This, the medial reports say, is due to the drill of using their rifles to repeatedly slap the left side of their chests – which stimulates hormones on that side of the body. As a result, breasts start to grow only on their left side.
How is it that the German soldiers of the past have not developed this irregular growthor have the Germans changed their Drill Style?
How about the other Armies of the world?
“The soldiers – part of the Wachbataillon unit – are suffering from a condition called one-sided gynecomastia, and it’s a result of how the soldiers are performing their drills. Seventy-four percent of the soldiers have been diagnosed with gynecomastia, after complaining of growths on the left side of their bodies….
According to a medical report, the soldiers use their rifles to repeatedly slap the left side of their chests – which stimulates hormones on that side of the body. As a result, breasts start to grow only on their left side.
Office-based with capital equipment investment of less than $1,000.
Requires a minimum time to learn its application—no specialized medical training.
Designed to be used at the point of entry of women into the medical care system: free standing clinics, offices of general practitioners, obstetricians, gynecologists, internists and other similar places.
Has the potential of Over-The-Counter applications
Disruptive economics for the patient and medical delivery system’
The makers claim claim it can detect cancer in its earliest stages by continually monitoring the breasts for temperature changes associated with growing tumors. When a series of sensors embedded in the cups detect abnormal heat patterns, they send a signal to alert doctors to the possible presence of cancer cells.
‘In three separate clinical trials involving 650 women, the makers said the bra was able to identify the presence of tumors six years before traditional breast imaging did. It also scored a 92 percent level of accuracy in correctly classifying breast tissue as normal, benign, suspected for abnormalities, or probable for abnormalities. Routine mammograms have an accuracy rate of only 70 percent.
“The technology is promising but I’m a long way off from recommending it,” she said. “We need a lot more comparison to other screening technologies, and we need to follow women over a much longer period of time to determine if this is actually a reliable test.”
Attai said she has more questions than answers about thermography, the type of imaging related to the technology the bra uses. In a perfect world, the scan for breast hot spots would correlate with the results of mammogram, MRI and ultrasound tests. This is often not the case.’
Some Mysteries of The Human body are quite intriguing.
We do not know much about them.
Yet we feel we have all the answers and subject our body to Medicine/Surgery.
Please read the ones on Appendix and The Brain.
Story:
If you shaved a chimpanzee and took a photo of its body from the neck to the waist, “at first glance you wouldn’t really notice that it isn’t human,” said Kevin Hunt, director of the Human Origins and Primate Evolution Lab at Indiana University. The two species’ musculature is extremely similar, but somehow, pound-for-pound, chimps are between two and three times stronger than humans, Hunt told us. It’s unclear why we’re so much wimpier than our closest hominid relatives; perhaps our muscles’ attachment points subtly differ, or our muscle fibers could be less dense.
Either way, the result is slightly humiliating. Once, in an African forest, Hunt watched an 85-pound female chimp snap branches off an aptly named ironwood tree with her fingertips. It took Hunt two hands and all the strength he could muster to snap an equally thick branch. [Chimps vs. Humans: How Are We Different?
Nine out of 10 people are right-handed. More mysterious than the dearth of southpaws is the fact that humans have dominant hands in the first place. Why just one hand with top-notch motor skills, instead of a double dose of dexterity? One theory holds that handedness results from having more intricate wiring on the side of the brain involved in speech (which also requires fine motor skills). Because the speech center usually sits in the left brain hemisphere — the side wired to the right side of the body — the right hand ends up dominant in most people. However, this theory gets a big blow from the fact that not all right-handed people control speech in the left hemisphere, while half oflefties do. Perplexing.
Like all other female apes, women’s breasts fill with milk when they have newborn babies to feed. But female humans alone have bloated bosoms at all other times, too. Scientists can’t agree on what — or who — our “permanently enlarged breasts” are for. Most evolutionary biologists think breasts serve the purpose of attracting men, who get fooled into thinking a busty woman will make a great baby feeder (even though her breasts actually contain fat, not milk).
Breastfeeding.
Anthropologists, meanwhile, tend to think breasts evolved for women and babies, not men, noting that in many cultures, men don’t find big breasts remotely sexy. Florence Williams, author of “Breasts” (W.W. Norton, 2012), thinks women developed permanently enlarged bosoms to meet the greater energy needs of big-brained human babies. Hormones in breasts promote fat storage, and this stored fat gets released into milk during breast-feeding. In short, “breast fat goes toward forming the baby’s brain,” Williams told Life’s Little Mysteries. But the theory has yet to gain universal acceptance.
Theories abound when it comes to pubes. Some say these coarse, curly tendrils are sexual ornaments — a visual signal of sexual maturity and a reservoir of smelly pheromones. Others think bushes keep our oh-so-precious nether regions cozy. Still others assert that they serve as padding, preventing chafing during sex. Whatever the reason, many modern people want this stuff gone.
A couple of handfuls of your body aren’t actually your body. For every one of your cells, 10 microbes live inside you, and these hangers-on collectively compose a few pounds (1 to 3 percent) of your total weight. Some of this in-house fauna cleans our skin while some helps us digest food, but the bulk of these microbes contribute to our bodily functions in ways unknown. Healthy people even harbor low levels of harmful viruses, which appear to do something besides sicken us.
“We’re just learning that the consequence of antibiotics is that when you get rid of the good bacteria in our guts, we can develop autoimmune diseases [such as allergies]. We’re not as advanced in our understanding of viruses. What do viruses do for us?” Vincent Racaniello, professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, told Life’s Little Mysteries. Clearly, we’ve signed up for a whole bunch of symbiotic relationships, and have no idea what we’re getting out of the deal.
The poor old human appendix gets lumped in with the likes of wisdom teeth, ear-wiggling muscles and our other useless evolutionary holdovers.
The Appendix.
The worm-shaped organ’s inconsequentiality seems proven by the fact that it can be removed with no obvious drawbacks. But biologists have recently begun to question the long-held assumption of appendix pointlessness. Some suggest it may help train the immune system during fetal development. Other research indicates the organ serves as a “safe house” for the bacteria that aid in digestion, holding a secret stash of microbes that repopulate the rest of the digestive tract after gut-evacuating bouts of diarrhea. The word “appendix” means afterthought. But maybe, just maybe, it isn’t one.
How do the 100 trillion neural connections in our brains work together to create the feeling of being alive? Many great thinkers consider consciousness to be the biggest mystery not just of the human body, but the biggest one, period. As the neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran put it, “[A]ny single brain, including yours, is made up of atoms that were forged in the hearts of countless, far-flung starsbillions of years ago. These particles drifted for eons and light-years until gravity and chance brought them together here, now. These atoms now form a conglomerate — your brain — that can not only ponder the very stars that gave it birth but can also think about its own ability to think and wonder about its own ability to wonder. With the arrival of humans, it has been said, the universe has suddenly become conscious of itself. This, truly, is the greatest mystery of all.”
Annie’s breasts weigh nearly 85 pounds. She has suffered from gigantomastia, which is slow progresssive growth of breast tissue and fat tissue, for nearly her entire life — she started wearing a bra in third grade.
Despite the stares and shoulder and back discomfort, Annie says she’s never considered breast reduction. “I’ve never thought about bringing a knife to myself,” she says in the video below. “Why fix something that’s not broken?”
Annie has used her breasts to make money, doing about 250 softcore pornographic films under the name Norma Stitz. She says her porn alter ego is world renowned. “I do have security because people chase me,” Annie says.
“Strange Sex” returns to TLC with Season 3 on Sunday, July 15 at 10 p.m. ET and Annie’s episode airs following the premiere at 10:30 p.m. ET.
Use of substandard /Industrial Silicon for Breast Implant has erupted into a scandal and about 40,000 women are reported to have done Breast Implant.
The manufacturers are being called into question ans the health hazard is expected to be larger than these figures as European Nations have been affected.
Many Companies are not taking responsibility!
Not to hurt the sentiments of the Business Lobby, the politicians in Power are very circumspect in charging th Companies, by calling this as ‘Faulty goods!’
Women should know better than to go in for these type of surgeries, even if it is reported to be safe for once you meddle with nature, you get a reaction.
Good looks do not last forever, notwithstanding Cosmetic surgeries.
This applies to all Surgeries, including heart Surgeries.
People who opt for Surgeries get more complications than the disease!
‘
Around 40,000 British women were known to have been given PIP breast implants that were filled with industrial silicone meant for matress filling.
A further 7,000 women are now thought to be affected by the scandal, the Department of Health said, after it was found that the French company accused of frauduently switching to unauthorised silicone, did so years earlier than previously thought.
It was known that implants made by Poly Implant Prosthese from 2001 contained industrial silicone, but now it is thought the sub-standard material was used prior to this.
Women who have PIP implants, or those who do not know the make of their implants, are being urged to visit their GP for advice.
Most cosmetic surgeons are now offering to remove the faulty implants for free but several large companies are refusing to do so….
So far, it has cost the NHS at least £500,000 with 4,534 women seeking help from the health service.
Most breast implants need to be replaced after ten to 15 years so a proportion of the faulty implants may already have been removed as part of routine replacement operations.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has advised that there is no need to replace the PIPs unless they have ruptured, however most women are so concerned they are asking for them to be taken out.
This week a credit card company refunded the cost of surgery under the Faulty Goods Act.
The Department of Health has ordered two reviews into the situation, one looking specifically at how the PIP implants were approved and the safety of them. The second will look at the regulation of cosmetic surgery more widely.
In December the French authorities decided to recommend that all women there who had PIPs should have them removed and that the Government would pay for the surgery.
Research from the United States has suggested ruptures are more common than is generally reported – often women with an implant experience a ‘silent rupture’ without knowing about it Photo: Patrice Coppee/ ABACAPRESS.COM
“Brussels, 2 February 2012 – Following today’s publication of the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) on the safety of silicone products manufactured by the Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) Company, the European Commission requested to conduct further in-depth study on the potential health impact of faulty breast implants.
The Commission will also discuss with the Member States how surveillance of the medical devices can already be reinforced immediately within the existing legislative framework. In parallel a “stress test” of the legislation on medical devices is under way in order to identify how best the questions raised by this issue can be addressed in the revision of this framework already foreseen for 2012..
Health and Consumers Commissioner, John Dalli said: “In the current situation, patients’ health remains the priority. The opinion published today sums up the current scientific knowledge on this case”. To add : “Furthermore, the Commission will discuss with the Member States a series of immediate measures to strengthen the existing surveillance and safety controls on medical devices already on the market. The capacity to detect and minimize the risk of fraud must be increased”. To conclude : “We had already been working on a revision of the Medical Devices Directive, envisaged for adoption this spring. We will now also take into account the lessons learnt from this case and take them on board in redrafting our legislation, in particular with regard to market surveillance, vigilance and functioning of notified bodies.”
Scientists concluded that data available today was insufficient to lead to firm conclusions regarding the health risk for women with PIP silicone breast implants.
The SCENIHR report (requested by the Commission in early January) stresses that, based on the limited data currently available, there is some concern regarding the possibility of inflammation induced by ruptured PIP silicone implants. The report concludes that each case needs to be assessed individually, so theadvice remains that women who are worried should contact their surgeon.
Scientists also recommend that further work be undertaken as a priority to establish with greater certainty any health risks associated with PIP silicone breast implants, in order to ensure that potential risks are properly established, quantified and managed.
With regard to the question of whether the breast implants manufactured by PIP are more prone to failure than those of other manufacturers, SCENIHR said thatPIP implants have been found to vary considerably in composition and as a result are likely to vary substantially in performance characteristics.
SCENIHR concluded on the basis of available data, that many PIP implants were manufactured from non-medical grade silicone. This type of silicone may contain some components that can weaken the implant shell and diffuse into the body tissues.”
January 2001 PIP starts using industrial silicone.
2006 FDA lifts the ban on silicone implants.
2007 Brook Berry, a surgeon in Durham, advises against using PIP implants.
Feb 2009 UK regulatory authority is warned of a number of medical claims.
March 2010 British surgeons ordered to stop using PIP’s silicone implants.
October 2010 Regulators tell surgeons to identify women who were given the implants.
December 2011 French recommend removal of implants, but Britain insists there is no need for such action. Yesterday the Health Secretary ordered an urgent review of safety data.
January 2012 Jean-Claude Mas, the founder of Poly Implant Prothese is arrested as France launches investigation into the scandal
February 2012 NHS bill for dealing with women who had faulty breast implants put in by private clinics reaches £500,000
March 2012 Department of Health announces 7,000 more British women are affected
You must be logged in to post a comment.