VitD doesn't save the BRCA1 mutants - Angelina Jolie cut 'em out!

[Taka]

My Medical Choice

MY MOTHER fought cancer for almost a decade and died at 56. She held
out long enough to meet the first of her grandchildren and to hold
them in her arms. But my other children will never have the chance to
know her and experience how loving and gracious she was.

We often speak of “Mommy’s mommy,” and I find myself trying to
explain the illness that took her away from us. They have asked if the
same could happen to me. I have always told them not to worry, but the
truth is I carry a “faulty” gene, BRCA1, which sharply increases my
risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer
and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is
different in the case of each woman.

Only a fraction of breast cancers result from an inherited gene
mutation. Those with a defect in BRCA1 have a 65 percent risk of
getting it, on average.

Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and
to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a
preventive double mastectomy. I started with the breasts, as my risk
of breast cancer is higher than my risk of ovarian cancer, and the
surgery is more complex.

On April 27, I finished the three months of medical procedures that
the mastectomies involved. During that time I have been able to keep
this private and to carry on with my work.

But I am writing about it now because I hope that other women can
benefit from my experience. Cancer is still a word that strikes fear
into people’s hearts, producing a deep sense of powerlessness. But
today it is possible to find out through a blood test whether you are
highly susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer, and then take
action.

My own process began on Feb. 2 with a procedure known as a “nipple
delay,” which rules out disease in the breast ducts behind the nipple
and draws extra blood flow to the area. This causes some pain and a
lot of bruising, but it increases the chance of saving the nipple.

Two weeks later I had the major surgery, where the breast tissue is
removed and temporary fillers are put in place. The operation can take
eight hours. You wake up with drain tubes and expanders in your
breasts. It does feel like a scene out of a science-fiction film. But
days after surgery you can be back to a normal life.

Nine weeks later, the final surgery is completed with the
reconstruction of the breasts with an implant. There have been many
advances in this procedure in the last few years, and the results can
be beautiful.

I wanted to write this to tell other women that the decision to have
a mastectomy was not easy. But it is one I am very happy that I made.
My chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from 87 percent to
under 5 percent. I can tell my children that they don’t need to fear
they will lose me to breast cancer.

It is reassuring that they see nothing that makes them uncomfortable.
They can see my small scars and that’s it. Everything else is just
Mommy, the same as she always was. And they know that I love them and
will do anything to be with them as long as I can. On a personal note,
I do not feel any less of a woman. I feel empowered that I made a
strong choice that in no way diminishes my femininity.

I am fortunate to have a partner, Brad Pitt, who is so loving and
supportive. So to anyone who has a wife or girlfriend going through
this, know that you are a very important part of the transition. Brad
was at the Pink Lotus Breast Center, where I was treated, for every
minute of the surgeries. We managed to find moments to laugh together.
We knew this was the right thing to do for our family and that it
would bring us closer. And it has.

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.

I acknowledge that there are many wonderful holistic doctors working
on alternatives to surgery. My own regimen will be posted in due
course on the Web site of the Pink Lotus Breast Center. I hope that
this will be helpful to other women.

Breast cancer alone kills some 458,000 people each year, according to
the World Health Organization, mainly in low- and middle-income
countries. It has got to be a priority to ensure that more women can
access gene testing and lifesaving preventive treatment, whatever
their means and background, wherever they live. The cost of testing
for BRCA1 and BRCA2, at more than $3,000 in the United States, remains
an obstacle for many women.

I choose not to keep my story private because there are many women
who do not know that they might be living under the shadow of cancer.
It is my hope that they, too, will be able to get gene tested, and
that if they have a high risk they, too, will know that they have
strong options.

Life comes with many challenges. The ones that should not scare us
are the ones we can take on and take control of.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/my-medical-choice.html

Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutilates healthy people and fills
the pockets of surgeons with money ....

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/angelina-jolie-undergoes-double-mastectomy-to-reduce-breast-cancer-risk-20130514-2jjst.html

[John H. Gohde]

> http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/angelina-jolie-undergoes-double-...


I hope that MORE progressive females STOP buying into the lies of
conventional medicine hook, line, and sinker and START being real
for the first time in their lives by getting serious about vitamin D.

Breast cancer is a vitamin D deficiency disease.

http://tinyurl.com/ckzpks4

Here is an introductory article on How to Easily Prevent Most Breast
Cancer.

http://tinyurl.com/7b77fkp

ALL age-related epithelial cancers are a vitamin D deficiency
disease. And, I do NOT mind saying so. :)

ALL that the Science Psychos have to offer on these ngs is a pack of
lies and their silence on important health issues.

Please Science Psychos do yourselves in for the betterment of man and
woman kind.

[Taka]

On May 14, 9:18 pm, "John H. Gohde" <john.h.go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Breast cancer is a vitamin D deficiency disease.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ckzpks4
>
> Here is an introductory article on How to Easily Prevent Most Breast
> Cancer.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/7b77fkp
>
> ALL age-related epithelial cancers are a vitamin D deficiency
> disease.  And, I do NOT mind saying so.  :)
>
> ALL that the Science Psychos have to offer on these ngs is a pack of
> lies and their silence on important health issues.
>
> Please Science Psychos do yourselves in for the betterment of man and
> woman kind.

Get off my thread narcissist! You're late to the party. Neither
mastectomy nor your quacking about VitD are going to insure her
against cancer. She got the mutation in EVERY cell of her body.
Apart from boosting her aged bust the plastic surgery is only useful
as a commercial which would lure thousands of women worldwide to pay
for the test and, if positive, to cut their breasts off. The BRCA1
mutation got also a bright side such as e.g. increased intelligence in
Jews. But if she thinks she can safely continue her risky Western
lifestyle without breast she may well end up like Steve Jobs. Cancer
is not a VitD deficiency but a lifestyle disease. Which lifestyle?
Just read my previous posts over the years ... Seed oils, eternal
summer, overstimulation with technologies we never came in contact
during evolution, sitting on the chair, western toilets, nuclear power
plants etc. Now I predict next some famous men would confess to cut
his prostate out due to the BRCA1 mutation. Instead of tissue
engineering we might be well heading towards a preventive mutilation
revolution as the next stimulus for the economies ...

Taka

[Taka]

On May 14, 10:04 pm, Taka <taka0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seed oils, eternal
> summer, overstimulation with technologies we never came in contact
> during evolution, sitting on the chair, western toilets, nuclear power
> plants etc.

And of course it would help to the same extent as mastectomy if she
breast fed her 6+ kids for at least 1 year each and made them the
natural enjoyable way instead of IVF.

Taka

[Taka]

Christina Applegate
Sharon Osbourne
....

check them out, all the same ....

[John H. Gohde]

[Taka]

and Brad Pitt should get da Vinci:

http://www.davincisurgery.com/da-vinci-urology/da-vinci-procedures/da-vinci-prostatectomy/

[John H. Gohde]

Ditto!

[Taka]

Did Angelina Jolie Make A Mistake By Acting On The 'Breast Cancer
Gene' Theory?

The 'prophylactic' removal of women's breasts due to BRCA1/BRCA2
status has become a disturbingly popular trend, and increasingly it is
being celebrated in the mainstream media and medical establishments as
a reasonable choice. But does the scientific evidence itself refute
this approach?

Angelina Jolie's recent announcement in a New York Times op-ed that
she had a 'prophylactic' double mastectomy due to her BRCA1/BRCA2
status has disturbing implications, some of which we covered late last
year in connection with Allyn Rose, the 24-year old Miss America
contestant who announced she would be undergoing a double mastectomy
to "prevent" breast cancer.

Beyond the fact that as high-profile celebrities their decisions will
affect millions of women's perception of the procedure, likely making
them more accepting of the concept, their decisions also reflect
profound misconceptions about gene-mediated disease risk embedded
deeply within popular consciousness, from which prevailing medical
opinion is hardly immune.

First, there is a common misconception about the role that the so-
called breast cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, play in
breast cancer disease risk and prognosis. BRCA mutations vary widely
by ethnicity and are exceedingly rare in the general population, which
is why, as NBCNews.com recently reported, "The U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force recommends that only women with a strong family
history even think about getting a BRCA genetic test –which is only 2
percent of U.S. women." But even in those in which a BRCA mutation is
identified, the genes, in and of themselves, do not alone make the
disease.

Despite the commonplace refusal of so-called 'evidence-based medicine'
to acknowledge the actual evidence of genetics, we moved into a Post-
Genomic era over a decade ago following the completion of first draft
of the entire human genome in 2000. At that moment, the central dogma
of molecular biology – that our DNA controls protein expression, and
therefore disease risk – was disproved. Our genome was found to
contain roughly 20,000 genetic instructions – not even enough to
account for the 100,000 proteins in the human body!

As a result, we must now accept that factors beyond the control of the
gene, known as epigenetic factors, and largely determined by a
combination of nutrition, psychospiritual states that feed back into
our physiology, lifestyle factors, and environmental exposures,
constitute as high as 95% of what determines any disease risk. In
fact, even the psychological trauma associated with being diagnosed
with cancer can drive malignancy via adrenaline-mediated multi-drug
resistance,[i] and according to a recent NEJM study, lead up to a 26-
fold increased risk of heart-related deaths in the seven days
following diagnosis.[ii]

Given this fact, Jolie's decision to have a bilateral mastectomy in
order to excise from her body the breast tissue that contains BRCA1/
BRCA2 genes which are known to interfere with the repair of radiation-
induced DNA damage, rather than focusing on reducing or eliminating
all future radiation exposure from her breasts, or incorporating
hundreds of nutritional components experimentally confirmed to protect
against radiation and associated genotoxic insults to the breast,
reflects a iron clad faith in the inevitability of gene-driven cancer
vis-à-vis a fundamentally powerless subject, versus trust in the
body's ability to prevent and heal all disease, assuming it has the
right conditions.

Another common misconception is that you either have, or don't have
the "BRACA genes," as if they were monolithic entities, ascertained
with the black and white certainty of a pregnancy test. It is a
little known fact that thousands of "mutations" in the BRCA1 and BRCA2
genes have already been identified and characterized on a molecular
level, adding much more complexity to the picture than the present
level of medical knowledge can claim to convert into compelling
statistical risk calculations and actionable treatment
recommendations.

These mutations are technically known as gene polymorphisms which are
naturally occurring variations of a gene present in more than 1% of
the populations. It will come to many as a surprise to learn that
some of these so-called "mutations" actually REDUCE the risk of breast
cancer. BRCA1 variation K1 183R is related inversely to cancer risk,
leading the authors of a review on the topic titled, "The case against
BRCA1 and 2 testing," to conclude: "It seems that some polymorphisms
may actually have a protective effect."[iii] Moreover, research exists
showing that BRCA2 mutation carriers and non-carriers have similar
breast cancer-specific rates of breast-cancer specific death,[iv] and
that although BRCA positive patients have more frequently negative
prognostic factors, their prognosis appears to be equal to or better
than in patients with normal, also known as wild-type, BRCA.[v]

Another concerning blind spot in the framing of Jolie's decision is
that approximately 70,000 breast cancers (31% of annual breast cancers
diagnoses) are misdiagnosed by the vast breast cancer 'awareness' and
treatment complex each year.[vi] These are not just so-called "zero
stage" breast cancers such as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), which
arguably should be reclassified as non-cancerous normal variations in
breast morphology, but 50% are known as early-stage "invasive" breast
cancers [view NEJM study video analysis here].

How many of these women, having received a mammography-detected
diagnosis of breast cancer and then a follow up BRCA test, believed
that the gene must have therefore "caused" the "cancer"? The
popularization of this crude way of understanding natural, sometimes
self-limiting variations in breast morphology as cases of "breast
cancer" is itself a malignancy that should be prevented and treated
with healthy doses of the very 'evidence' that the so-called 'evidence-
based' medical system claims to possess as a differentiating factor
from other, more ancient, plant- and nutrition-based medical
traditions.

Last November, an article published in NEJM found that 1.3 million US
women were overdiagnosed and overtreated for so-called "breast cancer"
in the past 30 years. These were screen-detected abnormal breast
findings that would never have progressed to cause harm in the women
in which they were diagnosed. These women, while essentially
iatrogenic victims of medicine, being given standard treatment
options, including mastectomy, lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy,
were considered statistically as "survivors" whose lives were saved by
the medical establishment, and these cases further inflated the
statistics to make it appear that conventional treatment interventions
are far more effective than they actually are.

Given these facts, Jolie's decision conceals a dark side that she,
like millions of other American women, are completely unaware of. For
example, look at the soaring stock response of Myriad Genetics, the
patent-holders of the human genes BRCA1/BRCA2, soon after Jolie's
announcement in this Yahoo Finance article published today: Myriad
Genetics Shares Climb After Angelina Jolie Has Mastectomy.

The Utah-based company, contrary to popular opinion, owns patents on
your BRCA genes (men have them too). And not only that, as a recent
Slate article explains:

[Myriad Genetics] claims to own the rights to any test for the
presence of the two critical genes associated with breast cancer, and
it has ruthlessly enforced that right, though their test is inferior
to one that Yale University was willing to provide at much lower cost.
The consequences have been tragic: Thorough, affordable testing that
identifies high-risk patients saves lives. Blocking such testing costs
lives. Myriad is a true example of an American corporation for which
profit trumps all other values, including the value of human life
itself.

Given the fact that powerful, profit-driven corporations stand to reap
profound financial benefit from the propagation of an oversimplified
gene-driven theory of breast cancer susceptibility, we must be
cautious in jumping on the mainstream media and medical bandwagon by
viewing Jolie's increasingly popular decision uncritically. Consider
also that women who undergo these mastectomies often opt for breast
implants which themselves have been linked to cancer, as we discussed
in our article from last year, "Implanted: The Myth of the Cancer-Free
Breast Implant," and which only recently were linked to more
aggressive breast cancer, and lower breast cancer survival rates.

What we want is the truth when it comes to understanding breast cancer
risk, its natural history, and what preventive and therapeutic steps
should be employed to reduce its progression and associated
suffering. Unfortunately, however, the breast cancer industry's
influence stretches from academia to government, from KFC buckets of
fried chicken to Smith & Wesson's pink ribbon-branded fire arms. All
the more important to read between the lines, and remember that we
alone are responsible for educating ourselves, so that a truly
informed choice is made possible.

Please use our breast cancer health guide for direct access to the
peer-reviewed and published research on natural and integrative breast
health interventions: Health Guide: Breast Cancer
Resources
[i] GreenMedinfo.com, Stress Hormones Found To Make Cancer Resistant
To Treatment
[ii] GreenMedInfo.com, Research: Some Diagnoses Can Kill You Quicker
Than The Cancer
[iii] Cheryl Lin, Tina Sasaki, Aaron Strumwasser, Alden Harken. The
case against BRCA 1 and 2 testing. Surgery. 2011 Jun ;149(6):731-4.
PMID: 21621683
[iv] Mario Budroni, Rosaria Cesaraccio, Vincenzo Coviello, Ornelia
Sechi, Daniela Pirino, Antonio Cossu, Francesco Tanda, Marina Pisano,
Grazia Palomba, Giuseppe Palmieri. Role of BRCA2 mutation status on
overall survival among breast cancer patients from Sardinia. BMC
Cancer. 2009 ;9:62. Epub 2009 Feb 20. PMID: 19232099
[v] Andrea Veronesi, Clelia de Giacomi, Maria D Magri, Davide
Lombardi, Martina Zanetti, Cristina Scuderi, Riccardo Dolcetti,
Alessandra Viel, Diana Crivellari, Ettore Bidoli, Mauro Boiocchi.
Familial breast cancer: characteristics and outcome of BRCA 1-2
positive and negative cases. BMC Cancer. 2005 ;5:70. Epub 2005 Jul 4.
PMID: 15996267
[vi] New England Journal of Medicine, Effect of Three Decades of
Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence

SOURCE: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/did-angelina-jolie-make-mistake-acting-breast-cancer-gene-theory

[Taka]

Angelina Jolie may not have gone far enough to prevent cancer

Dr. Steven Narod, the foremost expert on BRCA gene mutations and their
links to cancer, says the actress’s dramatic double mastectomy is only
a good start

Unlike the rest of the world, for Dr. Steven Narod, Angelina Jolie’s
“shocking” prophylactic double mastectomy is merely a good start.

However, though he expresses frustration with the global fascination
with “one French-Canadian BRCA carrier living in LA,” Narod does not
minimize the trauma of the mastectomy and the decision to undergo it.

“The mastectomy is easy, the reconstruction is hard. If you want the
breasts to have the same appearance, it’ll be difficult; nipple
sparing is hard. Any time you’re dealing with blood supply, it’s
difficult,” says Jewish-Canadian Narod, the foremost researcher of
BRCA gene mutations in the world.

Noting that, with her vast resources Jolie’s results are not typical,
he says ironically, “I’m sure Angelina Jolie’s breasts are just as
good as they ever were.”

But the implication is she shouldn’t have stopped there.

“She didn’t ask me, but I would have recommended an oophorectomy
[removal of the ovaries] as well,” says Narod, a professor at the
University of Toronto and director at the Women’s College Research
Institute’s Familial Breast Cancer Research Unit.

In a soon-to-be-released study, Narod’s team finds that a preventative
oophorectomy in women carrying the mutation reduces death from breast
and ovarian cancers by 70 percent.

This is logic even laymen can grasp: Obviously it is easier to prevent
cancers than detect them. Removing the potential locations of the
cancers almost always defeats them.

Narod was on the team of scientists who discovered the link between
Ashkenazi Jewry and the BRCA mutations in 1995. He promotes widespread
genetic testing, not today’s healthcare standard that is based on
family history and primarily targeted at Ashkenazi Jews, women of
French-Canadian descent and residents of the Bahamas. In Jewish women,
the mutation is linked to 12% of breast cancers and 40% of ovarian
cancers.

Citing Jolie, Narod says she is a typical potential candidate for
genetic testing. Jolie’s maternal line is French-Canadian: Her
grandmother died at 45 of ovarian cancer and her mother at 56 of
breast cancer.

However, Narod’s wholesale testing, paired with aggressive
prophylactic surgery, would potentially have prevented the first case,
Jolie’s grandmother.

The practical options for women who carry the BRCA mutations are few:
preventative surgery; a five-year drug therapy treatment with
Tamoxifen, which statistically decreases cancer outbreaks by 50%; or
increased monitoring, preferably with sensitive, but expensive, MRI
technology, in a wait-and-see approach.

In the United States, some 35% of carriers choose to have prophylactic
mastectomies, whereas 25% do so in Canada, and only 11% in Israel —
well under the European average.

Narod sees prophylactic surgery as the best option.

“When a woman has a mastectomy or oophorectomy, she has a tremendous
sense of relief… If you take a pill, you don’t feel that. If I give
you a pill you have to take every day for five years, you don’t
experience that transformation. And there are so-called side effects —
weight gain, weight loss, whatever. So women end up saying ‘Screw it,’
” and don’t complete the course.

Narod admits an oophorectomy obviously curtails reproduction — as does
the drug therapy, since women are forbidden to become pregnant while
on it — but advises carriers of the BRCA1 mutation to undergo this
procedure by age 35, and those with BRCA2 by age 40.

In a world in which women are increasingly waiting to start families,
these numbers are not insignificant.

The age factor is one compelling reason Narod suggests testing all
Israeli women when they enter the IDF, or at least offering the
screening at that age. Thus, young women could be aware of a
potentially earlier fertility deadline than menopause when making
lifestyle choices after their demobilization.
In Israel, Narod finds his natural data pool. Twelve years ago, Narod
approached one of the country’s health providers and offered to
include all its female patients in his burgeoning Jewish genetic
testing study and to underwrite all costs.

Narod says the provider declined, saying it didn’t want to “generate a
lot of anxiety,” even though “the evidence is overwhelming that
testing would be a useful thing to do.”

“It is natural to do it in Israel… natural to offer it when women go
into the army,” says Narod, just as the testing for Tay-Sachs and
other Jewish-linked genetic diseases are sponsored. ”Israel is about
10 years behind.”

Instead, Narod’s groundbreaking work was completed in Canada.

Today there is more awareness in Israel, including an NGO called
BRACHA (“blessing” in Hebrew) for BRCA mutation carriers. The
organization is multilingual and sponsors lectures, conferences and
one-on-one volunteerism. The website includes the latest research and
support group forums.

As the most-cited researcher in the world in the field of breast
cancer, Narod is currently actively promoting wholesale testing in
Canada for the BRCA mutation. When asked what the chances are for the
tests to be included in the Canadian health basket, he says
optimistically, “Check back in six months.”

In the US, however, there are more obstacles, including the current
patent case pending in the US Supreme Court. Myriad Genetics Inc.,
which sells the only BRCA gene test, is attempting to patent the gene,
which could, opponents fear, stunt research in this area.

Narod says, “I’d like to see the cost of genetic testing go down to
make it accessible for every woman. The current test costs $4,000; I’d
like to see it at $200. Today, if there were no patent, it would go
down to $500, and the market could probably bring it down to $200 in
five years.”

Narod’s research lab tests for BRCA mutations for $50. But the
Canadian healthcare system is such that many of his 7,000 Jewish study
subjects would not otherwise have qualified for testing, since they do
not have a family history of breast and ovarian cancers.

After finding themselves carriers, many of these women who would not
otherwise have known their genetic status have taken prophylactic
measures. Some 90% of the subjects with the mutation have since
undergone an oophorectomy, and 35% have had a mastectomy.

And in the US, where healthcare is basically privatized, there is a
system of what Narod considers excessive steps, mostly to increase job
security, he claims. There, Narod was “rebuffed.”

Instead of outright testing for the BRCA mutation in the US, “the way
it’s done is nonsensical,” says Narod, and patients must meet with a
genetic counselor, which increases the expense by at least another
$200. The counselor is the one who will then refer them for testing.

Narod says that “99% of the results will be negative.” Check first,
and counsel those who are positive after, reducing millions of dollars
during widespread testing. “But hospitals found it wasn’t profitable,”
continues Narod.

Is there an affordable widespread solution?

“Look,” says Narod, losing patience, “if you had a genetic testing
program in Israel and all you did was test women at age 35 and did
that single operation [oophorectomy] — a one-day procedure,
potentially without much follow up — that single operation will reduce
cancer deaths by 70%.”

But it is still much more exciting to speak about Angelina Jolie’s
breasts.

SOURCE: http://www.timesofisrael.com/angelina-jolie-didnt-go-far-enough-to-prevent-cancer/

[John H. Gohde]

Ditto!

[Winston]

Taka <taka...@gmail.com> posted:

> Angelina Jolie may not have gone far enough to prevent cancer

...
> 锟斤拷She didn锟斤拷t ask me, but I would have recommended an oophorectomy
> [removal of the ovaries] as well,锟斤拷 says Narod, ...

A day or two later, she announced she'll be doing just that.
-WBE

[Taka]

OH! THE CONVENIENCE. Angelina Jolie's aunt dies of "breast cancer"
right after her scam was exposed:

Unfuckingbelievable!!! How many more female relatives of that sick
fuck will "die of breast cancer" to make the mutilation-psyop
credible????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_7TeOlb41E

SOURCE: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2245280/pg1

----------------------

Angelina Jolie's announcement of undergoing a double mastectomy
(surgically removing both breasts) even though she had no breast
cancer is not the innocent, spontaneous, "heroic choice" that has been
portrayed in the mainstream media. Natural News has learned it's all
part of well-timed for-profit corporate P.R. campaign that has been
planned for months and just happens to coincide with the upcoming U.S.
Supreme Court decision on the viability of the BRCA1 patent.

Patenting human genes is huge business

Myriad Genetics sees stock price skyrocket thanks to Jolie, and
Obamacare will funnel billions their way

MORE: http://www.naturalnews.com/040365_Angelina_Jolie_gene_patents_Supreme_Court_decision.html

[John H. Gohde]

> MORE:http://www.naturalnews.com/040365_Angelina_Jolie_gene_patents_Supreme...



Science Bull Alert!

The ONLY thing that anybody should do to protect themselves against
breast cancer is to take approximately 5,000 IU a day of vitamin D-3.
Of course, having 2 or more years of daily dosing with vitamin D under
your belt, certainly helps. So, does supplementation with selenium

http://naturalhealthperspective.com/featured-story/how-protect-from-cancer.html

http://tinyurl.com/d4p4wsp
.
Of course, Hollywood has been in bed with the Science Psychos for a
long time, which only goes to proves that money in the bank is no
measure of intelligence or wisdom.

[Taka]

On May 28, 6:59 pm, "John H. Gohde" <john.h.go...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://naturalhealthperspective.com/featured-story/how-protect-from-c...

Site full of shit ...

Get the real thing here - http://raypeat.com/articles/ (not for
analphabets like JHG)

[Taka]

Angelina Jolie Undergoes Preventive Double Mastectomy

News erupted this morning about Angelina Jolie’s preventive double
mastectomy. I rarely see any news stories, which is why I so rarely
“report” on something in this fashion, but this happened to catch my
eye. A response was in order.

I first came across the growing trend of getting your breasts removed
– you know, just in case you get breast cancer, right at the very
beginning of my health research in late 2004. I willed myself to read
something from a mainstream health authority as part of my
comprehensive education. It was Isadore Rosenfeld, “America’s most
trusted doctor,” who I first heard advocating this. I couldn’t
believe my eyes, for two reasons.

1.It is shocking that this is the best the medical industry can do
2.It is shocking that this is the best the medical industry can do

Nearly a decade of comprehensive research later, and I find this even
more outrageous, and understand more fully why the medical industry is
so inept at preventing and treating disease. Well, unless you
consider removing your breasts to prevent breast cancer “prevention.”
I don’t. It’s a silly concept to just remove something so that a
disease does not develop. That’s like getting laser hair removal
treatment on your scalp to prevent hair loss.

Anyway, Angelina’s docs supposedly told her, with her mutated BRCA1
gene, that her risk of getting breast cancer was 87%. Okay, so they
can’t prevent or cure cancer, but they know enough about it to provide
an exact statistical projection of its likelihood?

BRCA1 functions a lot like progesterone in breast tissue because it
prevents proliferation of cells and opposes the destructive, cancer-
promoting actions of estrogen. Mutations in the gene basically create
what functions like estrogen dominance in the breast tissue and
elsewhere (the greater the ratio between estrogen and progesterone,
the greater the cancer promotion amongst countless other negatives).
In the distant future, when medicine is finally decoupled from
commercial conflicts of interest, it will be better understood that
maintaining a high metabolic rate and thus high levels of anti-
estrogenic hormones of youth such as the powerfully anti-cancer
hormone progesterone, is where the battle against cancer of the breast
and most other degenerative diseases will be won. Until then ladies,
keep getting your breasts removed and popping your estrogen and
“progestin.”

If this is the best the medical industry can do for one of the world’s
top female icons and celebrities, you’re in trouble if you don’t seek
out your own prevention and solutions to your health problems – big
and small.

SOURCE: http://180degreehealth.com/2013/05/angelina-jolie-undergoes-preventive-double-mastectomy

[John H. Gohde]

On May 28, 12:40 pm, Taka <taka0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Angelina Jolie Undergoes Preventive Double Mastectomy
>
> News erupted this morning about Angelina Jolie’s preventive double
> mastectomy.  I rarely see any news stories, which is why I so rarely
> “report” on something in this fashion, but this happened to catch my
> eye.  A response was in order.
>
> I first came across the growing trend of getting your breasts removed
> – you know, just in case you get breast cancer, right at the very
> beginning of my health research in late 2004.  I willed myself to read
> something from a mainstream health authority as part of my
> comprehensive education.  It was Isadore Rosenfeld, “America’s most
> trusted doctor,” who I first heard advocating this.  I couldn’t
> believe my eyes, for two reasons.

Science Bull Alert!

The ONLY thing that anybody should do to protect themselves against
breast cancer is to take approximately 5,000 IU a day of vitamin D-3.
Of course, having 2 or more years of daily dosing with vitamin D under

your belt, certainly helps. So, does supplementation with selenium.

YOU can blame conventional medicine for failing to tell people that
vitamin D-3 effectively prevents most age-related cancer. What D
misses, selenium is sure to prevent.