Did Angelina Jolie Make A Mistake by Acting On The 'Breast Cancer

Did Angelina Jolie Make A Mistake By Acting On The 'Breast Cancer
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/did-angelina-jolie-make-mistake-a...
Home
Explore
Tools
Articles
Store
My Account
FAQ
Contact
Did Angelina Jolie Make A Mistake By Acting On The 'Breast Cancer Gene' Theory?
3K
Search this site:
Search
243
Tweet
193
Email
23
StumbleUpon
24.5K
ShareThis
37
28
11k
Like
Posted on: Tuesday, May 14th 2013 at 12:45 pm Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder
User login
Username or e-mail: *
Password: *
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.
Log in Create new account Request new password
GreenMedInfo.com
Like 59,614 people like GreenMedInfo.com.
Social Networking
Support Free Media

Become A Sponsor View Our Sponsors Advertise/Collaborate Become a Member Become an Affiliate Link To Us
First, there is a common misconception about the role that the so-called breast cancer susceptibility
About Us
1 of 11
5/06/2013 12:01 p.m.
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--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 breastcancer 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
2 of 11
5/06/2013 12:01 p.m.
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 ribbonbranded 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
3 of 11
5/06/2013 12:01 p.m.

[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
Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind. Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff. Commenting is limited to users that have the Member or Professional role.
To comment:
Login if you have a membership Sign up for the Member role Sign up for the Professional role
Recommended Related Articles
How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating The Epidemic of Cancer

13,136 views
4 of 11
5/06/2013 12:01 p.m.
Health Guide: Breast Cancer
Print Options
Some features are currently member only features. If you are already a member, please login. Otherwise, click here to become a member. Printer-friendly version Send to friend PDF version
Facebook Comments
Add a comment... Post to Facebook Kenny Ray Top Commenter Posting as Gary Moller (Change)
Another day, another psyops. Council on Foreign Relations Jolie, good little girl. Selling what the medical mafia is pushing. Hollywood propaganda and mind control merges with corporate interests....again. Someone thinks there is much profit to be made. Sometime soon there may be a paparazzi photo of Angela's reconstructed assets and everyone will say "My, what a good job they did." Edward Bernays would be proud. Reply 2 Like Follow Post May 17 at 1:09pm Follow North Las Vegas, Nevada
Mark Goodman ND
Is Angelina a Myriad Genetics stockholder? Reply Like Follow Post May 21 at 11:31am
Facebook social plugin
GMI Comments Comment viewing options

Save settings
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Support Angelina's right to Choose!

Submitted by VDR928 on Sat, 2013-05-25 22:47.
I eat according to Weston Price/paleo principals (no processed foods, no dairy, sugar, white stuff, I am grain free, only eat pastured grass finished beef, etc) I make my own deodorant, lotion... you get the picture... but I disagree with most of what is being said. I think Angelina did what she researched and thought was right FOR HER and her family. Her aunt tried the holistic approach and now has stage 4 BC. My husband's WHOLE family has had prostate and breast cancer. I don't need the tests to know they have the gene. Some of them eat VERY healthy and grow their own organic vegetables, etc. Didn't change things.... ALL (but the youngest son...YET) had prostate or breast cancer (and there are 13 children in the family. The thought that Angelina would do this for stocks, patents, etc is ludicrous!! She does not need money for anything. I agree with whoever said "you have gone to far to the other side". Let it hit your spouse or yourself and see what you think then? Things change! My husband had surgery followed by radiation and he is cancer free 7 years out even though the cancer had penetrated the prostate capsule. Sometimes it works, folks!! Praise God for these treatments when needed. These days breasts can be reconstructed better than ever using our own tissue. Why risk it with the kind of money Angelina has?! I do not blame her one bit for doing what she thought was right and I don't think anyone else should judge her, either. Someday it may be
5 of 11
5/06/2013 12:01 p.m.
you... Whatever happened to kindness and understanding? Trying to see the other's point of view?
Flag as offensive
She did because doctors told her too

Submitted by prettycool on Sun, 2013-05-26 02:09.
She did it based on that if she didn't she would surely develop cancer. That is the wrong mentality. We can base our life on statistics. Her mother died from ovarian cancer not breast cancer. With breast cancer you have a 90% of survival rate with ovarian a 46% chance. I don't let stats rule my life. I don't focus on that. We are not our genes and even dr. bruce lipton a geneticist has stated that quite clearly. If you ever read "The Biology of Belief" he clearly states that if we assume we are going to get cancer we do especially if we have a predispositon for it. I have a predisposition for thyroid cancer however I don't even think or worry about. We can get sick at anytime, cutting off your boobs cause you think it can or will prevent cancer is not a guarantee. 90% of women who do develop ovarian or breast cancer do not have a disposition for it. Your husband developed most likely out of now where. Her case is different. She wasn't sick, and she has carried this gene all her life. Sometimes I think was if she did or hadn't gotten check would she be ok or would she have been sick? I say that self fulfilling prophecies are quite powerful. If we have enough fear of cancer we will develop it in the future. These are things that should be thought about quite thoroughly and carefully. Flag as offensive
The Most Sad Part of This...

Submitted by Gay N Gooen on Thu, 2013-05-16 07:36.
is that people (not just women) have given the responsibility for their health away to a group of "professionals" who were probably never trained in nutrition, stress reduction, or the process of food as medicine. Gay Flag as offensive
Response to signalfire
Submitted by rogerbird2@hotm... on Wed, 2013-05-15 16:03.
According to www.gapminder.com/world, in 2002, South Korea has a breast cancer rate of 20 / 100,000. Japan has a breast cancer rate of 33 / 100,000. The USA had a breast cancer rate of
6 of 11
5/06/2013 12:01 p.m.
101. This shows a tremendous difference. My wife is from Philippines and her family is from the sticks, or as they say, the boondocks. Yes, "boondocks" is a Filipino word. Before coming here, she had never heard of breast cancer before. Their rate at www.gapminder.com/world is 47 / 100,000. Clearly, we are causing a lot of breast cancers. It may be a bunch of things that are causing the problem that also include diet. It is hard to get away from the fact that franken-foods are at the bottom of a lot of our problems. Remember, my dear, what conventional wisdom says is a healthy diet is not a health diet when seen in the light of the Theory of Evolution and thousands of years of tradition. If the chances of getting breast cancer were reduced to 1/3 of what it is they currently are, then Angelina Jolie would not have mutilated herself and then tried to pass it off as a wonderful thing to do. Sayer Ji may not talk much about evolutionary eating; he may call it traditional eating or green eating. But he is a closet paleo person, sort of. In any case, what he focuses our attention on is eating that is at least Weston A. Price style or traditional or paleo. But you suggest that other things are involved. You could very well be right. I have seen numbers that indicate that bras are highly suspect. Chinese Medicine says that all diseases are disease of stagnation. Wearing a bra is certainly going to cause stagnation, and the more and the tighter the bra, the more the stagnation. I also have room in my mind for the thought that women are bombarded in our culture with thought forms and vibes of extreme lust which are focuses on their chests. I, of course, don't do this because I am so freaking spiritual. The previous sentence is a lie. Good luck. Flag as offensive (:->)
Just Wrong
Submitted by prettycool on Wed, 2013-05-15 11:39.
I was absolutely appalled that she did this, I was upset that someone convinces someone to get rid of their boobs because of a gene that they have carried all their life. This woman is a healthy 37 year old mother of 6! I just don't get this. We are not our genes! That is why I feel so upset. It says that women who carry her gene a likely to develop it young but that didn't happen for her. I know she has chances but we all have chances of developing diseases. We can't alter our bodies because we think we can prevent something from happening, this is insane! It's 90% of women who do develop breast cancer are not even carriers. I am hoping women will change their mentality will stop such a stupid trend like this. Flag as offensive
Fear Sells
Submitted by forbiddenhealing on Wed, 2013-05-15 09:41.
Once fear grabs your ego and the darkside of imagination runs wild, you can be made to do anything..at gun-point so to speak...
7 of 11
5/06/2013 12:01 p.m.
Those wielding fear and doubt know all too well that they are in the drivers seat...and that the consciousness of their victims has been paralyzed....This is mind theft pure and simple...And lowers the resonant frequency of your molecular being...power!
Look at the very profitable solutions to artificial fears...9/11 (War), disease (Pharma/Obamacare), cancer/research (pink ribbons), oil shortages (war/risky mining), famine (GMOs), death (religion), laws (corporate monopoly)....the list goes on... Flag as offensive
The problem is...

Submitted by signalfire on Wed, 2013-05-15 08:17.
The problem is that DCIS can go from 'pre-cancerous' to invasive to the lymph nodes with alarming speed. Who wants to go for repetitive radiological checkups (because almost no docs do 'manual exams' anymore and they're not 100% useful) over and over again waiting for what seems the inevitable, when you can remove the tissue that you're not using (Jolie doesn't nurse her adopted children, right?) and remove most of the worry, especially if you seem to have a family history, a genetic propensity for the disease, and watched your mother die from it? You've gone too far over to the other side; until the alternative treatments are shown to be 100% effective, they are just as worrisome a treatment as radiation and chemo. I don't think radiation and chemo work, and I know they're toxic; I don't know if the others work either (there's no way to tell except use them and wait); I was just diagnosed with early BC and I'm using a lumpectomy and nutritive approach but it's nervewracking as hell; my insurance won't pay for the bilateral prophylactic approach, only on one side that has already had cancer in it; I'm waiting until the other side gets cancer and then I'll insist on the bilateral. I'd rather get rid of the threat than worry about it. It's not like I'm using the organs anymore at 60 years of age, but my age has nothing to do with it considering the alternative... Why do people keep bowing down to the all-holy breast? Because of men's reaction to it? If some other body part you weren't really making use of (except as an all-important sex object) was threatening to kill you prematurely, wouldn't you remove it? Why are we not having this conversation about gall bladders? Or appendixes? It's time to take the sexual issues out of this and look at it as calmly as possible; we're all living in a toxic world and sometimes these toxins are going to try to kill us. She did what she thought was best for her and I applaud both the decision, and the decision to discuss it publicly. She's not a sex object, she's a person with one opinion that I'm glad she voiced, and I'm glad she opened up a dialogue about this. Flag as offensive
What? Me worry?
signalfire, there isn't any worry if she had pursued a Weston A. Price, paleo, or otherwise healthy diet. there is only a worry if she insisted upon going to parties until late at night eating any kind of garbage her cravings dictated, etc. etc. etc. Cancer is not a problem for
8 of 11
5/06/2013 12:01 p.m.
99% of all people who are stridently health oriented.
Roger Flag as offensive
DCIS
Submitted by Sayer Ji on Wed, 2013-05-15 10:02.
How often does DCIS rapidly grow to life-threatening status? We will never know, because when this mostly asymptomatic, screen-detectable "lesion" is detected it is almost immediately "treated." The few natural history studies that exist indicate that it would likely never progress to cause harm in women, much less even symptoms of disease. Please research this more in-depth, and I trust you will come to a more balanced understanding of the topic, which may mean that you accept DCIS is not even cancer. Flag as offensive
Reply to both above...

Submitted by signalfire on Wed, 2013-05-15 14:23.
Sayer, I appreciate your site, it seems the most informative of all of them I've seen, and I am researching the issue but it takes a while to get up to speed when so much of the information is pharmaceutical company and 'conventional medicine' propaganda. I was diagnosed with more than DCIS, I had a 1.2 cm invasive ductal, clean margins and clean sentinel LN bx but with now just as worrisome LCIS and DCIS in the removed specimen. My choice was to have lumpectomy and I requested a BPM of the insurance company, which was denied. Since I'm a 44DD, I opted not to do just one side; that would make me pretty lopsided; if it recurs, and now I'm on high alert, I'll request the bilateral again. To answer the other poster, many, many people who eat 'right', exercise regularly, etc. have been diagnosed with cancer. There's far more issues involved in both the acquisition of any given disease and its treatment. We have all been exposed to mega-amounts of radiation from nuclear tests, pesticides, tens of thousands of ecological poisons, etc. Telling someone they 'just didn't eat right' is insulting. Wait a few decades and see how you do being exposed by our corrupt corporate Wall Street and Madison Avenue form of government... Flag as offensive
Just the beginning

Submitted by lakhana on Wed, 2013-05-15 07:50.
9 of 11
5/06/2013 12:01 p.m.
One must not forget Angelina Jolie has made millions from her movies and other revenues. She is a spokesperson for the World Health Organization that wishes to vaccinate everyone. She is part of the thinking associated with a New World Order, if not directly part of it. She may have even "sacrificed" herself (which is not uncommon at all for those like-minded) so this "remedy" can be pushed on women. She is either just as ignorant as the rest of the populous (highly doubt it) or she has motive. Since most people look up to the Angelina Jolie types (movie stars and athletes) and cannot think for themselves or are so brainwashed even the evidence cannot reach them, there will be thousands, maybe a few million world-wide who will follow her decision. Unfortunately for the rest of us who are sane, clear thinking people and know the truth, the powers that be will use this to force us to join the ranks or be labeled mentally ill - it's happening right now in a few states under so-called gun control laws. Vets and others who do not fit the bill have been diagnosed mentally unstable and had their guns confiscated without any other reason. Medicine is next. Anyone eating organically, sustainable food and avoiding pesticides, who actively protests against Monsanto's GMO crops will be diagnosed paranoid - wait and see. Flag as offensive
I am astonished at some people's lack of intuition.

My intuition is screaming. Even if I knew nothing about alternative healing, this breast-ectomy would deeply offend me. It's sick. But I do know about alternative healing, and so it makes my outrage even greater. This is a sin; it is crime again God. I notice that the oncologists are not suggesting that men should have their testicles removed in order to avoid testicular cancer; this is mainly because most oncologists are men. Flag as offensive
Treating Sickness with Sickness

Submitted by tracychess on Wed, 2013-05-15 06:40.
Frankly, I am saddened and dismayed by the fact that a group of medical professionals could convince an innocent woman to have her breasts cut away and replaced with a prosthetic (that looks even better?) to avoid a disease they don't understand, based on a genetic factor they clearly don't understand either. I guess in some ways it is to be expected, given the fact that medicine, possibly che-mother-apy failed her mother; even though the cancer statistics probably say her mother's doctors succeeded, because she lived more than 5 years after diagnosis. Flag as offensive
10 of 11
5/06/2013 12:01 p.m.
Hey Doc, I'm worried about getting brain cancer .....

Submitted by goldphysh on Tue, 2013-05-14 19:43.
It's sad pathetic and ludicrous to think anyone can prevent disease by chopping off one's body parts. Flag as offensive
Comment viewing options

Save settings
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to write a comment
Privacy Policy
Return Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Sitemap
11 of 11
5/06/2013 12:01 p.m.

Did Angelina Jolie Make A Mistake by Acting On The 'Breast Cancer

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Did Angelina Jolie Make A Mistake by Acting On The 'Breast Cancer

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

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

Search this site:

Log in Create new account Request new password

Support Free Media

5/06/2013 12:01 p.m.