out of you.

    Let the auditee beware!

    Diversity or Perversity: Are Immigrants an “Invasive Species”? 

    Sydney Ross Singer
    -
    0
    Diversity or Perversity: Are Immigrants an “Invasive Species”? 

    As people around the world are fighting wars, polluting the environment with plastics and other toxic chemicals, clearing the forests for agriculture, developing new pathogens to kill people, and attempting to alter the weather with geo-engineering experiments, we are told to take a moment out of this mayhem and chaos to recognize Invasive Species Awareness Week. 

    We are in the so-called age of man, or the Anthropocene, where human activity is a defining force on Earth. And one of the things humans have done is to move plants and animals around the planet with us, as humans migrate from one ecosystem to another. 

    At one time, this was encouraged, since people felt the planet was ours to use. If we want to rearrange the species from one place to another, who cares? If they can survive in the new environment, fine. The world was big back then, and nobody seemed to care when introduced species began to outgrow their new space, and spread. 

    Some of these species turned out to be pests. “Pest” is a nonscientific word, and means that you don’t like it. It’s a human-centered definition that divides the world into desirable and undesirable species. Not everyone agrees on which species are pests, and pest status is dependent on context. But some species just get in the way of what humans want to do. 

    Invasive species are considered pests too, but for a different reason. It’s because they are foreigners. They are illegal immigrants. They are invading the environment from without, changing it for the worse, since any change from human intervention is considered bad.

    According to invasion biologists, our current definition of an invasive species is an alien species that is considered to be, or has the potential to become, a threat to the environment, health, or the economy. Note that a native, or local, species that is a threat is not invasive by definition. The essential component of the definition is that these species are not native, or are alien. 

    Not all immigrant species are pests by nature. Some are good for the environment, such as trees. Some give us food. But since the immigrant species is not “native”, it is considered a threat to the natural order in its new location, and it must be eradicated. It was guilty of the sin of going against the natural order, where things belong where nature, or god, placed them.

    Wanting to conform to a natural order sounds like a strange position for humans to take, given the human tendency to challenge and change the natural world. But the underpinning philosophy of invasion biology is that species “belong” where they were found by colonial powers during Western cultural exploration and expansionism of the past 6 centuries. 

    Mankind, it is believed, should never transport species from one place to another. Any such transfer must be without human assistance to be “natural”. 

    The value of the so-called “pre-contact”, or native, world is held high in a religious-like esteem. It is also held that white man damaged these Edenic worlds of freely living native people and their animals and plants by invading and introducing strange, new cultures and strange, new species. According to this environmental doctrine, species which are introduced by people just don’t belong. Everything has its place, and that was determined by some environmental god who set everything where it is. 

    Of course, this raises the question, since humans are a species of animal, where do humans “belong” on the planet?

    If humanity evolved from primates in Africa, for example, does this mean we should all be Africans? People have moved to virtually every corner of the globe. Talk about invasive species!

    The fact is that species, and people, do spread around the planet. It’s an old planet, and the full story of life’s migration history is still a mystery. And when you throw into the mix human animals, who love the challenge of discovery and travel, and who enjoy taking species along with them for the journey, the issue of defining which species “belong” where, and which are “invasive”, becomes absurd.

    This doesn’t stop people from judging their current environment and deciding on what to kill and what to keep. If nothing else, humans love to decide on what to kill and what to keep.

    However, every decision needs a reference point for judgement. How are we to decide what belongs and what doesn’t? Clearly, there can be multiple ways to define environmental values and goals. But anything that gets in the way is a pest, and will be destroyed. 

    If we want food, then any species that interferes with our food is a pest. It should not matter where the pest is from. A local pest can be worse than an immigrant pest. A sense of where the pest “belongs” is not usually considered. Pests, humans believe, don’t belong anywhere.

    Why are immigrant species now considered pests? Why not consider them exotic introductions, as they were in the past when they were intentionally spread? 

    This question is relevant to today’s immigration crisis. Are migrant people welcome introductions, or are they invasive?

    Not all cultures are the same. Some are obviously noxious to our culture and are justifiably considered pests. And some are obviously beneficial. 

    Human and environmental immigration policy are fundamentally the same thing. At any time in history, the culture is either open to immigrant people and other species, or closed. During times of plenty, cultures are more open. When times are tough, the doors are shut and the guests are asked to leave.

    When times are bad environmentally, and foreign species come in, they are said to threaten local resources, redefine the environment, and take space from native species. When times are politically bad, and foreign people arrive, they are said to threaten local resources, redefine the neighborhood, and take jobs away from local people. In both cases, people will say the newcomers don’t belong.

    The current state of our nation’s environmental policy is an anti-immigration policy that is native supremacist. It is a reverse discrimination, or affirmative action, environmental policy that kills immigrant species for being alien, and props up native species which can’t compete in the changing climates of the world. The results are endless eradication campaigns against introduced species which are successful in today’s environment, but who are in the wrong place on the planet.

    The current state of our nation’s immigration policy is mixed. We want good immigrants, not bad ones. We want beneficial cultures and people, not threats to our culture and people. But our open border policy is indiscriminately introducing all of humanity to our shores, without consideration of whether they are beneficial or noxious. 

    Invasion biology is defining our current environmental policy of attacking non-native species for competing with native species. This is bio-xenophobia, fueling the current anti-immigration stance of many people wanting to rid the country of “invading” illegal aliens, who are considered to be in competition with the local culture for jobs, resources, and space.

    Some people want their culture to change from its traditional values, and see introduced cultures as a way to increase overall diversity. However, these people also feel concern for the fate of native cultures who suffered at the hands of imperialists, and call for the return of taken lands, or reparations paid to the descendants of those dispossessed by colonialism. 

    This means immigrants create diversity, but diversity is bad for native cultures. This results in the contradictory policies of supporting both native cultures and immigrant cultures. 

    But wait. What is the native culture? How far back should you go? In the U.S., when we think about traditional American culture, we think about white, Christian, nationalistic culture. Is that “native” American culture? Or are Native American cultures more “native”?  They came first, after all. But what about the cultures that came before they did? Humanity has been taking over other peoples’ places ever since there have been people and places. 

    We see this problem in the Middle East. Modern Israel displaced modern Palestinians. Are the Palestinians the “native” people of that land? The Israeli’s say no, because the Jewish people lived there thousands of years ago. So they are the original “natives”. Until, that is, some other group says they had that land before the Jews did. And so on. 

    How far back do you go? What is the statute of limitations beyond which the current residents can call themselves “native”? How long should you be in a place to be a “native”? 

    The same set of questions apply to native species. We live in a big Petri dish, called Earth, which for a long time has had life spreading around. We are seeing it all at one point in time. How absurd to believe that where we find species now, or found it 400 years ago, is somehow where that species is native and “belongs”. 

    All of this focus on “belonging” is clearly political, biased, and an unavoidable human issue. Our species develops obsessive-compulsive disorder when we feel out of control, and we need to define the world and put everything in its place. 

    This all leads to confusion over diversity, whether it be environmental or cultural. Is it good or is it bad? 

    Of course, there is no objective answer. Good and bad are subjective terms, just like native and alien. 

    Beneath these concerns are the human fears of losing identity, space, and control. This fear drives humanity. When we feel good, we’re generous. But watch out when we feel threatened. 

    The concept of invasive species is a reflection of our nature as humans. We are the ultimate invasive species. We must stop blaming other species for our thoughtless mixing of the planet’s life forms. And we must stop killing animals and plants simply because our current state of mind is fearful and needing to be in control. 

    “Invasive species” is a human concept, it’s our problem, and it reflects our invasiveness. During Invasive Species Awareness Week, let’s reflect on this fact, and try to figure out how a destructive species like Homo sapiens can stop feeling threatened, and start feeling the kinship with all life on this planet.

    Likewise, we must examine our human immigration policy and find a balance between positive diversity, where immigrant cultures assimilate, versus negative diversity, where immigrant cultures clash. 

    There are no borders in a Petri dish. We are in this together. 

    The 15th ʻUkulele Picnic Presents the International ʻUkulele Festival of Hawaiʻi Newly Named International Ukulele Event to be Held on July 27th at Kapiolani Park

    Daniela Stolfi-Tow
    -
    0
    The 15th ʻUkulele Picnic Presents the International ʻUkulele Festival of Hawaiʻi Newly Named International Ukulele Event to be Held on July 27th at Kapiolani Park

    The ʻUkulele Foundation of Hawaiʻi today announces the renaming of its annual signature event to “The 15th ʻUkulele Picnic Presents the International ʻUkulele Festival of Hawaiʻi” and is scheduled for Saturday, July 27th, 2024, at Kapiolani Park in Waikiki. Founded in 2009 as ʻUkulele Picnic in Hawaiʻi, the annual all-day ʻukulele event is celebrating its 15th anniversary with a reimagining of its event with deeper connections to the Hawaiʻi ʻukulele community with support from Roy Sakuma, founder of ʻUkulele Festival Hawaiʻi.

    “In commemoration of our milestone 15th anniversary, we have decided to rename our event to ‘International ʻUkulele Festival of Hawaiʻi’ to further our mission of fostering stronger ties to the local community and spreading a message of Aloha from Hawaiʻi to the world,” said Kazuyuki Sekiguchi, event organizer and representative of ʻUkulele Foundation of Hawaiʻi.  “Imagine the thousands of ukulele fans from around the world gathering in Kapiʻolani Park with our local community, enjoying this festival together—it’s truly a wonderful scene to behold. We eagerly anticipate this joyful event and all the smiles that the ʻukulele brings. See you on July 27th at Kapiʻolani Park!”

    The stage at the Kapiʻolani Park bandstand will feature renowned Hawaiʻi and international performers including Raiatea Helm, Jake Shimabukuro, Kalaʻe Camarillo, Mika Kane, Jody Kamisato, Crossing Rain, Craig & Sarah, Cynthia Lin, Ukulele All Stars and Tomoki Suzuki, Nine Ukulele jazz Orchestra, Keiki performances will include the Roy Sakuma Ukulele Studios, ʻUkulele Hale, and Kapālama Elementary School. Additionally, there will be ʻukulele display booths by famous ʻukulele makers from Hawaiʻi and a special collection of vintage ʻukuleles from the Hawaiʻi State Archives. 

    Event Overview:

    Name: The 15th ʻUkulele Picnic Presents International ʻUkulele Festival of Hawaiʻi

    Location: Kapiʻolani Park Bandstand, Waikiki
    Date & Time: Saturday, July 27, 2024, from 9:30am –Sunset

    Official URL: www.ukulelepicnicinhawaii.org
    Social Media:
    Facebook (www.facebook.com/ukupichawaii)

    Instagram (www.instagram.com/ukulelepicnichi)
    X (formerly Twitter) (https://twitter.com/ukupichawaii)

    Hawaii needs better budgeting for Maui recovery

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    Hawaii needs better budgeting for Maui recovery

    By Keli‘i Akina

    Helping our Maui ohana recover from last year’s disastrous wildfires is paramount. But the only way to do that without hiking taxes or going into massive debt is to cut state spending.

    We can rely on federal aid to some extent, but the local share of the expenses is spiraling out of control.

    Keli’i Akina

    Gov. Josh Green’s administration had thought the Lahaina recovery costs would total about $600 million over the next four years. But now it appears that amount will cover only this year.

    Unrelated to Lahaina’s wildfire recovery, consider that the state also is responsible for paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in back wages to state workers who were not given hazard pay during the COVID-19 crisis.

    Ironically, it was only a year ago that state lawmakers had a healthy budget surplus to work with. But then they went on an ill-advised spending spree.

    Even after Gov. Green chipped away $1 billion, total spending still busted through the constitutionally mandated state spending cap by more than $1 billion.

    This year’s budget already was set to exceed that cap again, thanks to higher costs and disappointing revenue projections. But now, with the Lahaina recovery costs moving to center stage, the outlook is even worse.

    For those who suggest taking on more debt is a viable option, I will point out that the state can’t really afford more debt, and debt doesn’t actually balance the budget anyway — it just makes the bill bigger in exchange for delaying the pain.

    As for possibly increasing our taxes, Hawaii already has the nation’s second-highest tax burden, highest cost of living and highest average housing prices. We’re already taxed to the max and really can’t afford to take on any more, as indicated by our continually declining population and our stagnant economy.

    That leaves budget cuts as our only option. Legislators seem aware of this, and some senators have suggested drawing up contingency plans for 10% to 15% cuts across the board.

    This is something they should have considered long ago, even before the Lahaina disaster. The golden rule of budgeting is that government spending should not outpace the economy, yet between 2013 and 2022, Hawaii’s state budget ballooned by 87% while the private sector increased by only 24%.

    Unfortunately, we can’t change any of that now. But we can start practicing responsible budgeting — especially if we want to make sure we can help our own in times of trouble.

    Foremost, we need to forget increasing our taxes or going deeper into debt. We need to make do with the money we already have, and stick to that plan as much as possible.

    It might sound counterintuitive, but tax cuts could help us out too. There is lots of evidence that lower taxes result in economic growth, and more economic activity means more tax revenue we could use in times of disaster.

    The bottom line is that budget cuts do not mean that Lahaina victims would have to fend for themselves.

    In fact, we need to cut the budget to ensure that we can continue to provide necessary aid — as well as better position ourselves for future emergencies.
    __________

    Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

    The Department’s Quest to Nullify Evidence

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    The Department’s Quest to Nullify Evidence

    Every so often, because our Department of Taxation is given the opportunity to recommend legislation to our lawmakers, the Department sponsors some bills to make their administrative lives easier…which sometimes means trampling on taxpayers’ rights.

    One of the Department’s bills before the current Legislature, which has been introduced as HB 2487 and SB 3176, titled “Relating to Tax Enforcement,” is in this category.  What it says is this.  If you are being audited and the auditor asks you for documents or other information, you have 20 days to give it to them.  If you don’t, you “shall be prohibited from introducing the documents or matters in evidence, or otherwise relying upon or utilizing said documents or matters, in any tax appeal or [payment under protest lawsuit] arising from the audit in which the documents or matters were demanded, unless it is shown that the failure is due to reasonable cause and not neglect or refusal.”  In other words, if you don’t give them documents within the 20 days (unless they give you permission to take longer) then they can conceivably assess tax against you based on “best available information,” meaning they can make up a number, and when you appeal to court you won’t be able to prove up the actual facts against them.  The bill applies to income tax, general excise tax, and estate tax.

    What kind of information requests are we talking about?  Well, here are some from an actual audit:

    Please provide the information requested below:

    1. A full description of the Hawaii business activity(s) of XXX and any other affiliated company(s) doing business in Hawaii.  Please include (1) source of income of XXX and other affiliated company(s), (2) business start date in Hawaii, (3) nature of business, (4) type of services performed, (5) location where services are performed, and (6) where the records are kept.
    • Please provide detailed schedules of the gross income earned in Hawaii for each year.  The income should be classified by year and business activity.
    • Property/services imported for resale at retail are taxable at .5% under Section 238-2(2) and Section 238-2.3(2), HRS. Property/services imported for consumption (equipment, supplies, forms, promotional items, displays, etc.) are taxable at 4% (4.5% on or after January 1, 2007) under Section 238-2(3) and Section 238-2.3(3), HRS. The tax is based on the landed value, which includes the cost, insurance, and freight of the property/services.

    Please submit separate schedules of properties imported into Hawaii for consumption and for resale for each year.

    Additional information may be requested as the audit progresses.  Please provide the information requested above by [20 days from the date of this letter].

    Perhaps this request wouldn’t be too bad if the company being audited already had this information in spreadsheets, but if it didn’t and the company needed to create the schedules and spreadsheets, it could be quite a chore to accomplish in 20 days.

    When this bill was heard in House Judiciary, the Department argued, “Many taxpayers ignore the Department’s requests for information or refuse to permit the Department to examine records during an audit.”  Some tax practitioners stepped up with testimony in opposition, and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii provided comments (that weren’t very favorable to the bill).

    Judiciary Chair David Tarnas’ reaction:  “This needs work.”  He deferred the bill indefinitely, effectively killing the House version; the Senate version is still alive and has been assigned to the Judiciary and Ways & Means committees jointly.

    Let the taxpayer beware!  Someone (or, preferably, lots of people) needs to watch out what is happening at the big square building and say what needs to be said.

    Medical Deception: Fake Breast Cancer Study from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

    Sydney Ross Singer
    -
    0
    Medical Deception: Fake Breast Cancer Study from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

    In 1995, the world was taken by surprise with the announcement of a study linking the excessive wearing of tight bras with an increased incidence of breast cancer, published in the book, Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. We are the authors of this book. 

    As a result of this study, women around the world have been wondering if their bras are harming their breasts. Many stopped wearing bras as a result, and many bra companies have since developed less constrictive designs to avoid the problems caused by tight bras. Studies began to confirm the bra-cancer link.  

    Meanwhile, the bra-cancer link, and the theory of lymphatic impairment and tissue toxification from tight bras, was adamantly resisted by the leaders in the cancer field. The current paradigms of cancer development and treatment do not include lymphatic impairment by tight clothing as a contributing factor. Admitting this factor would upend current cancer theory and practice. 

    Nevertheless, information about the bra-cancer link continued to spread. In response to the progressive public acceptance of this problem with bras, a study was funded in 2014 to essentially discredit the theory. 

    The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center did the study, which was published with great international fanfare and extensive news coverage, announcing that the bra-cancer link is a myth and is refuted once and for all.

    The study is called,Bra Wearing Not Associated with Breast Cancer Risk: A Population-Based Case–Control Study. It was hailed, even by the author of the study, as the last word on this issue. 

    For example, Myth Busted: No link between bras and breast cancer, in USA Today, the author of the study was quoted as saying,

    “There is no evidence that wearing a bra increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer,” says Lu Chen, a researcher at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Chen led the study as part of a broader look at risk factors. She was not surprised, she says, that “there’s just nothing there.”

    As we will show, this statement is false, misleading, and biased, and ten years later it is still being used to discredit the bra-cancer link and discourage interest in further research. It is important for women’s health that this paper needs to be retracted for its errors and biases. 

    Here is an analysis of this paper. 

    Analysis

    The following quotes taken directly from this paper are in italics. This is from the abstract.  

    Bra Wearing Not Associated with Breast Cancer Risk: A Population-Based Case–Control Study

    Despite the widespread use of bras among U.S. women and concerns in the lay media that bra wearing may increase breast cancer risk, there is a scarcity of credible scientific studies addressing this issue. The goal of the study was to evaluate the relationship between various bra-wearing habits and breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women. We conducted a population-based case–control study of breast cancer in the Seattle–Puget Sound metropolitan area that compared 454 invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) cases and 590 invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2004 with 469 control women between 55 to 74 years of age. (Emphasis added.)

    Here is error number one. 

    Misleading Title

    Note that the title, and media about this study, do not mention a key and essential feature of this study, which is that it only looks at postmemopausal women, ages 55-75. Results from postmenopausal women have unknown application to premenopausal women. In fact, as will be shown below, this study deliberately excluded premenopausal women, and in the text of the study it is admitted that the findings only apply to postmenopausal women.

    This essential fact should be in the title. Bra Wearing Not Associated With Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women. The title implies the results are applicable to all women. Clearly, the title was designed to overstate the issue, a first hint at the bias of this study. Not everyone looks at the study, and sees that the title tells a different story. 

    “Control Women”

    According to the study, the “control women” are age matched with the groups of women with cancer. But what kind of control group is this, really? 

    This study is to look at bra use and cancer incidence in women over 55. That means a control group must exist, not only for age, but also for bra usage and for cancer incidence. Therefore, there must be bra-free women for comparison to women who wear bras, and there must be women who do not have breast cancer to compare with those who have had breast cancer (10-13 years ago). 

    However, this study does not have a bra-free control group. These women are all bra users, as the authors state under Materials and Methods. “There was one participant who reported that she never wore a bra and she was excluded from the analysis. There were seven women who did not currently wear a bra and they were included in our lifetime bra wearing analyses but excluded from the analyses of current bra-wearing habits.” 

    In the Discussion section it explains, “Because bra wearing was ubiquitous among our participants, we were unable to compare risks among women who never wore a bra to those who regularly wore a bra, and instead, our primary comparison was based on average number of hours per day women wore a bra.”

    In addition, the “control women” have not been checked for having breast cancer. They were asked a health history, but were not examined. Hence, an unknown number of these women may have undiagnosed cancer. 

    In summary, this study does not really study the impact of bra usage, since there is no bra-free control group. It does not study how many “control women” have undiagnosed cancer. And many of the participants in this postmenopausal cancer study were premenopausal when diagnosed between 2000 and 2004, and some were not. 

    As the paper continues, we see bias admitted in the study purpose. 

    Bias

    To our knowledge, the only epidemiologic evidence on bra wearing and breast cancer risk comes from a case–control study published in 1991, which reported a nonstatistically significant two-fold higher risk among premenopausal women who wore a bra versus those who did not, but no elevation in risk was observed for postmenopausal women. Given that questions in the lay media have been raised about breast cancer risk and bra wearing, we evaluated relationships between various aspects of bra wearing and breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women enrolled in a population-based case–control study. (Emphasis added.)

    The 1991 study, called Breast Size, Handedness, and Breast Cancer Incidence, in the European Journal of Cancer, used bra size to estimate breast size, and discovered that bra-free women had half the incidence of breast cancer compared to bra users. Put differently, bra users had a 100% higher incidence of breast cancer compared to bra-free women. The numbers in the study were too small to make this statistically significant, as the Hutchinson authors point out, but it is significant, enough that the 1991 study pointed out this finding in their abstract. “Premenopausal women who do not wear bras had half the risk of breast cancer compared with bra users (P about 0.09).”

    Note that this finding was found for premenopausal women in that study, and not postmenopausal women. Older women did not show a bra-cancer link in the 1991 study. The authors of the Hutchinson study knew that, and designed their study to confirm the negative finding of a bra-cancer link in postmenopausal women, not look at the positive finding of a bra-link in premenopausal women.  

    If you want to study a bra-cancer link, use the group for which this link was positive. 

    This reveals a bias and agenda, which is further revealed by a statement from Fred Hutchison about this study. “We weren’t really surprised,” Chen said. “We knew that the biological plausibility of a link between bras and breast cancer was really weak.”

    Bad Data

    This study assessed bra usage through asking questions to women 55-75 years old about details of bra usage since they were teens and until the time they were diagnosed with cancer, or an equivalent age for the “control women”.

    “Women were asked a series of structured questions to assess lifetime patterns of bra wearing, including bra cup sizes and band sizes, age at which they started regularly wearing a bra, whether they wore a bra with an underwire, number of hours per day, and number of days per week they wore a bra at different times in their life, and if these patterns ever changed.”

    That’s a lot of recall for 50-60 years of bra usage. Bra styles changed since the early 1940s, when some of the participants were born. Body size also changed. And many women wear the wrong size bra, as the lingerie industry attests. Bra sizing is variable between bra makers and different styles. It is weak evidence when you rely on the memory of women in their 60’s and 70’s to recall the details of their bra usage since puberty. 

    The authors admit this in their Discussion section. “It is important to acknowledge some of the limitations of this study. Data on bra-wearing habits were all self-reported, which are subject to recall bias and/or nondifferential misclassification. 

    However, the authors hedge. “This said, there is no more reliable measure of this exposure other than self-report.” Of course, no evidence is offered to show the reliability of these reports, since you can’t confirm past bra usage for the last 50-60 years.

    We also observed bra-wearing habits to be relatively stable over a woman’s lifetime (e.g., 47.6% of women reported that their bra-wearing habits never changed over their lifetime), which may make the recall task less complex and, thus, improve accuracy in self-reporting these data.”

    This statement makes no sense. If the accuracy of this self-reported data needs improvement, then how can you rely on the accuracy of statements about stable lifetime bra usage habits, which are self-reported? Without objective verification of their past bra usage, you cannot confirm the accuracy of any of their statements.

    Results

    To determine whether bra use time was related to cancer incidence, the women were divided into groups depending on time worn. The time categories were very close, making distinctions extremely difficult, especially when this is considered the sole daily bra usage time for women wearing bras for over 50 years. 

    For the lifetime average daily bra usage, the time categories used were 10 hours or less, 10.1 -11.5 hours, 11.6-13.9 hours, and 14 hours or more.  They did not find any statistically significant difference between the cancer groups and the “control women” using this time categorization. 

    Again, note that there is no group of zero hours of bra usage, which would be the control group. 

    Their results mean that in lifetime bra users between 55-75, you cannot tell any statistically significant differences between women who wear bras for 10 hours compared to 11.5 hours, or even compared to 14 hours when it comes to developing breast cancer. Therefore, they conclude, the time each day a bra is worn does not impact breast cancer incidence. 

    This is like studying cigarette smoking in old smokers and looking for a difference in lung cancer incidence, depending on whether they smoked an average of 20 cigarettes each day for 60 years, or 22 cigarettes a day, or 30 cigarettes a day, and not including any non-smokers for comparison, and, upon not finding a statistically significant difference, saying there is no smoking-cancer connection. 

    Of course, if they compared lifetime smokers to lifetime non-smokers, you will see a big difference. Lifetime bra users must also be compared to lifetime bra-free women to have any meaningful comparison. 

    This leads us to a basic problem with this study design and its selection of postmenopausal women. Choosing this group to confirm a negative impact of bras creates another bias that the authors did not admit. 

    Survivor Bias

    What the authors do not acknowledge is the existence of a survivor bias when using older people who have been practicing a lifestyle daily for 50 years or more. Time selects out the more susceptible people, leaving survivors. Studying the survivors will underestimate the hazards of a lifestyle. See survivor bias. 

    We raised this issue to Fred Hutchinson. When the authors of this study were preparing to announce their findings, we were personally contacted by Fred Hutchinson’s communications department, asking for our response prior to their publishing. They sent us an advanced copy of their study to get our objections so they could address them in their upcoming press release. We asked why they were excluding premenopausal women, when the 1991 study they referenced found a bra-cancer link in younger women. We suggested their design to confirm a negative finding and ignore the positive one reflected a bias and agenda. 

    Fred Hutchinson released a statement soon thereafter, saying, “The “Dressed to Kill” authors aren’t backing down. In an email, Sydney Ross Singer questioned why the Fred Hutch authors studied post-menopausal women rather than pre-menopausal women and said that their conclusion “suggests a pro-bra bias.”

    Not at all, said the Fred Hutch’s Dr. Christopher Li, an epidemiologist and breast cancer expert in the PHS Division. Li, along with fellow PHS epidemiologist Dr. Kathleen Malone and researcher Chen, used data from a larger study of post-menopausal breast cancer patients because most breast cancers are diagnosed in older women – and they also have the longest lifetime exposure to wearing bras.”

    Their response shows a lack of appreciation for the survivor bias. It also shows that they were working to refute our research. 

    Lastly, under bias, it must be mentioned that, while the authors claimed no conflicts of interest in their study, they do not mention that they are women who wear bras. That’s like having smokers study the harms of smoking. It’s a conflict of interest. 

    Surprising Result

    Despite the apparent design to show no evidence of a bra-cancer link, this study did find a link.  

    (T)here was some suggestion that women who wore an A-cup bra had increased risksof both IDC (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0–3.6; P = 0.039) and ILC (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0–3.3; P = 0.057)…” 

    In other words, the proportion of women in the cancer groups wearing A-cup bras was nearly 90% higher than the proportion of women in the “control” group wearing A-cup bras. 

    This statement contradicts the conclusion and title of their paper.

    The authors reported these results on women who wore A-cup bras, but then hedged that, “…neither these trends nor trends for any of the other continuous variables assessed were statistically significant.

    That is not true, as we shall show. 

    Keep in mind that statistical significance tells how reliable the results are. Very significant results can be statistically insignificant. It’s a reflection of the study design, not the situation being studied. 

    A “P” value of less than 0.05 means that you can be 95% confident of the results. A P value of 0.01 means there is a 99% confidence. A P value of 0.1 gives a 90% confidence. 

    In this study, the P value for IDC is 0.039 in A-cup women, which is a P number below 0.05 and is statistically significant. And for ILC, the P number is close, at 0.057.

    Taken together, these cancer groups have a statistically significantly higher rate of A-cup bra users compared to the “control women”. The authors of the study said this was insignificant. 

    Unfortunately, the lack of a bra-free control group, and all the other errors exposed above, make these results meaningless. 

    There was no data given to show how cup size relates to time worn. Any difference, if it is real, would more likely be due to breast size. But who knows with faulty data, even if statistics say it is significant?

    Breast size is considered directly proportional to cancer incidence, with the larger breast having the greater incidence, particularly for postmenopausal women. However, in this study, breasts in A-cups have a higher link to cancer than larger breasts, the opposite of what you would expect from breast size. 

    Could it be that A-cup bras are worn more tightly, perhaps to increase the appearance of cleavage? Tightness of the bras was never considered in this study, which is another major flaw. Comparing time worn without regard to tightness is useless. 

    Tightness Ignored

    The impact of bras is a function of tightness and time worn. It is not just about whether a bra has an underwire or not. Any bra can be worn too tightly. It is also possible that women of different breast and body shapes and sizes may choose to wear bras to different degrees of tightness. Research is needed to study this. 

    But this issue is academic, since the data is based on the recall of senior citizens, with unknown memory abilities, about lifetime bra usage over a 50-60 year period.  And none of them were compared to women of the same age who were bra-free their entire lives. 

    This study is useless, misleading, misinformation, and needs retraction. Currently, it is confusing and misleading the public, doctors, and cancer researchers. 

    Since this study was done there have been numerous studies done internationally which show a bra-cancer link. See resources below for references. 

    Biomechanics research is showing the mechanism for this link, and how tight bras interfere with the lymphatic system to the detriment of immune function, increasing cancer risk.   

    Unfortunately, this poorly designed, biased, uncontrolled study has been elevated to prominence by an advertising campaign that ran stories about this study around the world as the final word on this controversial issue. 

    Indeed, the authors of this paper admit in their funding section that “The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.” (Emphasis added.)

    In other words, this study and paper is an advertisement defending bras, and discouraging interest in the bra-cancer link, and has been reported around the world to reassure women about the safety of bras.  

    As the authors conclude, “This is the first study to characterize various bra-wearing habits in relation to breast cancer risk using a rigorous epidemiologic study design. The findings provided reassurance to women that wearing a bra does not seem to increase the risk of the most common histologic types of postmenopausal breast cancer.” (Emphasis added.)

    Note that saying this study is reassuring shows a bias towards bras. Given that this is one study, there is no basis for reassurances to women about the bra-cancer link. The study design makes meaningful results impossible, as the study tries to confirm negative findings. Even if they were valid, the results are also of unknown relevance to premenopausal women, a limitation which is not mentioned in the paper. 

    The authors should have called for further studies that are better designed. Their eagerness to put this issue to rest is clear.

    As new research emerges which supports the bra-cancer link, this one study is still being used to discourage interest, 10 years since its publication. But this study is now in stark contrast to dozens of studies that support a bra-cancer link, all done within the past 10 years.

    It is imperative for women’s health and the prevention of breast cancer that this sham study be retracted and taken out of publication. Research into the causes of breast cancer needs to consider the biomechanical impact of tight bras on the breasts and how that can lead to cancer development. But this Hutchinson study is getting in the way of that research.

    For example, the American Cancer Society is referring to this study when denying the bra-cancer link. “Online and social media rumors and at least one book have suggested that bras cause breast cancer by obstructing lymph flow. There is no 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.” 

    Note that the limitations of this study are not mentioned by the ACS, such as the absence of a bra-free control group, or that the results from postmenopausal women may not apply to younger, premenopausal women. Omission of this information is misleading. 

    Wikipedia has an entry about our book, Dressed to Kill, which discredits the book and refers to the Hutchinson study as proof that the bra-cancer theory is discredited. “A study conducted by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center 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.The study included detailed studies of women’s lifestyle and bra-wearing habits and found no correlation between bra use and cancer.”

    Again, no mention is made of the limitations of this study. Clearly, this study is being misused and misquoted by authoritative sources, making the retraction and removal of this study very important to stop misinformation about this issue. 

    This work was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute R01 CA 85913 (to C.I. Li and K.E. Malone). 

    It is unfortunate that the public cannot be reimbursed for the taxpayer funds that paid for this flawed, misleading study. 

    Conclusion:

    This study is misleading the public about this vital issue. This Fred Hutchinson study is part of a medical industry effort to suppress and censor the bra-cancer link. This study should be retracted, and all those involved in its publication and dissemination should be held responsible for the pain, suffering, and deaths caused by keeping this information from women. 

    Clearly, the public cannot trust these cancer industry leaders to give truthful information about breast cancer, or to have the integrity to retract this propagandistic study. 

    Resources:

    References to studies which show a bra-cancer link can be found at 

    https://brasandbreastcancer.org/supportive-references

    See also,

    The Biomechanics of Bras and Lymphatics and the Link to Breast Cancer

    Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, Second Ed. 

    Tight Clothing Affects Tumor Microenvironment

    What Breast Cancer Inc. Doesn’t Want You to Know about Bras

    Fake Breast Cancer News from the American Cancer Society

    1st Annual FilmFreude Honolulu Film Festival–A Celebration of German Cinema–March 1-3, 2024 

    Guest Contributor
    -
    0
    1st Annual FilmFreude Honolulu Film Festival–A Celebration of German Cinema–March 1-3, 2024 

    German cinema takes center stage as FilmFreude Honolulu German Film Festival (FFHGFF) proudly announces its inaugural edition, set to captivate audiences from March 1 to 3, 2024. In collaboration with the Honolulu Museum of Art the festival showcases the most exciting new German Films at HOMA’s Doris Duke Theatre, (900 S. Beretania St.)

    FilmFreude Honolulu aims to celebrate and honor new and emerging talents while fostering a dynamic cultural exchange through the captivating medium of German cinema. This year’s festival is generously sponsored by BMW Honolulu, Malao Films, the German Honorary Consul in Honolulu and the German Consulate General in San Francisco.

    The Festival Experience: The magic of German cinema sends the audience into another world, where different thoughts and dreams are forming multifaceted concepts of life from the opposite side of the globe. Visionary directors and rising stars are in this well curated lineup spans feature films and art documentaries.

    All films will be presented in their original German language with English subtitles, ensuring accessibility to a broad audience eager to explore the unique narratives and visual masterpieces crafted by these filmmakers.

    ‘Weekend Rebels’ by Marc Rothemund (Opening Film)

    10-year-old autistic Jason, known for his non-negotiable routines, faces the challenge of choosing a soccer club with his dad Mirco in exchange for adapting at school. Their soccer adventures become a unique bond, helping Mirco understand his special son and embrace unexpected lessons about love.

    Directed by multiple major award winner Marc Rothemund (Sophie Scholl – The Final Days). Florian David Fitz won Bavarian Film Award for Best Actor. A Picture Tree International Release.

    Festival Highlights:

    Dates: March 1-3, 2024
    Venue: Doris Duke Theatre, Honolulu Museum of Art
    Featured Films: ‘Weekend Rebels’ by Marc Rothemund (Opening Film), ‘A Thousand Lines’ by Michael Herbig, ‘Afire’ by Christian Petzold and ‘Anselm’ by Wim Wenders
    Sponsors: BMW Honolulu, Malao, The Curb Kaimuki, Honolulu Museum of Art, Il Gelato, eC3 Hawaii, Honorary Consul of Germany in Honolulu and other valued partners
    Online Presence: Explore the full festival schedule, purchase tickets, and secure all-access passes at www.filmfreude.com

    Tickets: Admission Opening Film (Fri): $20 (With Il Gelato Scoop), Admission Per Film (Sat./Sun): $15, Festival Pass: $80 (All Films + Festival Shirt)
    Join the Conversation: Follow the excitement and engage with FilmFreude Honolulu German Film Festival on social media:
    Hashtags: #FFHGFF #filmfreudehonolulu
    Social Media: Facebook, Instagram
    About FilmFreude Honolulu: FilmFreude Honolulu is a vibrant German Film Festival making its debut in Honolulu in 2024. As a platform for cinematic exploration, the festival invites audiences to embark on a journey through the latest achievements in German cinema. From thought-provoking documentaries to visually stunning feature films, FilmFreude Honolulu offers a captivating snapshot of German-speaking cultures. The festival is honored to include contributions from Austria and Switzerland, further enriching the narrative tapestry.

    FilmFreude Honolulu welcomes all cinema enthusiasts to partake in this unique festival, celebrating the beauty of German culture through the powerful lens of storytelling.

    ‘A Thousand Lines’ by Michael Herbig, ‘Afire’ by Christian Petzold and ‘Anselm’ by Wim Wenders

    Inspired by true events. A gripping and entertaining David vs. Goliath story in our times of fake news and alternative facts. Freelance journalist Juan Romero challenges the acclaimed reporter Lars Bogenius’ cover story, uncovering inconsistencies. Despite facing opposition from the Chronik news magazine’s board, Romero persists in his pursuit of the truth, risking his career, reputation, and family in the process.

    Directed by Michael Herbig. Cast Elyas M’Barek (Juan Romero) and Jonas Nay (Lars Bogenius). A Beta Cinema Release.

    Open Letter- Calls for Retraction of Faulty Breast Cancer Study

    Sydney Ross Singer
    -
    0
    Open Letter- Calls for Retraction of Faulty Breast Cancer Study

    To: 

    Lu Chen, Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue North, Mail Stop M4-C308, Seattle, WA 98109-1024. Phone: 206-667-5028; Fax: 206-667-5948; E-mail: luchen78@uw.edu 

    Thomas J. Lynch Jr., MD, President and Director, Fred Hutch, Phone: 206.667.6767, Email: tom@fredhutch.org

    American Association for Cancer Research 615 Chestnut Street  |  17th Floor  |  Philadelphia, PA 19106-4404
    ( 855) 744-4667  E-mail:  aacrjournals@aacr.org

    Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Editorial Office American Association for Cancer Research |  Publications Division 615 Chestnut Street  |  17th Floor  |  Philadelphia, PA 19106-4404
    Phone: (215) 440-9300  E-mail:  cebp@aacr.org

    2/18/2024

    Dear Ms Chen, Dr. Lynch Jr.:

    We are writing to expose the need for the retraction of a study published in 2014, in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, due to its significant flaws, biases, and harmful impact on women’s health. 

    The study is called,Bra Wearing Not Associated with Breast Cancer Risk: A Population-Based Case–Control Study. It was conducted at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center by then graduate student, Lu Chen. 

    This study was part of a concerted effort by cancer industry leaders to suppress information about the bra-cancer link.  Misinformation about, and created by, this study spread like a cancer around the world, and still serves as the cancer industry’s excuse for ignoring this vital women’s health issue of tight bras.

    Fred Hutchinson extensively publicized this flawed study as part of a public relations effort to discredit the bra-cancer link. The Fred Hutch press release shows an extreme bias. 

    The chosen title for this paper in itself is misleading. It implies the study looked at all women. Actually, it only looked at postmenopausal women, ages 55-75, so the results have unknown application to premenopausal women. Generalizing the results to all women in the title is obviously misleading and false.  

    Studies which are done on postmenopausal women should indicate that in the title.

    This biased title portends other problems. Here is a brief explanation of just some of the other flaws and biases in this “study”.

    The Study

    This 2014 study compared the incidence of breast cancer in women ages 55-75, all of whom wore bras all their lives. The cancer groups included women with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma (IDC) and invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), diagnosed between 2000-2004. These women were compared to lifetime bra-users of comparable age who do not (yet) have cancer. 

    Despite the widespread use of bras among U.S. women and concerns in the lay media that bra wearing may increase breast cancer risk, there is a scarcity of credible scientific studies addressing this issue. The goal of the study was to evaluate the relationship between various bra-wearing habits and breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women. We conducted a population-based case–control study of breast cancer in the Seattle–Puget Sound metropolitan area that compared 454 invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) cases and 590 invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2004 with 469 control women between 55 to 74 years of age. (Emphasis added.)

    The Errors

    1. “Control Women”

    The “control women” are age matched with the groups of women with cancer. But what kind of control group is this, really? 

    This study looks at bra use and cancer incidence in women over 55. That means a control group must exist, not only for age, but also for bra usage and for cancer incidence. Therefore, there must be bra-free women for comparison to women who wear bras.  And there must be women who do not have breast cancer to compared with those who have had breast cancer (10-13 years ago). 

    However, this study does not have a bra-free control group. These women are all bra users, as the authors state under Materials and Methods. 

    “There was one participant who reported that she never wore a bra and she was excluded from the analysis. There were seven women who did not currently wear a bra and they were included in our lifetime bra wearing analyses but excluded from the analyses of current bra-wearing habits.” 

    In the Discussion section it explains, 

    “Because bra wearing was ubiquitous among our participants, we were unable to compare risks among women who never wore a bra to those who regularly wore a bra, and instead, our primary comparison was based on average number of hours per day women wore a bra.”

    In addition, the “control women” have not been checked for having breast cancer. They were asked a health history, but were not examined. Hence, an unknown number of these women may have undiagnosed cancer, especially given their age. 

    This should already invalidate this study. You cannot determine the impact of bra usage on breast cancer incidence without a baseline of bra-free women. That is the purpose of having a control group. 

    2. Using Postmenopausal Women 

    The design of this study deliberately tries to confirm a negative finding, not a positive finding, which only a biased study would do.

    To our knowledge, the only epidemiologic evidence on bra wearing and breast cancer risk comes from a case–control study published in 1991, which reported a nonstatistically significant two-fold higher risk among premenopausal women who wore a bra versus those who did not, but no elevation in risk was observed for postmenopausal women. Given that questions in the lay media have been raised about breast cancer risk and bra wearing, we evaluated relationships between various aspects of bra wearing and breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women enrolled in a population-based case–control study. (Emphasis added.)

    In other words, the authors wanted to confirm the negative results in older women that showed no link, instead of confirming the positive results in younger women for whom there was a link. Hmmm. Obviously, the goal was to show a case where bras do not cause breast cancer, instead of looking for cases where tight bras do cause breast cancer. 

    So the goal was to attack a theory, not find a cause and cure of breast cancer. Let’s be clear about that, since donors to Fred Hutch may want to know this. 

    By the way, another thing Lu Chen didn’t mention in the paper is that lifestyle research on old people creates a survivor bias. Time selects out the more susceptible people, leaving survivors. Studying the survivors will underestimate the hazards of a lifestyle. See survivor bias. 

    3. Ignoring Tightness

    To determine whether the amount of time a bra is use daily is related to cancer incidence, the women were divided into groups depending on time worn. However, nothing was done to assess tightness!

    The issue of bras, which Lu Chen et al should know, is their tightness. The compression and constriction of the lymphatics is the problem, and the impact gets worse with the amount of time this is done. But you need to know the tightness to understand the significance of time. Wearing bras of different tightness for the same amount of time will have different impacts. Again, this needs to be compared to bra-free women who have never been constricted or compressed by bra usage, as a proper control group. 

    4. Recall Problems

    Another problem is that the study relied on subject recall. Unfortunately, the recall of senior citizens, (of unknown and untested memory abilities), about lifetime bra usage over a period of 50-60 years, is unreliable. Bra styles have changed over that time, too. And sizing is different between bra companies and styles, so wearing the same size in different bra styles and brands does not indicate the same tightness. This is true for all bras, with and without underwire.

    So this study doesn’t really test the bra-cancer theory. It ignores bra-free women, and ignores bra tightness. And the results are skewed by older age, which also puts the quality of the data in question. 

    Why conduct and publish such poor research?

    5. Conflict of Interest 

    The authors claimed no conflicts of interest in their study. However, there are two conflicts that should have been admitted.

    First, the researchers were themselves bra users. This should have been disclosed. That’s like having smokers study the harms of smoking. The women doing this study had a personal investment in seeing negative results. They clearly think bras are safe or they would not wear them. This creates a bias and personal conflict of interest. 

    Second, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center gets donations from a 5K Bra Dash, which is a fundraising event conducted by the organization Wings of Karen.“100% of the proceeds benefit breast cancer research locally through the partnership of UW Medicine, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.”

    How ironic to use bras to raise funds for research into the harms caused by bras. 

    Fortunately, the cancer cartel does not control all research around the world, just most of it.  Since this sham study was published 10 years ago, there have been dozens of studies done internationally which show a significant bra-cancer link, including biomechanics research on bras and the lymphatics. 

    We believe the fatal flaws of this study, its blatant biases, the conflict of interest of the authors and of Fred Hutchison, and the negative impact this study is having on research into this important issue, demands immediate retraction of this study. 

    History will judge the medical resistance to this issue as a case of medical corruption. 

    Do you want to be on the correct side of history, or part of the problem?

    Lu Chen, it is not too late to retract your paper. Do a better study where you don’t know the results before you begin. And choose a title that is honest and not misleading. 

    Dr. Lynch, it’s no shame for Fred Hutch to retract papers. Even Harvard does it. 

    Editor and publisher, please show integrity. You are spreading misinformation. 

    We are sharing this letter with the world, which is watching. 

    Sincerely,

    Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer

    Medical Anthropologists

    The ConAm Returns Again

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    The ConAm Returns Again

    Back in 2018, we as voters were inundated with impassioned arguments on both sides of a proposed constitutional amendment (“ConAm” for short).  The amendment would have given the State the power to impose a surcharge on real property tax, ostensibly to fund teacher pay raises.

    The Hawaii Supreme Court voided the ballot question associated with the ConAm as vague and misleading in City & County of Honolulu v. State of Hawaii, 143 Haw. 455 (2018).

    It’s now another election year.  A bill to put forth a similar ConAm, HB 1537, is advancing in the House.

    Have the proponents of education funding learned their lesson from 2018?  We wonder about that.

    The ballot question that the Hawaii Supreme Court found confusing in 2018 read:  “Shall the legislature be authorized to establish, as provided by law, a surcharge on investment real property to be used to support public education?”

    The ballot question in HB 1537 is:  “Shall the legislature increase funding for public education for all of Hawaii’s children and adults by establishing, as provided by law, a surcharge on residential investment property valued at $3,000,000 or greater, excluding a homeowner’s primary residence?”

    In 2018, our supreme court stated that proposed constitutional amendments and their corresponding ballot questions are required to be phrased in clear language that is not likely to deceive or mislead voters as to their nature and effect.  The court complained:

    [To] fully appreciate the scope of the proposed change, a voter would need to know that the Hawai‘i Constitution provides independent taxing power to the counties; that the constitution currently allows only the counties to tax real property to the exclusion of all other government entities; and that the proposed amendment would make an exception to this exclusive authority of the counties by granting the State concurrent authority to tax what is presumably a subset of real property. None of this information is conveyed by the ballot question, which is instead likely to leave the average lay voter with the false impression that a vote in favor of the amendment would allow investment real property to be taxed in the first instance.

    Yes, there are differences between the 2018 proposed ballot question and the current one.  The 2018 question spoke of surcharging “investment real property,” while the current one talks about “residential investment property, valued at $3,000,000 or greater, excluding a homeowner’s primary residence.”

    In neither case does the ballot question mention the word “tax.”  Maybe in 2018 voters could figure out that a real property tax was being contemplated because that year’s question expressly referred to real property.  This year’s question does not even mention “real” property, so voters could be faced with a “surcharge,” whatever that means, on “residential investment property” which perhaps could be mobile homes or even shares of stock in Hilton or Marriott.  In that respect, the ballot question is even more vague than in 2018.

    And how does the current language answer the supreme court’s complaint that the ballot question fails to mention the county’s exclusive authority to tax realty and that the proposal would alter it?  The short answer is that it doesn’t.

    And finally, how do we even know whether the money raised by this surcharge is even going to be used for education?  Even if it is all sent to DOE, there would be nothing to prevent the legislature from shorting DOE in the regular budget now that it has an independent source of funding.

    The Counties all oppose the bill.  For one thing, the counties’ bond holders (creditors) would be upset if the counties lost control over their primary source of repayment.  If this bill passes, then, look for the battle lines to be drawn the same as last time.  If the Hawaii Supreme Court is going to follow its precedent, the future of this measure looks bleak unless major changes are made to it.

    1234...2,029Page 3 of 2,029

    Recent

    Most Commented

    Popular

    Contact us