Often people make it out to be that scientists went "oh lets get 100 women and try this for a month and see what happens!" when really the research is done on a more anatomical level, for example I don't actually know but it could be that compression of alveoli helps clear the ducts and prevent fluid build up which can cause cysts (so something like that might help prevent cancer in a way), and so then someone looks at that and re shapes it to make it seem like guys squeezing boobs reduces breast cancer. Sometimes it's just people taking serious scientific facts and seeing how the relate to sex
In my own experience and hearing the analysis of the media reporting on science, they are often: (grossly) overstating the results and/or implications for said results; misunderstanding and/or misconstruing the results reported in the paper; quote mining or just flat out making shit up.
.
Guest, your hypothesis on clearing the ducts does sound quite anatomically plausable... If that is the case it was probably reported in the paper as:
.
"In (x) percent of test subjects, it was discovered that those who experienced mechanical manipulation of tissues had a statistically significant percentage decrease in the incidence of cancer.
It was further noted that as the frequency of manipulation increased, the percentage of cancerous incidence also decrease by a ratio of (x:x)."
.
However, I suspect that this was an observational study, even a meta-analysis that given the subject, where the original data set(s) were based on self reporting.
I'm not saying that observational, meta-analysis and self reporting shouldn't be trusted, but they certainly aren't valid for drawing significant conclusions. My understanding is that they are tools for determining whether further research is warranted.
Mgoveia, excellent idea! (And glorious pony reference at that. Brohoof /)*(\ ).
And Smitty, great establishment of what does/does not happen in a scientific inquiry. By the read of reading the comment I was saying, "Buuuurn". So yay!
.
Guest, your hypothesis on clearing the ducts does sound quite anatomically plausable... If that is the case it was probably reported in the paper as:
.
"In (x) percent of test subjects, it was discovered that those who experienced mechanical manipulation of tissues had a statistically significant percentage decrease in the incidence of cancer.
It was further noted that as the frequency of manipulation increased, the percentage of cancerous incidence also decrease by a ratio of (x:x)."
.
However, I suspect that this was an observational study, even a meta-analysis that given the subject, where the original data set(s) were based on self reporting.
Thanks!
And Smitty, great establishment of what does/does not happen in a scientific inquiry. By the read of reading the comment I was saying, "Buuuurn". So yay!