WEBVTT - #2026 New Breast Cancer Research - David Gillespie 0:00:00.440 --> 0:00:02.640 I'll get a team. It's it's the new project. Of 0:00:02.640 --> 0:00:05.680 course it is. It's your favorite podcast. That may not 0:00:05.720 --> 0:00:07.920 be true. Maybe it's just a podcast, could be your favorite. 0:00:07.920 --> 0:00:08.400 I hope it is. 0:00:08.400 --> 0:00:12.119 Tiffany and Cook's probably probably one of your favorites. If 0:00:12.160 --> 0:00:14.040 this is one of your favorites, Hi, tiv. 0:00:14.160 --> 0:00:16.680 High Harps, it's one of my favorites, that's for sure. 0:00:17.239 --> 0:00:19.520 Is it in the top five, It's definitely in the 0:00:19.520 --> 0:00:22.200 top five. It's just in my top five, and it's 0:00:22.239 --> 0:00:22.720 my show. 0:00:22.960 --> 0:00:26.360 So it's like it comes in at number five, it 0:00:26.400 --> 0:00:29.240 comes in at number five. That's not true. I don't 0:00:29.280 --> 0:00:33.199 even listen. I listened a bit. I just had actually 0:00:33.360 --> 0:00:35.599 two minus before we went live. Andrew May, who's been 0:00:35.600 --> 0:00:38.480 on the podcast too as his own podcast of course, 0:00:38.560 --> 0:00:39.800 High Performance Coach. 0:00:39.640 --> 0:00:42.159 Man about Tanny Rangmini, just said he was listening to 0:00:42.200 --> 0:00:43.080 the show and he loves it. 0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:45.640 And I'm like, it's nice when other people who have 0:00:45.680 --> 0:00:48.400 their own shows listen to our show and say nice things. 0:00:49.200 --> 0:00:50.360 A little bit of validation. 0:00:50.479 --> 0:00:54.200 But I get which you would think, because everyone thinks 0:00:54.200 --> 0:00:56.800 I've got a big head, maybe that I would like 0:00:56.920 --> 0:00:57.480 listening to me. 0:00:57.560 --> 0:00:59.960 I actually do not like listening to me. At all. 0:01:00.080 --> 0:01:02.480 I would rather I reckon out of the twenty twenty 0:01:02.600 --> 0:01:06.000 or so that we've done, I've maybe listened to two 0:01:06.080 --> 0:01:11.280 podcasts right through, like Start Finish two, and maybe not 0:01:11.319 --> 0:01:14.520 even right through. I just I don't like the sound 0:01:14.520 --> 0:01:17.440 of my own voice. I'm very familiar with it, but 0:01:17.600 --> 0:01:20.880 I don't like the sound of it. And I, yeah, 0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:24.080 what about you, gilespo do you You probably don't hear 0:01:24.120 --> 0:01:25.880 a lot of yourself, or do you. 0:01:27.560 --> 0:01:31.679 I used to do a lot of media, and you know, 0:01:31.760 --> 0:01:34.679 television shows and so on, when various books came out. 0:01:35.319 --> 0:01:40.559 I can't stand watching or listening to myself. Most people 0:01:40.800 --> 0:01:43.640 don't like it much, and you know why, because of 0:01:43.760 --> 0:01:49.080 the way you sound in your head is very, very 0:01:49.120 --> 0:01:53.840 different to the way you sound when it's recorded, because 0:01:53.840 --> 0:01:57.200 it's much much deeper and more resonant when you're hearing it, 0:01:57.280 --> 0:02:00.720 because of the vibrations and so on, of the bonestructures 0:02:00.760 --> 0:02:05.880 in your skull. And people always say I feel like 0:02:06.200 --> 0:02:10.320 I sound a lot tinier in you know, when when 0:02:10.320 --> 0:02:12.960 I hear myself played back, and I agree with that 0:02:13.280 --> 0:02:16.200 sounds awful. I wish I sounded the way I sound 0:02:16.240 --> 0:02:19.760 to me, but very few people do. And they've got 0:02:19.840 --> 0:02:22.160 jobs in radio, because you will have met many of 0:02:22.200 --> 0:02:27.320 those people, especially deep voiced people, particularly deep voiced females, 0:02:27.560 --> 0:02:29.560 are the ones who work best in radio. 0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:32.079 That's right, and welcome back to the You Project. 0:02:32.320 --> 0:02:35.560 David Glesbie, Tivanty and Cook joining me Craig Harper for 0:02:35.639 --> 0:02:40.800 another compelling episode of the U Project. That's funny you 0:02:40.840 --> 0:02:45.240 say that, right, because I mentioned this in my presentations 0:02:45.320 --> 0:02:49.320 quite often when we're talking about self awareness. And we 0:02:49.320 --> 0:02:53.160 were briefly talking about my PhD focus before we started recording, 0:02:53.280 --> 0:02:55.600 and you know, what's it like being around me? And 0:02:55.639 --> 0:02:59.040 as way of introduction to the idea of metaperception and 0:02:59.480 --> 0:03:03.480 kind of this kind of external self awareness concept, I 0:03:03.520 --> 0:03:05.240 say to people, put up your hand if you've heard 0:03:05.280 --> 0:03:08.880 your voice, you know, audio recording. And everybody kind of 0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:11.919 shakes their head and goes ah and puts up their hand. 0:03:12.560 --> 0:03:15.440 And then I say, depending on which environment, something like, 0:03:15.560 --> 0:03:18.080 put your hand back up if you think you sound shit, 0:03:18.720 --> 0:03:21.560 And everybody puts their hand back up, and I say, well, 0:03:22.000 --> 0:03:24.000 that's how you sound all the time to the rest 0:03:24.000 --> 0:03:26.240 of the world, and then they laugh and I go, 0:03:26.440 --> 0:03:28.840 that's kind of a bit of an analogy here, because 0:03:28.880 --> 0:03:33.680 we that is what you sound like. And even I mean, 0:03:33.720 --> 0:03:36.520 you've seen yourself on TV. I did a bit of 0:03:36.560 --> 0:03:38.720 tally for a while for a few years on Channel ten, 0:03:38.760 --> 0:03:41.760 and the same it's like, I didn't watch I watched one. 0:03:42.280 --> 0:03:44.840 I watched one, the first one I ever did, and 0:03:44.880 --> 0:03:47.880 I hated it so much. I never watched another one. 0:03:48.400 --> 0:03:51.120 And even if I would come into whatever, the house 0:03:51.240 --> 0:03:53.640 or the gym or whatever and it was on, I 0:03:53.680 --> 0:03:54.640 would not watch it. 0:03:55.120 --> 0:03:57.360 Yeah, I don't know what about but anyway. 0:03:57.480 --> 0:04:01.160 Yeah, I know I avoided at all costs. I won't 0:04:01.200 --> 0:04:04.960 watch myself. I won't even to the point, as you've 0:04:04.960 --> 0:04:07.200 seen here, I don't even turn my camera on here 0:04:08.160 --> 0:04:12.520 because it's so irritating to see myself. 0:04:13.160 --> 0:04:16.000 That is that is that is an unknown now known. 0:04:16.040 --> 0:04:18.760 We may have mentioned it once maybe, but everybody David 0:04:19.120 --> 0:04:21.000 David said, I don't know how many, like a lot, 0:04:21.000 --> 0:04:23.599 one hundred podcasts with us, maybe more, maybe less, I 0:04:23.600 --> 0:04:27.320 don't know, but give I'll take a hundred and for 0:04:27.440 --> 0:04:31.200 every single second of every one of these recordings that 0:04:31.240 --> 0:04:33.080 we do with him, we've never seen his face. 0:04:33.680 --> 0:04:36.920 He could be a fucking you know computer, he could 0:04:36.920 --> 0:04:37.360 be a side. 0:04:37.400 --> 0:04:38.960 Yeah, I'm an AI. Yeah, that's right. 0:04:40.080 --> 0:04:43.200 It could be one of those super computer they call it. 0:04:43.279 --> 0:04:45.640 You could be a quantum computer for all we know, 0:04:46.600 --> 0:04:50.120 just managing everything and multitasking. 0:04:51.279 --> 0:04:51.520 Yeah. 0:04:52.120 --> 0:04:54.680 Why do you just not like to see yourself when 0:04:54.720 --> 0:04:57.520 you're talking? Is it better for focus and concentration or 0:04:57.920 --> 0:04:58.599 it just that? 0:04:58.960 --> 0:04:59.719 Yeah, a brough head. 0:05:00.400 --> 0:05:02.559 Well it's that too. It's it's all of those things. 0:05:03.960 --> 0:05:07.039 It helps me focus if if I'm not looking at myself. 0:05:07.120 --> 0:05:11.200 But it also yeah, yeah, so I've got a rough head. 0:05:11.279 --> 0:05:13.760 Yet you're you're a right ma. 0:05:14.000 --> 0:05:18.800 You're handsome to us and your mum. So you wrote 0:05:18.800 --> 0:05:22.680 an article today about breast cancer, which I have not Sorry, yeah, 0:05:22.680 --> 0:05:24.640 breast cancer which I have not looked at. 0:05:26.839 --> 0:05:28.000 What was that about? 0:05:27.800 --> 0:05:30.400 What was I only? 0:05:30.800 --> 0:05:31.200 All right? 0:05:31.839 --> 0:05:32.799 Throw me under the bus. 0:05:32.920 --> 0:05:35.880 You should be you should be hanging off off my 0:05:36.080 --> 0:05:39.400 every written word. Yeah I am. It's been up there 0:05:39.480 --> 0:05:41.640 for three or four hours and you haven't even bothered 0:05:41.680 --> 0:05:42.280 to look at it. 0:05:42.760 --> 0:05:44.880 Well, I finally I could see your face, I'd feel 0:05:44.920 --> 0:05:45.640 more connected. 0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:49.000 I mean, I think that's the missing link. What tell 0:05:49.080 --> 0:05:50.479 us about that article if you would. 0:05:51.240 --> 0:05:54.119 Okay, so before we get to the thing it's about, 0:05:54.160 --> 0:05:57.680 which is a very recent study, let's do a little 0:05:57.720 --> 0:06:02.640 bit of history. You know, you you'd be familiar, no doubt, Craig, 0:06:02.720 --> 0:06:05.880 But just for the benefit of some of your listeners, 0:06:06.760 --> 0:06:09.600 with good old Bernardino Ramezini. 0:06:10.400 --> 0:06:12.960 Yeah, I call him, I call him, but go on. 0:06:13.080 --> 0:06:17.880 Yet he's generally considered to be the father of occupational medicine, 0:06:17.960 --> 0:06:20.880 so you know that would ring a bell with you, 0:06:20.920 --> 0:06:24.080 no doubt. He wrote a paper, well the book really, 0:06:24.200 --> 0:06:30.240 in seventeen thirteen, and he published it just a year 0:06:30.279 --> 0:06:32.960 before he died. Coincidentally, but the book was the very 0:06:33.000 --> 0:06:37.480 first time anyone had bothered to look at what people 0:06:37.640 --> 0:06:40.880 did as a job and compare it to the diseases 0:06:40.920 --> 0:06:45.640 they most often died from. So he looked at everything. 0:06:45.800 --> 0:06:49.320 He had hundreds and hundreds of jobs, and he would compare. 0:06:49.480 --> 0:06:52.200 He did all this analysis of what are these people 0:06:53.200 --> 0:06:55.240 do and what do they die from? And it's all 0:06:55.320 --> 0:06:57.400 very very interesting if you care to go and read it, 0:06:57.440 --> 0:07:01.720 and you can read Latin. But for the of today's discussion, 0:07:02.480 --> 0:07:07.120 he also noticed a really interesting thing, which is that 0:07:07.960 --> 0:07:13.320 nuns were more likely to die of breast cancer than 0:07:13.320 --> 0:07:14.560 people who were not nuns. 0:07:17.680 --> 0:07:18.640 Can I guess why? 0:07:19.120 --> 0:07:19.800 Yeah, go for it. 0:07:22.360 --> 0:07:28.480 I can't remember the mechanism. But because having children and 0:07:28.600 --> 0:07:34.400 breastfeeding is protective in some way from breast cancer. I 0:07:34.440 --> 0:07:37.040 can't remember the why or the how, but it's got 0:07:37.240 --> 0:07:40.240 there with them. It's got something to do with not 0:07:40.280 --> 0:07:40.960 having kids. 0:07:41.040 --> 0:07:44.880 I think, well that's what he thought too, So you're 0:07:44.880 --> 0:07:47.080 on the same page with old br as you like 0:07:47.160 --> 0:07:52.920 to call him. And yeah, and he didn't quite go 0:07:52.960 --> 0:07:55.200 to the children, but he just stopped at the sex 0:07:55.280 --> 0:07:59.480 bit and decided that not having sex was going to 0:07:59.480 --> 0:08:01.920 give you a breast cancer. He didn't really bother to 0:08:01.960 --> 0:08:08.280 explain why that might be. But subsequently, you know, less 0:08:08.280 --> 0:08:11.040 than one hundred years later, people started to analyze it 0:08:11.080 --> 0:08:14.000 a bit and came to the conclusion you did, which is, well, 0:08:14.320 --> 0:08:17.720 obviously it's not really about having sex or not having sex, 0:08:17.880 --> 0:08:20.960 you know, it's you know, for all we know, nuns 0:08:21.000 --> 0:08:24.480 were having sex, but they weren't having children, and so 0:08:25.960 --> 0:08:28.720 maybe it's about the kids. And then people went a 0:08:28.720 --> 0:08:31.400 little step further and said, well, what the kids do 0:08:32.000 --> 0:08:37.280 that might affect the parents' chances of breast cancer? The 0:08:36.520 --> 0:08:40.600 kids do anything with breasts that might in some way 0:08:40.679 --> 0:08:43.040 affect their chances, And they thought, oh, there's an obvious 0:08:43.080 --> 0:08:46.680 connection between having kids and breast cancer is that, you know, 0:08:46.880 --> 0:08:51.600 that's the mechanism for feeding them. So maybe breastfeeding has 0:08:51.640 --> 0:08:56.360 something to do with breast cancer. And so they theorized. 0:08:56.400 --> 0:09:00.000 After backing up his studies, they did more observations and 0:09:00.000 --> 0:09:03.200 and even outside nuns concluded that there was a very 0:09:03.360 --> 0:09:09.319 definite relationship between whether or not you breastfeed and whether 0:09:09.440 --> 0:09:14.840 or not you've got breast cancer. And they didn't know why. 0:09:15.800 --> 0:09:20.760 They had a theory which was, oh, look, it's about 0:09:20.920 --> 0:09:25.680 the maturity of the breast cells. You know, obviously they're 0:09:25.679 --> 0:09:31.880 there to become mature and produce milk, and that action 0:09:32.760 --> 0:09:38.840 means that they become less grown to cancer, whereas the 0:09:38.880 --> 0:09:42.360 immature version of them is somehow more prone to cancer. 0:09:44.360 --> 0:09:48.520 And as a dodgy theory for it, it does sound 0:09:48.559 --> 0:09:48.720 like a. 0:09:48.720 --> 0:09:51.080 Dodgy theory, But for three hundred years, it was all 0:09:51.120 --> 0:09:56.160 we had until this month. So were you to ask 0:09:56.960 --> 0:09:59.440 a specialist in this area, what's the thinking on this 0:10:00.120 --> 0:10:03.880 a month or two ago, that's the ants he would 0:10:03.920 --> 0:10:07.720 have gotten. Now a massive new paper has come out 0:10:07.880 --> 0:10:11.160 in Nature, which we were talking before about the levels 0:10:11.160 --> 0:10:13.800 of journals. This is about as tier one ish as 0:10:13.840 --> 0:10:20.559 you can get. And this is looked in more detail 0:10:20.600 --> 0:10:22.800 at this and they started out sort of what kicked 0:10:22.800 --> 0:10:26.839 off the study is that they had a cohort of 0:10:26.880 --> 0:10:30.480 around two hundred and sixty samples from women who had 0:10:30.520 --> 0:10:36.360 had breast tissue removed either from breast reduction surgery or 0:10:36.640 --> 0:10:42.240 from preemptive mastectomies and a people. And they had this 0:10:42.320 --> 0:10:45.000 sample of two hundred and sixty from two hundred and 0:10:45.000 --> 0:10:49.920 sixty different individuals, and none of the tissue was cancer affected. 0:10:50.640 --> 0:10:56.880 But what they were doing was measuring something called the 0:10:56.920 --> 0:11:00.600 immune T cells in the cancer. This is a sort 0:11:00.600 --> 0:11:05.520 of an immune system response that helps combat cancer. So 0:11:06.160 --> 0:11:09.880 these are cells that are part of the immune system that, 0:11:10.400 --> 0:11:15.720 among other things, can target potential cancer cells in tissue. 0:11:16.080 --> 0:11:19.760 And what they found is that a lot, there were 0:11:19.800 --> 0:11:22.679 a lot more of these cancer protective cells, these T 0:11:22.880 --> 0:11:29.120 cells in the breast tissue of women who had had children, 0:11:31.280 --> 0:11:35.080 And even if the tissue had been sampled a long 0:11:35.280 --> 0:11:39.880 time after their last child, they still had many, many 0:11:39.920 --> 0:11:44.439 more of these protective cells in their breast tissue than 0:11:44.480 --> 0:11:48.360 women who had not had children. And this started them 0:11:48.400 --> 0:11:50.559 down the path of saying, well, maybe it's not about 0:11:50.559 --> 0:11:53.520 this maturity of breast cells nonsense. That we've been believing 0:11:53.520 --> 0:11:56.920 for the last three hundred years. And maybe it's not 0:11:56.960 --> 0:11:58.480 about being a nun or not on whether or not 0:11:58.559 --> 0:12:01.559 you have sex or not. Maybe it's about these immune 0:12:01.600 --> 0:12:07.240 systemselves in the tissues. Okay, good theory, but you have 0:12:07.280 --> 0:12:09.080 to go a little bit further than that, because that's 0:12:09.280 --> 0:12:13.120 just correlation, and as you know, that doesn't prove anything. 0:12:14.000 --> 0:12:16.680 So I said, okay, well, what kind of a study 0:12:16.679 --> 0:12:21.120 could we create that might prove something? And they went 0:12:21.160 --> 0:12:24.000 straight to the porld lab rats and mice it was 0:12:24.040 --> 0:12:27.800 actually mice in this case, and set up three different 0:12:27.920 --> 0:12:33.120 cohorts of test mice. They had mice with pups, mice 0:12:33.200 --> 0:12:37.320 without pups, and a third group that had undergone a 0:12:37.320 --> 0:12:44.600 full lactation and winning cycle so had breastfeed essentially. Then 0:12:44.640 --> 0:12:48.040 they implanted cancer cells into the equivalent of the breast 0:12:48.080 --> 0:12:56.640 tissue in these animals, and the results really were about 0:12:56.679 --> 0:12:59.319 as black and white as you could possibly imagine them 0:12:59.320 --> 0:13:06.439 to be. The cancer cells were much less frequent, so 0:13:06.840 --> 0:13:10.800 the cells were implanted, so gave them cancer essentially, but 0:13:10.880 --> 0:13:14.520 it didn't turn into cancer in the group that had 0:13:14.559 --> 0:13:18.400 gone through the lactation cycle. In other words, the group 0:13:18.520 --> 0:13:21.880 that had breastfed, even if they weren't breastfeeding, if you like, 0:13:22.360 --> 0:13:26.640 at that time they'd gone through that cycle. And when 0:13:26.679 --> 0:13:30.679 they analyzed, well, there was many, much much higher percentage 0:13:30.720 --> 0:13:34.080 of these T cells in those animals than in the others. 0:13:34.840 --> 0:13:37.719 And just to test it out even more, they then 0:13:37.760 --> 0:13:40.400 suppressed the T cell action in those ones, and the 0:13:40.440 --> 0:13:43.040 cancer grew just as fast as in the others, So 0:13:43.120 --> 0:13:46.199 that pretty much definitively nailed it. Yes, it's the T 0:13:46.400 --> 0:13:49.000 cells that are doing this, at least in mice, and 0:13:49.080 --> 0:13:51.080 it kind of looks like it might be in humans 0:13:51.080 --> 0:13:54.360 as well, because we're seeing a similar effect. But to 0:13:54.440 --> 0:13:56.839 take it back to the humans, they then looked at 0:13:56.840 --> 0:13:59.760 two large studies of more than a thousand women who 0:13:59.800 --> 0:14:02.600 had been diagnosed with a particular type of breast cancer 0:14:03.000 --> 0:14:06.000 called triple negative breast cancer, which is a particularly aggressive 0:14:06.120 --> 0:14:09.360 sort of breast cancer people often refer to as the 0:14:09.480 --> 0:14:12.440 as the bracker breast cancer. It affects women under forty, 0:14:12.920 --> 0:14:15.640 much more aggressive than most and much more resistant to treatment. 0:14:16.080 --> 0:14:19.440 And they looked at studies of those where they had 0:14:19.480 --> 0:14:24.800 been measuring They collected data on whether or not the 0:14:24.840 --> 0:14:28.280 women had breast fed, and what they found is that 0:14:28.320 --> 0:14:33.240 the women who had breastfed were much less risk and 0:14:33.360 --> 0:14:39.000 much more likely to recover from this particularly aggressive cancer 0:14:39.400 --> 0:14:43.440 than those who had not. So that's about as good 0:14:43.440 --> 0:14:45.640 as you can get without, you know, going the full 0:14:45.720 --> 0:14:48.200 Monty and dividing women into groups of women who have 0:14:48.240 --> 0:14:50.920 breastfed and women who are having implanted cancer cells in them, 0:14:51.120 --> 0:14:54.920 which you know, ethics people will have a problem with, I. 0:14:54.880 --> 0:14:57.960 Guess I think so. Yeah, it might have hard getting 0:14:58.880 --> 0:15:00.280 ethical approval on that. 0:15:00.880 --> 0:15:03.520 Always people who worry about these sorts of things. But 0:15:04.080 --> 0:15:06.920 this gets about as close as you possibly can to 0:15:07.040 --> 0:15:12.000 doing that. So they've observed it in human tissue, they've 0:15:12.080 --> 0:15:15.760 replicated it in mice, they've gone back to the humans 0:15:16.040 --> 0:15:19.360 and seen exactly the same effect in humans when the 0:15:19.440 --> 0:15:24.600 humans have breastfed. And then and there's still one remaining 0:15:24.640 --> 0:15:28.400 thing coming back to your mate from seventeen hundred is 0:15:29.320 --> 0:15:32.560 what if it's not about the breastfeeding, but what if 0:15:32.560 --> 0:15:35.000 it's about having the kids in some other way, and 0:15:35.720 --> 0:15:39.680 it's not the breastfeeding, it's having the kids, Because both 0:15:39.720 --> 0:15:42.800 of those things tend to go together. And you know, 0:15:42.880 --> 0:15:45.040 how can we say we're certainty gets the breastfeeding and 0:15:45.080 --> 0:15:50.720 not having the kids and The interesting thing is there 0:15:50.760 --> 0:15:54.000 that they did segment the study a bit and look 0:15:54.040 --> 0:15:58.160 at some US studies on African American women who have 0:15:58.240 --> 0:16:02.880 different rates of cancer than Caucasian women, and were able 0:16:02.960 --> 0:16:08.120 to by doing some statistical analysis on that. So African 0:16:08.160 --> 0:16:10.480 American women tend to have a higher rate of triple 0:16:10.840 --> 0:16:15.440 negative breast cancer and also on average have more children, 0:16:16.240 --> 0:16:20.040 but they have lower rates of breastfeeding than Caucasian women. 0:16:21.600 --> 0:16:25.640 And what they found was that it's the breastfeeding part 0:16:26.080 --> 0:16:30.440 that provides the protection. So if the breadth, if the 0:16:30.480 --> 0:16:33.680 African American woman had more children but also breastfeed, then 0:16:33.680 --> 0:16:37.360 she was more less luckly to have the cancer. Now 0:16:37.440 --> 0:16:40.200 this kind of backs up some observational studies have been 0:16:40.200 --> 0:16:43.120 done for quite some time in Australia where they've observed 0:16:43.200 --> 0:16:46.360 there is something that you can measure here. They've actually 0:16:46.400 --> 0:16:49.840 managed to put some numbers on this, which is that 0:16:50.720 --> 0:16:53.640 various studies are shown that a woman's risk of breast 0:16:53.640 --> 0:16:57.640 cancer decreases by about seven percent for every child she has, 0:16:59.280 --> 0:17:02.880 and then in addition to that, for every five months 0:17:02.920 --> 0:17:10.359 of breastfeeding, the risk further reduces by about two percent. Wow. Wow, 0:17:12.280 --> 0:17:14.760 So this stuff is measurable now they've got a good 0:17:14.880 --> 0:17:20.560 explanation as to why. Now, this is all very interesting 0:17:21.920 --> 0:17:26.200 if you, I guess, into immunotherapy and understanding the immune 0:17:26.240 --> 0:17:28.880 system and all that sort of thing. But coming back 0:17:28.920 --> 0:17:31.200 to the sort of thing that I guess people might 0:17:31.240 --> 0:17:35.640 want to ask, which is, well, sure, but I don't 0:17:35.640 --> 0:17:39.080 plan to have kids, let alone breastfeed anyone might it 0:17:39.240 --> 0:17:45.440 might be something that it's occurring to people. So you know, yes, 0:17:45.720 --> 0:17:50.320 just raising her hands in the air, So how do 0:17:50.400 --> 0:17:53.320 you reduce the risk. And the answer would be if 0:17:53.320 --> 0:17:56.720 you're only looking at this, then there's probably not much 0:17:56.760 --> 0:17:59.480 you can do other than to find someone to breastfeed. 0:18:03.600 --> 0:18:10.000 Yeah, put that on your list, will you. That's Golespo's 0:18:10.040 --> 0:18:13.000 little bit of health advice for you today. So if 0:18:13.000 --> 0:18:16.639 you can get some breastfeeding going in the next few months. 0:18:17.000 --> 0:18:20.520 But I guess that's the most practical piece of advice 0:18:20.600 --> 0:18:20.880 is given. 0:18:21.000 --> 0:18:24.800 May not be, may not be. The interesting thing here 0:18:24.880 --> 0:18:28.439 is the background of the overall significantly increasing rates of 0:18:28.480 --> 0:18:31.920 breast cancer. And this is always sort of not looked 0:18:31.960 --> 0:18:34.160 at in these sorts of studies. Is they're just looking 0:18:34.200 --> 0:18:37.239 at the immediate problem and saying, okay, you know, are 0:18:37.240 --> 0:18:39.560 there things that make you more or less susceptible to this, 0:18:40.000 --> 0:18:42.360 and yes, all this is very interesting from that perspective, 0:18:42.359 --> 0:18:46.240 but there's a background picture here, which is breast cancer 0:18:46.320 --> 0:18:50.040 rates in this country are going through the roof, not 0:18:50.760 --> 0:18:53.520 deaths from breast cancer, which is the statistic that often 0:18:53.600 --> 0:18:57.680 gets reported because treatments are very effective. It's being picked 0:18:57.720 --> 0:19:00.760 up very early. Survival rates are very high breast cancer, 0:19:02.160 --> 0:19:06.440 but the incidence is increasing very rapidly. And a more 0:19:06.480 --> 0:19:10.240 important question to ask when you're talking about all these 0:19:10.280 --> 0:19:12.439 things about are you more or less likely to have 0:19:12.480 --> 0:19:17.000 breast cancer if you breastfeed, is what about that background 0:19:17.119 --> 0:19:21.000 rate that's massively increasing. What's causing that? Before we start 0:19:21.040 --> 0:19:23.760 getting down to finessing whether or not you're breastfeeding, and 0:19:24.560 --> 0:19:27.240 we've had this discussion before, it's the same thing that 0:19:27.280 --> 0:19:30.360 causes all cancers. It's the same reason that all cancers 0:19:30.359 --> 0:19:35.160 are growing very very rapidly. It's something called aldehydes. Aldehydes 0:19:35.200 --> 0:19:40.000 are extremely destructive molecules that when we ingest them, attack 0:19:40.040 --> 0:19:44.120 our DNA, dismember it, mutate, it make us more likely 0:19:44.160 --> 0:19:47.760 to get cancer of any kind. And we are very 0:19:47.760 --> 0:19:53.320 familiar with two aldehyde producing substances, alcohol and cigarette smoke. 0:19:54.560 --> 0:20:00.600 Which are both great at producing aldehyde and therefore causing cancers, 0:20:01.640 --> 0:20:05.679 but both have been declining. So you know, the current 0:20:05.720 --> 0:20:10.959 generation of teenagers drink less than anyone before in history, 0:20:12.119 --> 0:20:16.359 but they're having more cancer. There's less smoking going on 0:20:16.440 --> 0:20:19.159 now than Australia has had at any time since the 0:20:19.160 --> 0:20:23.600 Second World War. Even if there is a black market 0:20:23.640 --> 0:20:25.960 trade in the stuff growing up because of all the taxes, 0:20:26.240 --> 0:20:29.760 it's still a lot less than it was. But the 0:20:29.880 --> 0:20:32.439 rates are going up, and that's because we've introduced a 0:20:32.600 --> 0:20:36.399 massive new source of aldehyde into our diet, which is 0:20:36.480 --> 0:20:39.239 the granddaddy of them all, the one that produces the 0:20:39.280 --> 0:20:42.520 worst kind of aldehyde, a little chap called four HNE 0:20:43.720 --> 0:20:47.359 is seed oils. So the fats that they fry our 0:20:47.440 --> 0:20:49.879 chips in, the fats in the margarine they put on 0:20:49.880 --> 0:20:52.440 our sandwich in the deli, the fat in the mayonnaise 0:20:52.480 --> 0:20:55.600 they spread on our sandwich in the deli, the fat 0:20:55.840 --> 0:20:59.399 the fat they put in our bread. All those seed 0:20:59.400 --> 0:21:02.840 oils are very very high in amiga six fats, which 0:21:02.920 --> 0:21:06.760 are the only way to produce four HNE, one of 0:21:06.800 --> 0:21:10.680 the more most dangerous alder hides we can consume. So 0:21:10.840 --> 0:21:15.520 at the same time as societally we probably have less 0:21:15.560 --> 0:21:18.880 women who are breastfeeding for all number of reasons, less 0:21:18.880 --> 0:21:21.119 women having children. For starters, the Australian birth rate is 0:21:21.200 --> 0:21:24.600 dropping like a stone, so less women having children and 0:21:24.680 --> 0:21:28.440 therefore less women breastfeeding, which is a protective mechanism according 0:21:28.480 --> 0:21:30.960 to this science. At exactly the same time as we're 0:21:30.960 --> 0:21:36.360 doing that, we're giving those women a source of aldehydes, 0:21:36.720 --> 0:21:40.119 which that no women in history have ever been exposed to. 0:21:40.600 --> 0:21:45.000 So we're massively increasing the things that could cause cancer 0:21:45.000 --> 0:21:49.080 in the first place, as at a time when societally, 0:21:49.560 --> 0:21:52.400 for a large number of reasons, we have women who 0:21:52.440 --> 0:21:55.840 are less likely to have the natural built in protection 0:21:56.000 --> 0:21:59.879 that this science says comes from breastfeed. Now, what this 0:22:00.200 --> 0:22:04.840 doesn't say is if you don't breastfeed, you will get 0:22:04.880 --> 0:22:08.760 breast cancer. It doesn't say that that's nonsense. This is 0:22:08.800 --> 0:22:12.080 population level stuff. But what it does say is we 0:22:12.160 --> 0:22:15.439 have a trend in society where less people are breastfeeding, 0:22:15.680 --> 0:22:19.240 which is a protective factor, and we have a simultaneous 0:22:19.280 --> 0:22:23.480 trend where we are giving those same people a much 0:22:23.560 --> 0:22:26.440 higher exposure to things that are likely to cause cancer. 0:22:27.240 --> 0:22:33.159 Yeah, is the decline in breastfeeding primarily about just the 0:22:33.240 --> 0:22:35.919 decline in number of people that are giving birth, like 0:22:36.000 --> 0:22:40.080 the dropping birth rate, or is it because there's another 0:22:40.119 --> 0:22:44.080 reason people are choosing formula or whatever. I'm thinking that 0:22:44.119 --> 0:22:47.520 the companies that produce formula won't like this research. 0:22:48.920 --> 0:22:51.800 Look, there's always been an endless battle ever since the 0:22:52.040 --> 0:22:54.800 Nesle battles. I think it was in the nineteen sixties 0:22:54.800 --> 0:22:58.280 where they tried to well, they did get half of 0:22:58.320 --> 0:23:04.280 Africa basically consume formula rather than breastfeeding, which caused all 0:23:04.320 --> 0:23:07.120 sorts of much more acute complications than the ones we're 0:23:07.160 --> 0:23:10.120 talking about here, because they would have to use water 0:23:10.280 --> 0:23:13.000 to make the formula, and the water wasn't particularly safe, 0:23:13.520 --> 0:23:18.440 so it was very, very dangerous. Legislation came in worldwide, 0:23:18.480 --> 0:23:22.400 including it in Australia where breastfeeding must be promoted first. 0:23:22.440 --> 0:23:24.359 And if you ever go to one of those websites 0:23:24.359 --> 0:23:28.040 of a formula manufacturer, the first thing you'll see when 0:23:28.080 --> 0:23:31.080 you go to a website like that is something to 0:23:31.520 --> 0:23:35.600 the effect of breastfeeding first. You know, breastfeeding should be 0:23:35.640 --> 0:23:38.400 done first, it's highest priority, et cetera, et cetera. They 0:23:38.480 --> 0:23:40.800 do that because they're required to do that by legislation, 0:23:40.880 --> 0:23:42.960 not because they want to do it, and they try 0:23:43.200 --> 0:23:45.679 all kinds of tricky ways to get around it, like, 0:23:45.760 --> 0:23:50.119 for example, branding toddler formula to be exactly the same 0:23:50.760 --> 0:23:54.680 as formula formula for baby. So there's formula for babies 0:23:54.720 --> 0:23:58.440 which has mandated levels of certain things in it because 0:23:58.480 --> 0:24:02.360 it's a replacement for breast milk, and they'll branded exactly 0:24:02.359 --> 0:24:04.360 the same as this is stage one or stage two 0:24:04.400 --> 0:24:06.880 or stage three, et cetera of the formula. They branded 0:24:06.960 --> 0:24:10.880 exactly the same for toddler formula, which is just basically 0:24:10.960 --> 0:24:16.800