Deodorant and breast cancer link?

[Mrstumbletap]

I was reading an article yesterday that showed the links between deodorant and breast cancer and it having something to do with the aluminium in them.

So I looked this morning and all my deodorant spray and roll on or stick types have it. But body spray doesn't.

Are there any scientists, oncologists, deodorant makers or anyone more 'in the know' to know if this it something I/we should be avoiding? It's a bit scary!

Any research which uses mice cells in a dish subjected to nasty stuff no matter what the issue should be treated with caution. These experiments have no relevance to the human experience and are generally regarded as being of academic interest only unless you're a mouse.
More research needed is just a euphemism for "more research funding please", the reason why tripe such as this is published in the first place and of course isn't more roundly rejected because clinical research is just a business like any other and they're all at it.

I think it's enough to make me want to stop using it. Bloomin chemicals, they are everywhere. I read the other day that roundup and gardening chemicals are really bad too and can cause cancer. You clever people know if that is true?

If they weren't unscientific, why the new fad from manufacturers to bring out so many new ones without Aluminium salts in?

Because people will buy it. It's not evidence that aluminium salts cause cancer.

I'm no scientist, but the first thought that came to mind reading about the shift in the location of tumours was to question the diagnostic and recording techniques, and (for example) the age profiles of the patients in each cohort.

Could be talking out of my arse, but without looking at the data itself I'd be very wary of comparing diagnoses now with diagnoses from almost a century ago.

It's not unscientific, the science was sound. It just didn't show what the media said it did. One of the problems with the paraben story, for example, is that as it crosses the skin there is enzyme activity within the skin that turns the paraben into something else - and the something else, the chemical that then goes into the body, has no effect on cultured cancer cells. Therefore how can it cause cancer if it doesn't make cancer cells grow?

Sometimes in science (and I say this as a researcher albeit in a different area) there are certain researchers who make the evidence fit their theories rather than forming theories from the evidence. They do us all a disservice and that is what has happened here.

It's enough to make me stop using it

If CRUK saying that it's an email hoax, and there is no evidence to suggest that this is a thing is not enough to make you dismiss the idea completely then I am not sure how I can help you.

That link is quite scary it seems to show scientific studies claiming that it's true. If I'm reading it right?

Do you think you are reading it right? You've read some summaries of some studies, and you are coming to a different conclusion to the people who
a - had actually read the papers involved
b - are experts in this field
Do you think perhaps that they are better qualified to come to a conclusion than you are?
In situations like this you should decide that their conclusion is more likely to be right, and remind yourself that you are not qualified to make conclusions about this kind of evidence.

This is why science communication is so hard - when you do your very best to not just dismiss people's fears but address them and explain the evidence, they misunderstand they evidence you show to them and decide to use it to reinforce their mistake.

It's not unscientific, the science was sound. It just didn't show what the media said it did.

This is an important distinction.

Trills, do you think that President of the International Board of Clinical Metal Toxicology (NGO), Scientific Advisor of the German Medical Association of Clinical Metal Tox, whom I quoted earlier, is not not an expert in this field?

And if it is an email hoax, why are there papers being published in respected scientific journals about it?

Sniffly in looking at that organisation now, and it looks strange. Unprofessional website; only two members in the UK, one of whom has an"@blueyonder" email address rather than a hospital or university or even a business address; only one publication which is a text book from 2015 written by the ex-president of the organisation; nothing linking to this topic area; and the organisation is sponsored by Trenker Company, a Belgian company who manufacture all sorts of pharmaceutical products including "hair supplements" www.trenker.be/en/our-products.aspx.

What makes this organisation and the non-peer reviewed article in an open access "journal" an authority in the field?

To be quite honest I didn't read your post because it was about 8 phone screens long and appeared to be all in italics. I was responding to the OP's decision to read the evidence that CRUK had put forward and decide to come to the opposite conclusion (before your long post).

Thanks for bringing it back to my attention. :)

I've looked at the paper you've linked and to me it reads like the authors had an outcome in mind and aimed towards that outcome, rather than examining the evidence neutrally (which I realise is harder than it sounds).

it would be irresponsible given the existing data situation to wait until a “statistically significant” number of women had become ill, who would be sufficient for unequivocal proof.

That's a pretty dramatic-sounding sentence. I do not trust anyone who puts "statistically significant" in quote marks as if it is a magic word. In the hands of another author it might read

the evidence is not strong enough to indicate that people should make any lifestyle changes, and it would be irresponsible to cause undue alarm

Which you consider to be the most responsible will depend on your outlook. For example, here's what I consider to be some very responsible reporting on the "bacon is in the same cancer-causing category as tobacco"

I'm afraid I cannot take the International Board of Clinical Metal Toxicology seriously when their website looks like this. If you want more detailed documentation on what they do you can click to get a 40 page MS Word doc dated 2005. An impressive-sounding institute is not necessarily a reliable one.

We should also remember that collecting evidence is not like collecting tokens - it doesn't just go in one direction.

People who have a preferred outcome like to phrase "we need more evidence" to suggest that the evidence that we don't yet have will definitely support their outcome. We only have tokens now, so we can't say, but when we get more stamps we'll have 10 tokens and then we'll be able to say it's true.

People who treat evidence responsibly know that evidence can go both ways. It's more like collecting tokens of two different colours.
We have 1 green and 3 blues now, so we can't say, when we get more stamps we'll be able to say whether green is more likely or blue is more likely

Since having a mastectomy last year I get anxious about what I should be doing to reduce my risk of the cancer coming back. I have more then halved my alcohol intake and take more exercise. Reading stuff like this does start to make me wonder if there are more changes I need to make though, I know there is no clear evidence and it could be a load of rubbish, but are the roll on deodorants aluminium too?

missyB1 it is a worry but you are doing the right things. It's why scaremongering like this makes me so cross. The message should be clearabout exercise and alcohol as key risk reducers but it's compounded with twaddle that just makes people worry more. I know full well the best ways to reduce the risk is to take my Tamoxifen, walk a lot and keep alcohol to a minimum.

missy, I'd ask the doctors looking g after your long term care for their medical opinion. The links in this thread are not peer reviewed research and cannot be given weight to their 'opinion', as they are not backed up with objective fact.

crumbs yes I'm on Tamoxifen too, and despite really struggling with the side effects at times I will take it as long as my Consultant says as you are right it's one of the most important things we can do to protect ourselves.

I'd look at who did the research tbh.
There are multi billion organisations that want your money.
Personally I go with the advice from WHO and use Mitchum as it doesn't have alluminium.
Luckily my dd has followed and even though there's controversy I know she'll be safe.
It's up to others what they do and believe though.

Bloomin chemicals, they are everywhere

Yes, they are, bastards!
I will henceforth avoid all dihydrogen monoxide aka water because it's a 'chemical'.

I don't really care what anybody does with their armpits, but I prefer mine dry and not too smelly and aluminium products are very effective for that.

Here's another thought: life is a terminal disease that always ends in death
It's all about how you frame things.
There is no evidence that antiperspirants increase risk of breast cancer, but breast cancer is of course not all that uncommon. Most breast cancer sufferers will have used antiperspirants. It's an association, not a causative effect.

I don't think that Mitchum's is aluminium free? - link

What WHO recommendation do you follow, gillybeanz?

Pacific

WHO were just recommending that people use aluminium free deodorant, not specifically Mitchum. I phrased my post wrongly.

It was free from aluminium when I last looked as my dh has to have it for his condition.
I will double check though, thanks.
It was recommended by his consultant, obviously not breast cancer related in his case.

Lots of brands want your money for aluminium free deodorants too - link

These are deodorants i.e. prevent smell, NOT antiperspirants which prevent wetness btw. That is what the aluminium ingredient does.

I cannot find anything from the WHO - do you have a link, gillybeanz?

The use of antiperspirants had no association with the risk of breast cancer, while family history and oral contraceptives use were found to be associated.

from here - small study linked to from the WHO website which suggests that the NON-users of antiperspirants had a higher risk of breast Ca then the users - not statistically significant, but reassuring nonetheless.

Dh uses aluminium free because he is allergic to aluminium. His DM was the same.

Yes, aluminium can be irritant to the skin and many people find they have to avoid it after using 20% aluminium containing antiperspirants such as Driclor or Anhydrol. AFAIK it's a contact irritant rather than an allergy, I think.

Comparing the diagnosis of breast cancer between now and 100 years ago is utter nonsense. The methods by which it is done have changed beyond recognition.
The reason most tumours occur in the upper outer part of the breast? It's where most of the glandular breast tissue lies, which is where most tumours arise.

Pacific

I'm sorry, it was a while ago, maybe a few years now. Not more than that though.

Can somebody recommend a good aluminium free deodorant for those of us who don't want to take chances?