HEALTH My Medical Choice - By ANGELINA JOLIE

Laurane said:

My grandson's other grandma had both breasts and uterus removed at about age 45 as both her mother and sister developed breast cancer.........I actually gave a genealogical seminar for a bunch of her support group who all had the same thing done - they were learning how to check generations of cancer victims in their families.

But what I notice about "other grandma" is that she has not changed her lifestyle at all - she consumes at work at least 4 pepsi colas a day (she thinks she should drink the calorie free ones which have all that lovely aspartame/polysorbate/phenol etc in them to keep her energy level up - she is 50 lbs overweight.

And if she succumbs to breast cancer she will note that she tried to prevent it with proactive measures, and if liver cancer gets her, she might think it is also the fault of predisposition..........but ingesting all that cancer causing chemical probably won't even enter her mind.

This morning my daughter-in-law is receiving her first chemo treatment of 6 for her Lymphoma and she says she knows that their lifestyle has already changed and so many things she indulged in are now verboten forever........they have done so much research on prevention, she sees how she might have allowed cancer to come into her body quite easily and will be working to change that as a life long process.

Click to expand...

do you have numbers as to the environmental predisposition you are talking about like they have for genetic predispositions???

PLUS the fact that there are a LOT of men taking Tamoxifen and the rest of the breast cancer meds with GOOD REASON!!

Breast cancer is not a specifically female disease anymore.

[There should be a rule against posting such obscene photos of lesbian degenerates.


Hey, take it easy now! She's JCP's spokesdyke....

knickgnat said:

Seems there is a lot of amusement about Jolies choice. People who don't have a lot of money can get the reconstructive surgery too. A friend who has no money was treated with money from the cigarette funds.

Personally, I think she was very brave to make this choice and keep it private for awhile. She wants to be around for her children, and is taking the best odds. Glad she has a husband who stands by her.

Finally, the males here can make all the snickering comments they want. Unless they face having their balls cut off and still die from cancer. Shut up.

Click to expand...

actually the numbers and mortality for prostate cancer are very similar, although I'm sure testicular cancer is less numerous

but this is a forum, so telling people to "shut up" is just plain silly

Fair use
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdwimtUz5o1rg07tro1_500.png


Actor Jon Voight and his wife actress Marcheline Bertrand with their daughter
Angelina Jolie and son James Haven.

I think what we need to remember is that with the BRCA gene the cancer is much more aggressive and at an earlier age. Angelina did this BEFORE the cancer appeared. This gives her a much better chance for no cancer than those who get radical mastectomies AFTER a cancer diagnosis. The gene also conveys an increased chance of ovarian cancer and it did not say she had a hysterectomy with ovary removal. I bet that she will be looking at that next.

My insurance would have covered the surgery. ALSO- most insurance companies cover reconstruction after mastectomy (mine does)- it is NOT consider a cosmetic procedure AT ALL. My insurance company also covered breast reduction - NOT considered cosmetic.

Anyway, I paid $0 for my breast reduction and then my insurance coverage changed a bit and a few years later I think I paid less than $100 for my hysterectomy.

Not just the rich and famous.

I would have this surgery in a heartbeat if I had the gene. Thankfully my family has been pretty lucky in the genetic cancer department. Bad lungs, diabetes, and heart disease are the gifts we were bestowed with

Amy

Angelina Jolie announced yesterday that she had both of her breasts surgically removed even though she had no breast cancer. She carries the BRCA1 gene, and she has been tricked into believing that genetic code is some sort of absolute blueprint to disease expression -- which it most certainly is not. Countless millions of women carry the BRCA1 gene and never express breast cancer because they lead healthy, anti-cancer lifestyles based on smart nutrition, exercise, sensible sunlight exposure and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals.

Jolie, like many other women who have been deluded by cancer quackery, decided the best way to prevent the risk of breast cancer was not to lead a healthy, anti-cancer lifestyle, but rather to surgically remove her breasts in what she describes as "three months of medical procedures."

...just in case, you know. Because you can never be too careful these days, with the cancer industry scaring women half to death at every opportunity. "My breasts might murder me!" seems to be the slogan of many women these days, all of whom are victims of outrageous cancer industry propaganda and fear mongering.

Let me set the record straight: Your breasts are not your enemy! The cancer industry is far more likely to kill you than your breasts. (But more on that later...)

Women's liberation crusade: Off with your breasts!

Worse than merely maiming herself in an act of outright medical quackery, Angelina Jolie has positioned her decision as some sort of women's liberation crusade, acting and talking as if her "choice" to remove her breasts somehow blazes a new path of female power for all women. (How sick is this, really?)

Oh, what a mess Jolie has made of herself. She has maimed her own body with no medical justification whatsoever, then celebrated this horrible disfiguration through some sort of twisted perception of what womanhood really is. Being an empowered woman doesn't mean cutting off your breasts and aborting live babies -- even though both of these things are often celebrated by delusional women's groups. Being an empowered woman means protecting your health, your body and your womanhood by honoring and respecting your body, not maiming it.

A vivacious, confident, healthy woman who protects her fertility and nourishes her unborn child is far more heroic and empowering than someone who maims her own body as some sort of sick sacrifice to the cancer industry. Angelina Jolie, as much as she is often viewed as a symbol of female power, seems to have completely lost touch with the core truths of honoring the "temple" of your own female body.

Cancer is never limited to just the breast

Cancer, by the way, is a systemic problem when it emerges, not a local problem limited to just the breasts or other organs. It may be diagnosed in breast tissues, but that's not the only place it's growing. The idea that someone can prevent cancer by just removing their breasts is absurd. If the conditions of cancer are present in the body -- due to nutritional deficiencies, exposure to chemicals, radiation, etc. -- cancer will develop in many different places, not just breast tissues. Removing an organ that might possibly someday be one of the many locations in which cancer is diagnosed is completely irrational and medically abhorrent. Logically, it's a lot like arguing that you can avoid flat tires on your car by removing all the tires!

If you really want to learn the truth about cancer -- and SAVE your breasts! -- get our "New Cancer Solutions" CD set. The third CD is absolutely amazing, offering astounding information that can literally help save your life. You can also hear the entire collection for free during our New Cancer Solutions Healing Summit launching next Monday, May 20th.

If Angelina Jolie had heard the information on these CDs, she would have said, "NO!" to the cancer fear mongers and learned that there are far more effective and empowering ways to protect yourself from cancer. Women everywhere need to hear truly empowering, honoring, holistic information about cancer and stop listening to the insanity of the cancer industry and its delusional, victimized spokespeople like Angelina Jolie.

Celebrating the medical abuse of women

The mainstream media is heralding Jolie's decision to cut off both her perfectly healthy breasts, announcing Jolie is "admired for bravery." In a NYT op-ed, Jolie wrote, "I hope that other women can benefit from my experience." (No, I'm not making this up. She literally wants other healthy women to cut off their breasts, too...)

The medical industry, never known to back down from an opportunity to physically abuse women for profit, is jumping on the double mastectomy bandwagon. In a Businessweek article, a genetic counselor named Rebecca Nagy declares, "Having this conversation empowers us all. It's wonderful what she's done."

Wonderful? To cut off parts of your body that have NO disease? With this logic, abortions are cancer prevention, too, because those babies might one day grow up and develop tumors. Better to kill them early and "prevent cancer," right?

The irrationality of Jolie's decision is truly sickening. Even worse is that idea that she may inspire other women to have their healthy bodies maimed, too. If Jolie cut off both legs and called it a "choice" to prevent leg cancer, I have little doubt many women would follow her lead and cut off their legs, too. Jolie herself says she may have her ovaries cut out in the future because they, too, might someday get cancer.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where this medical insanity ultimately leads. Got a risk of kidney cancer? Remove your kidneys. Risk of colon cancer? Take out your colon. Lung cancer, perhaps? Remove your lungs, just in case! That's the logic of Angelina Jolie who has been completely deceived by the cancer industry into maiming her own body based on nothing for medical fear mongering and cancer quackery.

Never doubt the fact that fear can be an effective marketing tool when it comes to breast cancer, by the way. The cancer industry rakes in billions of dollars a year based on irrational fears spread by misinformed women.

Medical maiming going viral across the population of sheeple

There's nothing quite as exciting and heroic as having your body parts chopped off by surgeons and then declaring yourself to be a "pre-vivor" of cancer. Yep, that's the new term. You're not really a "survivor" of cancer, since you never had it. You're a "pre-vivor" because you preempted the cancer.

Or, just as likely, you got suckered into the most delusional decision of your life and had a bunch of quacks slice off pieces of your body that were perfectly healthy to begin with. This is medical insanity at its worst... especially given that a woman's risk of breast cancer can be reduced by 78% using nothing but vitamin D. Yeah, take some vitamin D and keep your breasts! What a deal, eh?

Why aren't male cancer doctors cutting off their own testicles?

You'll note, by the way, that men never have their testicles removed to lower the risk of testicular cancer. Not even the male cancer doctors, oncologists and surgeons who are slicing off women's breasts all day long. Sure, they think cutting off breasts is a great idea, but ask one of them to part with their own testicles to "prevent" cancer, and they'll look at you like you've gone, well, nuts.

Because cutting off your testicles to prevent testicular cancer that you don't even have would be stupid, of course. Pure quackery. Suggest it to a man you know and you'll either be laughed at or punched in the mouth. No ethical doctor would ever remove a perfectly healthy set of testicles from a man who has no symptoms of testicular cancer. The very idea is absurd and possibly even risking a medical malpractice lawsuit.

So why is it somehow acceptable to cut off the breasts of "empowered women" who think they are making some sort of social statement by maiming their own perfectly healthy bodies?

Click to expand...

Ahhhh good ole' Ranger Mike. Few people annoy me with their opinions as much as he does. He leaves me almost speechless with this one.

I think 98% of men would not part with their testicles under threat of death. Many won't even get a vasectomy; hell.. some won't even get their pet dogs neutered.

Is he making money in some way on this summit?

Mixin said:

Ahhhh good ole' Ranger Mike. Few people annoy me with their opinions as much as he does. He leaves me almost speechless with this one.

I think 98% of men would not part with their testicles under threat of death. Many won't even get a vasectomy; hell.. some won't even get their pet dogs neutered.

Is he making money in some way on this summit?

Click to expand...

Part of the problem with Mikey is that he doesn't recognize any science past the 50's unless it's anecdotal and in favor of ONLY natural foods as treatment and prevention.

I figger an 87% chance of dying is a big enough number to consider SERIOUSLY some fairly radical actions...ESPECIALLY since her mom n gran BOTH died of this...

That is the point, there is loads of evidence. That is where the 87% comes from.
Actual scientific, peer reviewed studies. They did not just make the number up.

So the simpleton remark is appropriate but not directed at the study, genetic markers or 87%.

DHR43 said:

With all due respect, ND, I don't buy into the genetic predisposition. With evidence i might, but until then, it's a simpleton's crutch.

Click to expand...

So.

since we can assume (correctly) that the genetic markers have always been there,

has Cancer of (whatever said genetic marker is for) always been in the epidemic proportions that is currently happening?

the answer is: a resounding and emphatic, No, it has not.

Since cancer has NOT always been epidemic, then what is so different now, that it is epidemic.

Ans: Environment.

Once again.

if genetics were the cause of the cancer epidemic, then the epidemic would have always been present. And it has not.

this is not difficult to understand.

My mother in law died of Ovarian cancer in 89.
Her daughter had double breast cancer last year. She got tested and has the Brachy 1 gene.
Her other daughter tested positive and opted for a double masectomy, she had that done today.
My daughter was tested Monday and will know the results in two weeks.
There are 6 children. Four need to be tested yet. My ex has his appt. in two weeks.
The test is expensive, just an FYI.

I could not help myself ...
http://www.970wfla.com/pages/am-tampa-bay.html?article=11288061

Uh, yeah. Most peer reviewed journals these days are funded by big pharma companies. Ever wonder why there are so many conflicting studies and results discussed in those journals? That's why. It feeds whatever agenda the big guns want at the moment.

I'm not saying there isn't any truth to the breast cancer gene, but we absolutely have to look at environment as the trigger. I know a lady in her 60s who just discovered she has breast cancer. The doctors are telling her to be relieved because they caught it early. She's going around saying that she's had annual mammograms for the past 20+ years. Finally, one saved her life. But I couldn't help thinking, "Maybe it was the annual dose of radiation on her breasts that finally triggered cell mutation?" It's something to think about.

One of the all-time best books I ever read about disease and environmental triggers is called HEALTH AND NUTRITION SECRETS THAT CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE, by Russel Blaylock. It's not a light read and it's pretty scientific, but I loved it. It's extremely eye-opening.

Done for publicity and to fan an unfulfilled ego. Period.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/time-angelina-jolie-cover_n_3281418.html

One doesn't get on the cover of Time magazine without a massive PR campaign, and done WELL in advance. It takes months and a lot of effort and a lot of lobbying and a lot of exchanging of funds to pull off a cover.

So it's nothing but a stunt.

And stupid, as I said earlier.

Saw this today.

Chemicals/environment, and not just genetics, responsible for cancer and most disease in the world.


http://worldtruth.tv/un-study-links-man-made-chemicals-to-common-diseases/

UN Study Links Man-Made Chemicals to Common Diseases
cancer, Health, natural health, News, prevention of cancer, world truth May 15, 2013

Man-made chemicals in everyday products are likely to be at least the partial cause of a global surge in birth deformities, hormonal cancers and psychiatric diseases, a U.N.-sponsored research team reported on Tuesday.

These substances, dubbed EDCs, could also be linked to a decline in the human male sperm count and female fertility, to an increase in once-rare childhood cancers and to the disappearance of some animal species, they said.
"It is clear that some of these chemical pollutants can affect the endocrinal (hormonal) system and ....may also interfere with the development processes of humans and wildlife species," the report declared.


The international group, academic experts working under the umbrella of the United Nations environmental and health agencies UNEP and WHO, issued their findings in a paper updating a 2002 study on the potential dangers of synthetic chemicals.

Declaring "a global threat that needs to be resolved," the team said humans and animals across the planet were probably exposed to hundreds of these often little-studied or understood compounds at any one time.

"We live in a world in which man-made chemicals have become part of everyday life," said their 28-page report, "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, 2012," issued as a policy guide for governments.

EDCs include phthalates long used in making plastics soft and flexible. Products made from them include toys, children's dummies, perfumes and pharmaceuticals, as well as cosmetics like deodorants that are absorbed into the body.


Another is Bisphenol A, or BPA, which is used to harden plastics and is found in food and beverage containers, including some babies' bottles and the coating of food cans.

A few countries - including the United States, Canada and some European Union members - have already banned the use of some of them in certain products, especially those destined for the use of children.

But, the report said, "many hundreds of thousands" are in use around the world and only a small fraction had been assessed for their potential to spark disease by upsetting the endocrinal, or hormonal, systems of humans and animals.

Experts believe that in general, such chemicals can be absorbed into drinks and food from the containers they come in.


COMPONENTS NOT IDENTIFIED

The team, created by a 17-year-old chemical management body called the IOMC working with a range of U.N. agencies, said a key problem was that manufacturers of consumer products did not identify many of their chemical components.
Consequently, the researchers said, they had only been able to look at "the tip of the iceberg". Disease risk from the use of EDCs - or what could be even more dangerous a combination of them - "may be significantly underestimated."

Using studies of the effect of the chemicals on humans and animals, the team added, a link to EDCs could be suspected in breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, infertility, asthma, obesity, strokes, and Alzheimer and Parkinson's diseases.

Babies exposed to EDCs in the womb or in puberty, these studies suggested, were especially vulnerable to developing these diseases in later life as well as behavioral and learning problems like dyslexia as children.

In many countries, these disorders affected 5-10 percent of babies born, while autism was now recorded at a rate of one percent. Childhood leukemia and brain cancer is also on the rise, according to the report.

"All of these complex non-communicable diseases have both a genetic and an environmental component," it said.
"Since the increases in incidence and prevalence cannot be due solely to genetics, it is important to focus on understanding the contribution of the environment to these chronic disease trends in humans."

The researchers said their report had been based largely on studies in the developed world. But the size of the problem in developing countries had yet to be adequately assessed due to a lack of data from Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Source:

reuters.com

She has admitted to being a "cutter" so not so sure this is not just more of the same. She is narcissistic yet full of self-loathing. She is into some strange and bizarre stuff so we ought not be surprised. Unfortunately, some look up to her and her man. Bummer.

A Guide to not Saying Dumb Things About Jolie's Mastectomy

For those who aren't aware, it's not about whether cancer is genetic or environmental in it's cause. The gene in question is one that helps repair DNA that may get damaged and there by prevent the cancer from ever getting started.


http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/breaking-down-angelina-jolies-breast-cancer-bombshell


A Guide To Not Saying Dumb Things About Angelina Jolie's Double Mastectomy
A refresher in genetic mutations, breast cancer risk and the perils of overawareness
By Shaunacy FerroPosted 05.16.2013 at 3:30 pm2 Comments

Angelina Jolie Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons

Angelina Jolie's announcement in Tuesday's New York Times that she has undergone a preventative double mastectomy to reduce her risk of breast cancer as a carrier of a BRCA gene mutation has garnered praise, sparked debates over genetic testing, and of course, encouraged people to say stupid things on Twitter. But what does the science say? How does Jolie's experience echo that of other women? And what does it reveal about the state of modern medicine? Here are your most pressing questions answered.
What are BRCA mutations?
Everyone has BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, tumor suppressors that produce a protein to repair DNA. In some people, one of those genes develops a mutation that increases their risk of getting breast cancer by a large margin. Women with a BRCA mutation can have a 60 to 80 percent chance of developing breast cancer, as well as a high chance of developing ovarian cancer.
Are mutations common?
Not really. It's hard to estimate how much of the general population carries these mutations--the National Human Genome Institute puts the estimate at .1 to .6 percent. (The average woman has a 12 percent lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. ) Women of Eastern and Central European Jewish ancestry face a higher risk of having either a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation--a 2012 study cited that up to 2.5 percent of Jewish women carry it. According to the CDC, for people with the mutation, about half of their first-degree relatives will also carry it.
Some other genetic variations seem to be associated with increased breast cancer risk, including the TP53 and PTEN genes, but they are much rarer, and the link isn't as well established. "Even though this last decade has bought remarkable advancements in our understanding of the genetic basis of the disease, we still have a long way to go," says Shicha Kumar, an assistant professor at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.
Only 5 to 10 percent of breast cancer diagnoses overall are associated with gene mutations, many accounted for by the BRCA mutations. For the most part, breast cancer is sporadic, meaning it occurs independent of direct genetic inheritance.
Should everyone get tested?
No. For one thing, it's expensive: Testing can cost upwards of $3,000. A company called Myriad Genetics holds a controversial monopoly on the BRCA gene tests. (Their right to patent the BRCA genes is being challenged in the Supreme Court.)
Plus, not all mutations will result in cancer. "Many of us have many gene mutations that are completely clinically irrelevant--they don’t manifest in any clinical problem," Kumar explains. Most people go through genetic counseling to assess their risk of having certain mutations. A genetic counselor can help evaluate a person's family history and risk to determine whether a blood test is necessary, and can work with insurance companies to make sure the test is covered.
Does everyone with a gene mutation get a preventative mastectomy?
Not everyone. "There is this potpourri of options available to women," says Anees Chagpar, as associate professor at the Yale University School of Medicine and the director of The Breast Center. "It’s really a choice, which fits best with a patient in terms of their own values and their own risks." Some women opt for increased screenings, while others take medications like tamoxifen that can reduce the risk of cancer by up to 50 percent.
"Preventative surgery is not for everybody, and it’s not an easy thing to go through," Kumar warns. Both mastectomy and reconstructive surgery come with their own risks, including pain, infections and a change in skin sensation.
Yet mastectomies in general are on the rise in the U.S. "I think that as people are beginning to get more and more aware of their risks," Chagpar says. "Whether it’s genetic or any other cause, they’re becoming more really proactive. While the decision is a personalized one, preventative surgeries like the prophylactic double mastectomy is an accepted [decision]."
Todd Tuttle, the University of Minnesota's chief of surgical oncology, has been an outspoken critic of the trend, saying that in many cases, women overestimate their cancer risk. “You could attribute the rise in mastectomies to a better understanding of genetics or better reconstruction techniques,” he told The New York Times, “but those are available in Europe, and you don’t see that mastectomy craze there. There is so much ‘awareness’ about breast cancer in the U.S. I’ve called it breast-cancer overawareness. It’s everywhere. There are pink garbage trucks. Women are petrified.”
"Some of our understanding is that a lot of it has to do with fear," Kumar explains. A 2012 study from the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center found that about 90 percent of women who elected to have a double mastectomy after having cancer in one breast did so out of fear that they would develop cancer in the other breast, but about 70 of them actually had a very low risk of that occurring. "The risk of a contralateral breast cancer in the general population of women with a prior breast cancer is approximately 0.7% to 1% per year, with a cumulative lifetime risk of approximately 15%," according to a 2005 study.
In response, Kumar says doctors have begun to focus on greater education of the risks of developing breast cancer in one breast after having it in the other, but with BRCA mutations, mastectomies are a more medically accepted decision. "With BCRA, the risk is actually really high," Kumar says. "Our guidelines dictate that that’s an important conversation to have with the patient." For women with a BRCA mutation, bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, a preventative surgery designed to removal all breast tissue, reduces risk of breast cancer by an estimated 90 to 95 percent.
BRCA mutations also increase a woman's risk of ovarian cancer. Though the risk of developing cancer is not as high--20 to 40 percent--doctors often recommend preventative surgery because ovarian cancer has a low survival rate. "We recommend removal of both ovaries, since ovarian cancer is much more difficult to diagnose early," Kumar explains.
Both surgeries dramatically reduce the risk of cancer, but there isn't 100 percent certainty. Any residual, microscopic tissue can still become cancerous, so women still undergo surveillance, typically by physical exam, after surgery. But generally there's not a need for future mammograms or MRIs, according to Kumar.
Will Angelina Jolie make mastectomies more prevalent?
Jolie's public announcement was meant to encourage more women to get tested. "For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options. I want to encourage every woman, especially if you have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, to seek out the information and medical experts who can help you through this aspect of your life, and to make your own informed choices," she writes.
The decision to undergo preventative surgery is obviously a personal one, but for some, removing the risk of getting cancer can be psychologically beneficial. "For many women this will allay a lot of their anxiety and still give them a body image that makes them feel whole," Chagpar says. Jolie has been praised for declaring that her sex-symbol breasts aren't a core part of her femininity. In a 2005 study, though many were satisfied with their choice, 26 percent of women surveyed felt a decreased sense of femininity after undergoing a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.
A 2000 study in Journal of the American Medical Association found that "positive outcomes following prophylactic mastectomy include decreased emotional concern about developing breast cancer and generally favorable psychological and social outcomes." However, the authors wrote, "These must be weighed against the irreversibility of the decision, potential problems with implants and reconstructive surgery, and occurrence of adverse psychological and social outcomes in some women."
And Jolie's announcement certainly raised awareness of BRCA gene mutations, with thousands of news sources nationwide covering her story. A whiff of celebrity can have a powerful reach when it comes to medical decisions, as Pacific Standard points out. A 1998 study found that coverage of Nancy Reagan's 1987 mastectomy influenced women, especially those demographically similar to her, to opt for mastectomies rather than breast-conserving surgery. "Celebrity role models can influence decisions about medical care," the researchers wrote. "The influence appears strongest among persons who demographically resemble the celebrity, and those of lower income and educational status."
While BRCA mutations don't make it into the news very often, breast cancer awareness in general has come under fire recently for being more hype than substance. Just last month, a feature by Peggy Orenstein in The New York Times magazine warned of the harms of over-awareness of breast cancer and covering the world in pink ribbons--over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatment, as well as a misconception that screening or early detection could be a panacea.
Scientific progress is erratic, unpredictable. “We are all foundering around in the dark,” said Peter B. Bach, director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. “The one thing I can tell you is some of that foundering has borne fruit.” There are the few therapies, he said — like tamoxifen and Herceptin — that target specific tumor characteristics, and newer tests that estimate the chance of recurrence in estrogen-positive cancers, allowing lower-risk women to skip chemotherapy. “That’s not curing cancer,” Bach said, “but it’s progress. And yes, it’s slow.”

Won't take long that it WILL be a routine DNA screening with "suggested" preventive double mastectomies. For all.

What are you balking about, Angelina had hers and can afford the finest reconstructive surgeon in Beverly Hills.

In fact, if they are not cartoonishly tombraider humongous afterwards, she should get her money back.

Cascadians said:

A nurse at work has breast cancer, had one breast taken off, had continuing nightmares about the risk the other one poses, is having other one taken off so she does not have the fear and have to experience all the steps involved with cancer. Many women do not want to worry about a ticking time bomb about to explode in their body. More and more women will decide to have their breasts completely removed. It does lessen the chance of dying of breast cancer.

Click to expand...

a zipper across the chest is easier to live with than the weight that is disbalanced and plays havoc on the spine, posture and intestines. I would think a double masectomy is kinder on the whole body long term than a single masectomy.
Least that is MY opinion

Mercola just had an entire article on this so here's the link (I originally posted the article here but it doesn't come out too good and is hard to read).

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/27/angelina-jolie-double-mastectomy.aspx

This is just ignorance talking. You could not be more wrong. You know what they say about opening your mouth so everyone sees how smart you are not.

Jubilee on Earth said:

Uh, yeah. Most peer reviewed journals these days are funded by big pharma companies. Ever wonder why there are so many conflicting studies and results discussed in those journals? That's why. It feeds whatever agenda the big guns want at the moment.

I'm not saying there isn't any truth to the breast cancer gene, but we absolutely have to look at environment as the trigger. I know a lady in her 60s who just discovered she has breast cancer. The doctors are telling her to be relieved because they caught it early. She's going around saying that she's had annual mammograms for the past 20+ years. Finally, one saved her life. But I couldn't help thinking, "Maybe it was the annual dose of radiation on her breasts that finally triggered cell mutation?" It's something to think about.

One of the all-time best books I ever read about disease and environmental triggers is called HEALTH AND NUTRITION SECRETS THAT CAN SAVE YOUR LIFE, by Russel Blaylock. It's not a light read and it's pretty scientific, but I loved it. It's extremely eye-opening.

Click to expand...

Does anyone think an allopathic surgeon is going to remove a woman's pointies for free? Encouraging women to do this, is going to be another huge money maker for hospitals, allopaths, nurses, anesthesiologists, etc. The list of people making money on this unnecessary procedure goes on. Whatever happened to the oath, 'First, do no harm'? Reminds me of politicians violating their oath of office.

Jeez, "pointies"??? I guess I have "pointies" and you have a "pee-pee". Actually, I don't know the sex of a lot of posters, so that might be incorrect.

The rest of what you say is correct, even further, what if it becomes a "requirement" for young women to have this done if they have this broken chromosome (as a naturopath calls it)?

Also, this means that these women will not be able to breastfeed their babies, which will lead to them having potentially impaired immune systems and be fed on formula that is about 80% GMO soy and GMO sugar.

If these things have already been discussed here, I apologize. I didn't read the articles here because I have read all I wish to on this subject and have very strong opinions on it.

ETA: Allopaths lost that "Do no harm" thing a long time ago.

As I pointed out previously, and will again.

If genetics is the primary cause of ANY cancer (not just breast cancer), then it stands to reason that the cancer epidemic has always been here, since the so called genetic causes have always been here as well.

This line of reasoning seems to be like rocket science for the so called "experts". If the "experts" don't get it, then how on earth are sheeple (victims) going to get it.

This preventative surgery based on genetics, while ignoring environmental factors, is sheer, outright madness.

Anyone who cannot understand what I have said has got to be either stoooooooooooopid, and/or a deliberate shill for the pharmaceutical/allopath cult.

I like that the word "allopath" seems to be gaining usage; it seems fitting. Also, I like the term "pharma doctors". We need to tell it like it is.

NC Susan said:

a zipper across the chest is easier to live with than the weight that is disbalanced and plays havoc on the spine, posture and intestines. I would think a double masectomy is kinder on the whole body long term than a single masectomy.
Least that is MY opinion

Click to expand...

I would think so too.. but my grandmother lived to 101 with a single masectomy done 70 years earlier and seemed to always been thankful to have the One breast so i I hope I never find out....

Buckster said:

As I pointed out previously, and will again.

If genetics is the primary cause of ANY cancer (not just breast cancer), then it stands to reason that the cancer epidemic has always been here, since the so called genetic causes have always been here as well.

This line of reasoning seems to be like rocket science for the so called "experts". If the "experts" don't get it, then how on earth are sheeple (victims) going to get it.

This preventative surgery based on genetics, while ignoring environmental factors, is sheer, outright madness.

Anyone who cannot understand what I have said has got to be either stoooooooooooopid, and/or a deliberate shill for the pharmaceutical/allopath cult.

Click to expand...

You MIGHT have a point if you understood about genetic mutations (which this BRCA1 happens to BE).

It is wholly apparent that your education has been deficient in genetics...

night driver said:

You MIGHT have a point if you understood about genetic mutations (which this BRCA1 happens to BE).

It is wholly apparent that your education has been deficient in genetics...

Click to expand...

just did a quick search for BRCA1 and BRCA mutation on wiki and see that this gene was discovered in 1990. Does not say when the mutation was "discovered". Does that mean that the genes (including mutations) did not exist before it was discovered? No. Mutations are always happening. Nobody knows how long this particular mutation has been in the population, but you can be sure that for it to be as widespread (relatively speaking) as it is, then it must have been in the "gene pool" for many generations. ie. hundreds of years. People don't seem to grasp this.

Mutations have been around a loooooong time.

The cancer epidemic has not.

And that is the point.

It's been reported that Angelina Jolies aunt just died of breast cancer this past Sunday. She was 61. (Don't know if this was her mother's sister or not)

Here's the link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...a-Jolies-aunt-loses-battle-breast-cancer.html

An excerpt from the article:




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...loses-battle-breast-cancer.html#ixzz2UYpn5VPK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

"Mutations have been around a loooooong time."

Yes, they have; some good, some bad, i.e., the loss of the liver's ability to produce vitamin C. Modern genetic research indicates the rise of human intelligence is the result of a mutation 2.4 million years ago. My philosophical question is, did humans have a soul before the rise of human intelligence, or after?

The mutation has been in some gene pools for generations but is not widespread.

As one who has been treated for breast cancer, I find some of these comments to be clueless beyond imagination.

I'd like to suggest some of you wander over to http://community.breastcancer.org/ for a few weeks and educate yourselves.

Mixin said:

The mutation has been in some gene pools for generations but is not widespread.

As one who has been treated for breast cancer, I find some of these comments to be clueless beyond imagination.

I'd like to suggest some of you wander over to http://community.breastcancer.org/ for a few weeks and educate yourselves.

Click to expand...

and how many generations is that? Ans: a lot farther back than when the cancer epidemic took hold.

people nowadays have literally hundreds, and sometimes over a thousand manmade chemicals in their bodies, and yet some people still insist on genetics as the primary cause of cancer.

I am trying to be a polite as possible about this, but I will never believe the genetics only argument.

And I will never agree that what AJ did was the right thing. And I do not believe what she did was courageous. In fact, just the opposite.

Everyone, absolutely everyone, has cancer in their bodies. Then you have cancer activators that enable cancer to get a toehold and multiply. From then on it depends on the strength of your immune system, the quality and types of food you eat and dietary nutrition. Cancer activators could be a combination of chemical, biological and genetic factors, but rarely does a single activator work alone.

For example, current research indicates wearing too tight bras is an activator. Breast xray exams are another. One of the worst chemicals that can activate brain tumors is chlorinated solvents, such as brake cleaners used by mechanics. One thing I strive to avoid like it's poison are soybean products such as soybeans, soybean oil, tofu, soy burgers, etc. I But, I do occasionally use soy lecithin. I expect the pro-allopaths to slam this post because it may interfere with their revenue stream.

I really like Dobbin's explanation on mutations:\

The other aspect that humans forget is that nuclear contamination is all around you. Likely the glass in your computer screen in front of you contains at least one molecule of Uranium 235 that is irradiating you as we speak. And if there are TWO molecules of U235 adjacent then they may choose this particular moment to combine and you get three neutrons besides. A bonus prize. Not usually mentioned is that fission MUST occur randomly in the life and times of your common U235 atom. But this all part of the great 'background radiation' that we're all exposed to day in and day out.

And a process that goes on with or without you - all around you - and has done so since the birth of the planet. And will likely continue until it's death.

And this background radiation part of Maker's grand plan to confer a variability to your genetic makeup and allow Darwin's genetic poker hand to play out for your children: otherwise your children would have EXACTLY the same genetic makeup that you do - a makeup that MIGHT be the death of your specie given the wrong environmental circumstance.

But you don't want to necessarily rush what is a natural occurring process.

Click to expand...

Steel Chips said:

Everyone, absolutely everyone, has cancer in their bodies. Then you have cancer activators that enable cancer to get a toehold and multiply. From then on it depends on the strength of your immune system, the quality and types of food you eat and dietary nutrition. Cancer activators could be a combination of chemical, biological and genetic factors, but rarely does a single activator work alone.

For example, current research indicates wearing too tight bras is an activator. Breast xray exams are another. One of the worst chemicals that can activate brain tumors is chlorinated solvents, such as brake cleaners used by mechanics. One thing I strive to avoid like it's poison are soybean products such as soybeans, soybean oil, tofu, soy burgers, etc. I But, I do occasionally use soy lecithin. I expect the pro-allopaths to slam this post because it may interfere with their revenue stream.

Click to expand...

well, I, for one, appreciate your input here on TB.

thanks for it.

I take a few supplements to help detox the liver, not a special detox product, just regular supplements. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA), n-acetyl cysteine (NAC), MSM (methylsulfonylmethane), selenium--all to help build glutathione.

Then there is SGS-sulforaphane glucosinolate-from broccoli sprouts- to help activate the phase 2 liver detox. This is very important as it is the part that actually carries the toxins out of the body.

I also try to minimize what toxins get in, but we only have limited control over that part (mostly by watching what we eat and drink). Other things are largely out of our control.