# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Angelina Jolie has both breasts removed

## green73

> Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie has undergone a double mastectomy to reduce her chances of getting breast cancer.
> 
> The 37-year-old mother of six has explained her reasons for having the surgery in the New York Times.
> 
> She said her doctors estimated she had an 87% risk of breast cancer and a 50% risk of ovarian cancer. "I decided to be proactive and to minimise the risk as much I could," she wrote.
> 
> She said the process began in February and was completed by the end of April.


cont
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22520720

op-ed
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/op....html?hp&_r=1&


update:

*Angelina Jolie Reveals She Is Also Having Her Ovaries Removed*

http://www.businessinsider.com/angel...removed-2013-5

----------


## Seraphim

My friend did that this year, she's 24. Her mom died about 6 years ago of breast cancer.

----------


## green73

*Take My Breasts, Please*  
	Posted by Karen De Coster on December 8, 2012 06:44 AM	  

 				 					I've written about the preventative mastectomy scam in the past - women chopping off breasts as a preventative measure. Read my blog and follow the money trail. Recently, Sharon Osbourne announced she had a preventative double mastectomy, and now Miss America contestant Allyn Rose will do the same.

Rose, originally of Newburgh, Md., and now living in  Washington, D.C., won the title of Miss District of Columbia in June. In  2011, she placed in the top eight at the Miss USA pageant as Miss  Maryland. She said that the upcoming Miss America pageant will be her  last with both of her breasts.

 "A lot of people are confused when I say I'm choosing life over  beauty, but it's beauty as a stereotype, the Hollywood idea of beauty,  the physical attributes. I'm not going to let my desire to achieve those  goals distract me from my own health," she said.
In fact, this has nothing to do with a noble choice between life and  "beauty." Allyn, like so many other women, was frightened into this  procedure by the medical establishment that has so much to gain from  these costly interventions that insurance companies agree to cover. Yet,  try getting your insurance company to cover $500 worth of acupuncture  or non-standard physical therapy. The government's cancer institute  gently promotes this procedure, as well as the satellites of Big Cancer. No wonder Jerome Kassirer, MD, former Editor-in-Chief of _The New England Journal of Medicine_, has said that _“The entire medical system is corrupt.”_ Here's Walter Bortz, Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine.

----------


## donnay

That's truly insane.  SMH.  This isn't the world I was born in.

----------


## PSYOP

Good for her -- though she's still a liberal nut and thus an enemy of liberty.

----------


## angelatc

DH's Aunt had the same thing done.  Every woman on that side of the family, including my MIL, died of breast cancer, except her.  Men are just as likely to pass this gene on as women, so my sons' daughters will need to be tested. 

Karen DeCoster can go screw her self-righteous perpetually bitchy self straight to hell.

----------


## green73

I should think posters of Jolie will start popping up in doctor offices throughout the land now.

----------


## jmdrake

> DH's Aunt had the same thing done.  Every woman on that side of the family, including my MIL, died of breast cancer, except her.  Men are just as likely to pass this gene on as women, so my sons' daughters will need to be tested. 
> 
> Karen DeCoster can go screw her self-righteous perpetually bitchy self straight to hell.


All I can say is, I know women who were told they would be dead from cancer and are cancer free after doing natural remedies.  No they don't always work, but neither do the AMA approved treatments.  Everyone should make their own choice, but it should be an informed choice.  And sadly information is so filtered that people are often left with a false choice.

----------


## fisharmor

> And sadly information is so filtered that people are often left with a false choice.


What I want to know is, how long until women who refuse to hack off their breasts are adjudicated mentally incompetent and forced to do it anyway?

----------


## fisharmor

> It's genetic.  Science FTW!


Actually, I also know a woman whose cancer is in remission since she radically changed her diet.
It's not science.  Nor will it ever be.
Because  hacking off tits is more profitable than diet regimens, and so  cartel-blessed federal study dollars are never going to get allocated to diet studies.

Of course, I have a penis, so what do I know.....

----------


## angelatc

> Actually, I also know a woman whose cancer is in remission since she radically changed her diet.
> It's not science.  Nor will it ever be.
> Because  hacking off tits is more profitable than diet regimens, and so  cartel-blessed federal study dollars are never going to get allocated to diet studies.
> 
> Of course, I have a penis, so what do I know.....


Really?  You think one surgery is more profitable than the same surgery combined with years and years of chemotherapy?  Go ahead - explain to me how big pharma makes millions not selling treatments.

And for bonus points - explain to me how discovering a gene that explains the presence of a certain cancer in certain families isn't science. 

I don't think it matters which head you use to think.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Huh?
> 
> I see nothing in his post that warrants that.


I agree. She lost it and freaked out. I say we forgive her. It is clear that she lost it due to emotional issues. Please don't ban her for breaking the rules. She is a productive member of this forum.

----------


## fisharmor

> Really?  You think one surgery is more  profitable than the same surgery combined with years and years of  chemotherapy?  Go ahead - explain to me how big pharma makes millions  not selling treatments.


You're shifting the goalpost.  The stated goal is cancer prevention.  Not cancer treatment.
Whether  or not my suspicion that money is a factor is correct, it's still  macabre for an industry to leap straight to amputation as the solution.
Why not amputate women's heads?  That will prevent all forms of cancer, you know.




> And for bonus points - explain to me how discovering a gene that  explains the presence of a certain cancer in certain families isn't  science.


I never made that claim.  I made the claim that  alternative medicines are not science and will never be given the  opportunity to be science.




> I don't think it matters which head you use to think.


I'm thinking with the one that isn't being intentionally abrasive.

----------


## Anti Federalist

The medical/government complex will have people chopping off fingers and toes for hangnails before too much longer.

FFS...

----------


## newbitech

First thing that came to my mind when I read this story.

But, anyways besides my life long obsession with finding her character in this movie in real life, I think it was good of her to lend her fame and image to the idea that women can feel beautiful about themselves despite cancer preventative treatments like mastectomy.

----------


## angelatc

> You're shifting the goalpost.  The stated goal is cancer prevention.  Not cancer treatment.


Do you actually believe yourself? The goal is not dying from cancer. 

Ask your friend if she would rather have prevented her cancer in the first place, rather than deal with all the emotional and physical ramifications of actually getting cancer.  I am guessing she will say yes.  But apparently she doesn't want to die now that she's passed that point. Good for her.




> Whether  or not my suspicion that money is a factor is correct, it's still  macabre for an industry to leap straight to amputation as the solution.
> Why not amputate women's heads?  That will prevent all forms of cancer, you know.


Oh my, you do believe yourself.  So you don't believe that there's a genetic test that can predict, with 87% reliability, that a woman will develop breast cancer?  Or maybe you just believe that women should live life against the odds, so that while 87% of them die a horrible, slow, painful death - 1% of the 13% left can hang out and post in "Health Freedom" bragging how they ate nothing but apricot seeds and dandelions, and it worked!!!!  Heck, my husband's surviving Aunt is a nun. Even she wasn't dumb enough to depend on God and prayer to keep her cancer free. And you don't even have that.....

You do realize they don't advise this for all women, right?  But it's "macabre" to opt to have a medical procedure that is statistically likely save your life? 




> I never made that claim.  I made the claim that  alternative medicines are not science and will never be given the  opportunity to be science.


  That's where you're wrong.  Lots of alternative medicines have been scientifically tested.  You guys just don't like the results.  And rather than admit that there's literally billions of dollars in that industry too, you stand around crying because "nobody" will do research to prove a point that doesn't actually exist. 





> I'm thinking with the one that isn't being intentionally abrasive.


That just means you're not thinking with mine.

----------


## angelatc

> The medical/government complex will have people chopping off fingers and toes for hangnails before too much longer.
> 
> FFS...



Why do you not believe in science?  Jesus $#@!ing christ - it's a gene that can predict the odds of a woman getting cancer. It's a modern day miracle.

I've lived in this town.  Like I said, my husband's family carries the gene.  Women I know died because this test wasn't available in their lifetimes.  But yeah, maybe we should make it illegal to perform surgery until they actually have cancer. That's the ticket.

That's easy for you to say, since you're not passing the gene down to your kids.

----------


## angelatc

And for the record, I think Angelina Jolie is a bat$#@! crazy, homewrecking overrated globalist whore.

----------


## green73

> Go $#@! yourself.


Whoa, settle down.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Why do you not believe in science?  Jesus $#@!ing christ - it's a gene that can predict the odds of a woman getting cancer. It's a modern day miracle.


Because I've seen enough "science" go bad and be horribly wrong, in my lifetime.

I never said anything about a ban.

As always people should be free to do as they wish.

But I *know* that's not how it will work out...before long these tests will be mandatory as part of a yearly government/corporate physical.

And if you refuse, you'll be terminated from employment, among other things.

And people here will say that is the employer's "right" to do so.

----------


## angelatc

> Because I've seen enough "science" go bad and be horribly wrong, in my lifetime.
> 
> I never said anything about a ban.
> 
> As always people should be free to do as they wish.
> 
> But I *know* that's not how it will work out...before long these tests will be mandatory as part of a yearly government/corporate physical.
> .


It's a genetic test.  There's no need to have it annually. Either you carry the gene or you don't.

So whats your solution?  Just stop the progression of science, because having people die isn't as bad as having them take mandatory tests?

For the record, I think most states already have laws about discriminating against people based on genetic testing. And really don't understand why you think all of humanity is as evil as our overlords.  Because if it is, there's no hope at all.

----------


## jmdrake

> Go $#@! yourself.


 Not physical possible for male humans.  Now go get a grip on yourself.




> Nobody told them they would be dead of cancer.  They were tested for the gene because the women in their family die from cancer. It's gone on for generations.   If you can smugly sit there on your smug little chair and seriously blame them for dying, assuming you've got some secret mystery cure that someone in that family didn't try, there's something  seriously $#@!ing wrong with you.


I haven't smugly sat anywhere are smugly blamed anyone for anything.  I'm just giving additional information from my own experience.  If you want to be a bitch about that, that's your problem.




> It's genetic.  Science FTW!


Science is bigger than you think it is.

----------


## jmdrake

> Why do you not believe in science?  Jesus $#@!ing christ - it's a gene that can predict the odds of a woman getting cancer. It's a modern day miracle.
> 
> I've lived in this town.  Like I said, my husband's family carries the gene.  Women I know died because this test wasn't available in their lifetimes.  But yeah, maybe we should make it illegal to perform surgery until they actually have cancer. That's the ticket.
> 
> That's easy for you to say, since you're not passing the gene down to your kids.


Please quote where anyone said anything about banning anything or STFU.

Please quote where anyone denied a genetic link to cancer or STFU.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It's a genetic test.  There's no need to have it annually. Either you carry the gene or you don't.


So it goes on your _dangan_ for the rest of your life.

Scratch that, you won't get fired, you'll never get hired.

----------


## angelatc

> Please quote where anyone said anything about banning anything or STFU.
> 
> Please quote where anyone denied a genetic link to cancer or STFU.


We've move passed this. Try to keep up.

----------


## donnay

*2:20 - Dr Glidden discusses Sharon Osbourne's election to have her breasts removed because doctors had told her she had a "bad gene" that causes breast cancer. Dr. Glidden is appalled by this advice, noting that there are no "bad genes" only genes with chromosomal damage caused by poor nutrition.*



[1] Epigenetics

There exist several definitions of epigenetics, and as a result, there are disagreements as to what epigenetics should mean. Epigenetics (as in “epigenetic landscape”) was coined by C. H. Waddington in 1942 as a portmanteau of the words epigenesis and genetics. Epigenesis is an old word that has more recently been used (see preformationism for historical background) to describe the differentiation of cells from their initial totipotent state in embryonic development. When Waddington coined the term the physical nature of genes and their role in heredity was not known; he used it as a conceptual model of how genes might interact with their surroundings to produce a phenotype.

Robin Holliday defined epigenetics as “the study of the mechanisms of temporal and spatial control of gene activity during the development of complex organisms.” Thus epigenetic can be used to describe anything other than DNA sequence that influences the development of an organism.

The more recent usage of the word in science has a stricter definition. It is, as defined by Arthur Riggs and colleagues, “the study of mitotically and/or meiotically heritable changes in gene function that cannot be explained by changes in DNA sequence.” The Greek prefix epi- in epigenetics implies features that are “on top of” or “in addition to” genetics; thus epigenetic traits exist on top of or in addition to the traditional molecular basis for inheritance.

The term “epigenetics”, however, has been used to describe processes which haven’t been demonstrated to be heritable such as histone modification, there are therefore attempts to redefine it in broader terms that would avoid the constraints of requiring heritability. For example, Adrian Bird defined epigenetics as “the structural adaptation of chromosomal regions so as to register, signal or perpetuate altered activity states.” This definition would be inclusive of transient modifications associated with DNA repair or cell-cycle phases as well as stable changes maintained across multiple cell generations, but exclude others such as templating of membrane architecture and prions unless they impinge on chromosome function. Such redefinitions however are not universally accepted and are still subject to dispute.

In 2008, a consensus definition of the epigenetic trait, “stably heritable phenotype resulting from changes in a chromosome without alterations in the DNA sequence”, was made at a Cold Spring Harbor meeting. *From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

----------


## jmdrake

> We've move passed this. Try to keep up.


Oh really?  You apologized?  Because I missed that.  Sorry.

----------


## angelatc

> So it goes on your _dangan_ for the rest of your life.
> 
> Scratch that, you won't get fired, you'll never get hired.


I'd rather be unemployed than dead, but that's just me I guess.

----------


## angelatc

> Oh really?  You apologized?  Because I missed that.  Sorry.


You missed a lot of things, but my apology wasn't one of them.

----------


## angelatc

AF think about it in the opposite sense.  As a Libertarian, why shouldn't you get cheaper insurance rates if the odds are much lower that you're going to end up with a terminal illness?

----------


## jmdrake

> So whats your solution?  Just stop the progression of science, because having people die isn't as bad as having them take mandatory tests?


The solution is simple.  Let the free marketplace of ideas work and let people make their own choices.  Pointing out that there are alternatives to radical surgery, and I'm not talking about "secret miracle cures", is a good thing in a free society.  Hey, we'll see what happens when there's a genetic test to predict testicular cancer.

----------


## jmdrake

> You missed a lot of things, but my apology wasn't one of them.


Then you haven't moved passed anything.  Nice try though.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I'd rather be unemployed than dead, but that's just me I guess.


Oh, dead will be part of that mix as well.

Unless you plan on relying on high quality, government provided healthcare...

----------


## angelatc

> The solution is simple.  Let the free marketplace of ideas work and let people make their own choices.  Pointing out that there are alternatives to radical surgery, and I'm not talking about "secret miracle cures", is a good thing in a free society.  Hey, we'll see what happens when there's a genetic test to predict testicular cancer.



Of course there are alternatives.  Getting cancer is an alternative. Go that natural route, and you can lose weight, too! Just like the bulemic kids!

----------


## pcosmar

> I'd rather be unemployed than dead, but that's just me I guess.


Guess what,?
it is not a guarantee of anything except having no breasts.

She is still going to die.. and if "genetically susceptible" to cancer it will be cancer some place else.

Seems to me it is a dumb tradeoff,, based on a lot of fear mongering.

----------


## jmdrake

> Of course there are alternatives.  Getting cancer is an alternative. Go that natural route, and you can lose weight, too! Just like the bulemic kids!


There are alternatives to curing cancer.  And just because you've decided to choose one particular route doesn't justify you being a bitch to people who talk about other alternatives.

----------


## angelatc

> Oh, dead will be part of that mix as well.
> 
> Unless you plan on relying on high quality, government provided healthcare...


So you're saying that the test that will serve to possibly prevent my grandaughters from getting breast cancer and dying is a bad thing because .... ?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> AF think about it in the opposite sense.  As a Libertarian, why shouldn't you get cheaper insurance rates if the odds are much lower that you're going to end up with a terminal illness?


In that sense, nothing at all, but that assumes a health care market free from government surveillance and intervention.

----------


## fisharmor

> unnecessarily abusive comments


Look,  lady, it took a while for medicine to get where it is with me right  now.  And it had to work at it.  I used to believe them.

And I  got there well before I had to deal with this total horse$#@! autism  diagnosis and chase the early intervention dragon around.
At this  point, if a medical professional said good morning to me, I'd  immediately start looking for a window so I could make sure the sun was  shining.

You believe what you want to believe.  You go have a tit amputation march right down the national mall if you want.
What  I object to is the fact that these people are charlatans in so many  ways, that it doesn't $#@!ing matter to me whether they're right here.
They've  proved beyond a shadow of a doubt for me at this point that they don't  give a rat's ass about the patients.  If I spent three times a doctor's  amount of givea$#@! on my job, I'd have been fired years ago.  And this  coming from a guy who spends at least two hours reading this forum.

So yeah, sue me, but I can't bring myself to believe it.

----------


## angelatc

> There are alternatives to curing cancer.  And just because you've decided to choose one particular route doesn't justify you being a bitch to people who talk about other alternatives.


I'm being a bitch to anybody that thinks that it's better to try to cure cancer than it is to prevent cancer in the first place.

----------


## jmdrake

> So you're saying that the test that will serve to possibly prevent my grandaughters from getting breast cancer and dying is a bad thing because .... ?


So when they come up with a test for testicular cancer are you going to recommend your grandsons get their nuts cut off?  Or are you going to be willing to at least consider alternatives?

----------


## Champ

What happened here?

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm being a bitch to anybody that thinks that it's better to try to cure cancer than it is to prevent cancer in the first place.


The same healthy lifestyles that can cure cancer are also very helpful in preventing cancer.  Go to PubMed when you get off your stupid high horse and do the scientific research since you claim to love science so much.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So you're saying that the test that will serve to possibly prevent my grandaughters from getting breast cancer and dying is a bad thing because .... ?


I'm saying your granddaughters (and *my* daughters) may be *forced* into radical amputation surgery because every employer and government agency and insurance company *insists* that they do so, if the results of this test are positive, and that when they are adults, they will have very little choice in the matter, if they want to work and borrow and pay taxes, but to comply with the medical/government establishment and their rules.

----------


## Cap

> Go $#@! yourself.
> 
> Nobody told them they would be dead of cancer.  They were tested for the gene because the women in their family die from cancer. It's gone on for generations.   If you can smugly sit there on your smug little chair and seriously blame them for dying, assuming you've got some secret mystery cure that someone in that family didn't try, there's something  seriously $#@!ing wrong with you.
> 
> It's genetic.  Science FTW!


That was uncalled for.

----------


## donnay

> Of course there are alternatives.  Getting cancer is an alternative. Go that natural route, and you can lose weight, too! Just like the bulemic kids!



Getting Chemo and radiation is instant weight loss too!

----------


## angelatc

> So when they come up with a test for testicular cancer are you going to recommend your grandsons get their nuts cut off?  Or are you going to be willing to at least consider alternatives?


Well, since the men in my family aren't dying from testicular cancer on a regular basis, I think I'm safe in assuming that we don't have that gene.  But if we did, I would certainly advise them to do everything possible to keep from getting cancer.  Especially since the surgery is cheap considering the alternatives, up to and including the funeral.

I can't believe that you think it's more important to have testicles than to avoid getting cancer.

----------


## angelatc

> Getting Chemo and radiation is instant weight loss too!


That was the joke. Glad you got it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, since the men in my family aren't dying from testicular cancer on a regular basis, I think I'm safe in assuming that we don't have that gene.  But if we did, I would certainly advise them to do everything possible to keep from getting cancer.  Especially since the surgery is cheap considering the alternatives, up to and including the funeral.
> 
> I can't believe that you think it's more important to have testicles than to avoid getting cancer.


I can't believe you've given in to fear to such a level.  But then again, I'm not you.  Knowing what I know, from scientific data, about the power of diet both the prevent and cure cancer, there's no way in hell I would go for such a preventive surgery.  But you think you know everything don't you?  You don't.  You are the one being "smug."  And you are clearly too stupid to understand science, so I don't know why you claim to like it so much.

----------


## donnay

> Well, since the men in my family aren't dying from testicular cancer on a regular basis, I think I'm safe in assuming that we don't have that gene.  But if we did, I would certainly advise them to do everything possible to keep from getting cancer.  Especially since the surgery is cheap considering the alternatives, up to and including the funeral.
> 
> I can't believe that you think it's more important to have testicles than to avoid getting cancer.



The sensible thing to do is look at diet and nutrition.  Not go cutting off body parts with the hope to prevented something from happening.  I seriously cannot understand someone defending such stupidity.

----------


## angelatc

> The same healthy lifestyles that can cure cancer are also very helpful in preventing cancer.  Go to PubMed when you get off your stupid high horse and do the scientific research since you claim to love science so much.


What part of "Our family has gone through this for generations" did you not understand? You name a treatment, and I can probably name a dead relative that tried it.

Now you're making stuff up. There is absolutely zero evidence that women carrying the breast cancer gene can reduce their risk, even slightly, by simply living a healthy lifestyle.

----------


## Origanalist

> Getting Chemo and radiation is instant weight loss too!


Dropped me down to 140 lbs.

----------


## angelatc

> The sensible thing to do is look at diet and nutrition.  Not go cutting off body parts with hope to have prevented something from happening.  I seriously cannot understand some one defending such stupidity.


That's because you're.... never mind.

Ok, then that's because you haven't personally attended enough funerals to get a clue. But that probably wouldn't work for you either.

----------


## Origanalist

> What happened here?


Lol

----------


## donnay

> What part of "Our family has gone through this for generations" did you not understand? You name a treatment, and I can probably name a dead relative that tried it.
> 
> Now you're making stuff up. There is absolutely zero evidence that women carrying the breast cancer gene can reduce their risk, even slightly, by simply living a healthy lifestyle.



Could be the vaccines you all take--just sayin'.  Every woman has the gene, it is the mutation of the gene that causes the cancer!


ETA:  Poor nutrition will cause mutation.

----------


## jmdrake

> What part of "Our family has gone through this for generations" did you not understand? You name a treatment, and I can probably name a dead relative that tried it.


And that's why you are too emotionally unstable to actually discuss the topic.




> Now you're making stuff up. There is absolutely zero evidence that women carrying the breast cancer gene can reduce their risk, even slightly, by simply living a healthy lifestyle.




http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/Ge...icTesting.html
_
Having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation does not mean you are going to get breast cancer. Some people with a mutation will never get breast cancer. And, people without a mutation are still at risk (most women who develop breast cancer do not have a BRCA mutation) [8].

If you have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, there are steps you can take to lower your risk of breast cancer. You should discuss these steps with your health care provider.

No matter your mutation status, there are things you can do that may lower your breast cancer risk._

----------


## donnay

> Dropped me down to 140 lbs.


What a horrible way to lose weight.

----------


## Origanalist

> What a horrible way to lose weight.


Ya, it was a real joy.

----------


## angelatc

> I'm saying your granddaughters (and *my* daughters) may be *forced* into radical amputation surgery because every employer and government agency and insurance company *insists* that they do so, if the results of this test are positive, and that when they are adults, they will have very little choice in the matter, if they want to work and borrow and pay taxes, but to comply with the medical/government establishment and their rules.


Well, at least they won't be $#@!ING DEAD.

And who knows?  Maybe they'll come up with a vaccine!  Oh wait.....

----------


## green73

> Ya, it was a real joy.



I'm just glad you're all right now. xoxoxox

Did you have anything lopped off? Did they bleed you? Leeches?

----------


## angelatc

> And that's why you are too emotionally unstable to actually discuss the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/Ge...icTesting.html
> _
> Having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation does not mean you are going to get breast cancer. Some people with a mutation will never get breast cancer. And, people without a mutation are still at risk (most women who develop breast cancer do not have a BRCA mutation) [8].
> ...


Again, what part of "We've been through this multiple times" do you $#@!ing doubt?  Did you click the damned link???? Because here's what it says, which I could have told you without copying it:




> If you have a higher risk of breast cancer, there are some options to help lower your risk including:
> 
> Risk-lowering drugs (tamoxifen or raloxifene)Preventive surgery (prophylactic mastectomy or prophylactic oophorectomy)


Notice the distinct lack of "live a healthy lifestyle!" on the list.

----------


## Origanalist

> I'm just glad you're all right now. xoxoxox
> 
> Did you having anything lopped off? Did they bleed you? Leeches?


They were thinking about ripping into me, but the treatment's worked. They have a really good success rate with the type I had. Leeches would have been much more pleasant.

----------


## jmdrake

And for those too lazy to use PubMed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19165595
_Breast cancer risk in relation to the joint effect of BRCA mutations and diet diversity.
Ghadirian P, Narod S, Fafard E, Costa M, Robidoux A, Nkondjock A.
Source

Epidemiology Research Unit, Research Centre, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal Hôtel-Dieu, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract

It has been suggested that gene-environment interaction is related to the risk of cancer. To evaluate departure from multiplicative effects between BRCA mutations and diet diversity in breast cancer (BC), a case-only study was carried out in a French-Canadian population including 738 patients with incident primary BC comprising 38 BRCA mutation carriers. Diet diversity was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire. Unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed to assess case-only odds ratio (COR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) while adjusting for age, body mass index, smoking, hormonal replacement therapy, and total energy intake. Ours results reveal a strong and significant interaction between BRCA mutations and vegetable and fruit diversity (COR = 0.27; 95%CI = 0.10-0.80; P = 0.03) when comparing the upper to the lower quartiles. The estimates for departure from multiplicative effects between BRCA mutations and total or other food groups' diversity were not supportive of the idea of a gene-environment interaction. The results of this study suggest that the combination of BRCA mutations and vegetable and fruit diversity may be associated with a reduced risk of BC._

Translation?  *The latest science suggest that diet can play a role even in breast cancer risk even for women who have the mutated BCRA gene.*

----------


## jmdrake

> Again, what part of "We've been through this multiple times" do you $#@!ing doubt?


I don't doubt it moron.  But that really doesn't prove anything except your lack of objectivity.




> Notice the distinct lack of "live a healthy lifestyle!" on the list.


_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19165595
Breast cancer risk in relation to the joint effect of BRCA mutations and diet diversity.
Ghadirian P, Narod S, Fafard E, Costa M, Robidoux A, Nkondjock A.
Source

Epidemiology Research Unit, Research Centre, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal Hôtel-Dieu, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract

It has been suggested that gene-environment interaction is related to the risk of cancer. To evaluate departure from multiplicative effects between BRCA mutations and diet diversity in breast cancer (BC), a case-only study was carried out in a French-Canadian population including 738 patients with incident primary BC comprising 38 BRCA mutation carriers. Diet diversity was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire. Unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed to assess case-only odds ratio (COR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) while adjusting for age, body mass index, smoking, hormonal replacement therapy, and total energy intake. Ours results reveal a strong and significant interaction between BRCA mutations and vegetable and fruit diversity (COR = 0.27; 95%CI = 0.10-0.80; P = 0.03) when comparing the upper to the lower quartiles. The estimates for departure from multiplicative effects between BRCA mutations and total or other food groups' diversity were not supportive of the idea of a gene-environment interaction. The results of this study suggest that the combination of BRCA mutations and vegetable and fruit diversity may be associated with a reduced risk of BC._

Now STFU already.

Edit: Also note that if you dug a little deeper into tamoxifen, you'd find this.

http://elynjacobs.wordpress.com/2012...-to-tamoxifen/
_Flaxseed–The lignans in flax are phytoestrogens, but they actually bind to estrogen receptors in the body and work a bit like Tamoxifen, as they hop on the estrogen and bind up these hormones and carcinogens and remove them from the body.  Although lignans are found in most unrefined grains (barley, buckwheat, millet and oats), soybeans, and some vegetables (broccoli, carrots, cauliflower and spinach), flaxseed is the richest source.  I recommend eating 2 tablespoons freshly ground golden flaxseed daily._

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Well, at least they won't be $#@!ING DEAD.
> 
> And who knows?  Maybe they'll come up with a vaccine!  Oh wait.....


Very credible research shows that anywhere from 90,000 to 210,000 people every year die at the hands of the medical establishment.

Mrs. AF just buried her father a couple months ago, that suffered for years under botched and mismanaged conventional treatment that led to his death.

The same doctors and hospital staff almost killed her mother.

No one treatment, no one "cure all" should ever be regarded as the end-all, be-all for all time.

Modern anti-biotics are less than 100 years old.

Look at the rise of "super bugs" in their wake.

I'd never support a "ban" or suggest that there "be a law" against something like this, people are free to do what they think is best for their situation.

I'm very skeptical of a "cure" or perhaps "preventive therapy" that involves radical amputations of body parts.

And I'm even more skeptical of the police state ramifications of this, and whole slew of other genetic tests and "pre-disease" markers that will shortly be used to control us even further.

----------


## angelatc

> And for those too lazy to use PubMed.
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19165595
> _Breast cancer risk in relation to the joint effect of BRCA mutations and diet diversity.
> Ghadirian P, Narod S, Fafard E, Costa M, Robidoux A, Nkondjock A.
> Source
> 
> Epidemiology Research Unit, Research Centre, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal Hôtel-Dieu, Montreal, QC, Canada.
> Abstract
> ...



Right! It drops it down from 87% to 85%.  Congrats. And let me know what the study says specifically about the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations - or even HBOC (heredity breast cancer) in general.

(ANd in case you didn't notice, this study was conducted only on women who already have breast cancer. )

And I'll STFU when I'm dead. Until then, you can block me or argue with me. Makes no difference to me.  It's not hard for me to feel mentally superior to a guy who thinks getting cancer is a good alternative.

----------


## tod evans

There's an old saying about there being more old drunks than old doctors...

Might just bear consideration...

----------


## donnay

How about we keep away from BPA and any phytoestrogens (estrogen mimickers) like, Soy.  Of course the scientific world hasn't been quite upfront with that information either.

----------


## brushfire

Wow..  What a long way from wearing a vile of "billy" around her neck and f*king in the limo "on the way here".

Her body, her risk, her choice, her money...

----------


## jmdrake

> Right! It drops it down from 87% to 85%.  Congrats.


You just made that up.  But okay.  Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.




> (ANd in case you didn't notice, this study was conducted only on women who already have breast cancer. )


And in case you didn't notice, there are alternatives to tamoxifen for dealing with the estrogen binding problem.  Question though.  Since you've made your own choices, why aren't you just happy with them?  What is the cause for your silly rants?  You've got your own breast cut off?  Fine.  You've told your grandkids to do the same?  Cool.  Other people sensibly look at other options.

----------


## jmdrake

> How about we keep away from BPA and any phytoestrogens (estrogen mimickers) like, Soy.  Of course the scientific world hasn't been quite upfront with that information either.


Well that information is hidden in how tamoxifen "works".

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> What part of "Our family has gone through this for generations" did you not understand? You name a treatment, and I can probably name a dead relative that tried it.
> 
> Now you're making stuff up. There is absolutely zero evidence that women carrying the breast cancer gene can reduce their risk, even slightly, by simply living a healthy lifestyle.


Clearly in the case of those with a family or genetic history of cancer, a healthy lifestyle in the sense of normal diet and exercise may not be sufficient. This still does not mean the "science" of prevention is limited to a "chop off some body tissue" disfigurement solution. Therapuetic or mega doses of certain natural substances like IP6, resveratrol, vitamin D (particlarly when augmented by vitamin E and menthol), etc have absolutely been documented (Pubmed, et al) to block cancer cells and inhibit tumor activity. The "science" of prevention includes alternatives from surgery, to supplementations and other alternative modalities. NO method is 100% effective, including surgery, which is known to sometimes _hasten_ more tumor activity. 

Writes Bill Sardi, "...when you incur a cut in your skin, chemical growth factors are released in that area which weaken nearby blood vessels, which then sprout new tributaries in the direction of the wound. This is all part of a natural wound-healing mechanism. When the wound is healed, the new blood vessels recede. But in cancer these new blood vessels persist, to provide oxygen and nutrients for tumor growth. Surgical removal of a solid tumor only produces more wound healing chemicals that further stimulates angiogenesis (new blood vessel formation). The new blood vessels become a conduit for cancer cells to escape, spread and develop into distant tumors called metastases. Inhibit the new blood vessels (anti-angiogenesis) and the tumor cannot grow beyond the size of a few millimeters. The trick is to do this without totally inhibiting the regenerative (wound healing) processes in the body."   http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi170.html

Since surgery frequently _contributes to_ onset of cancer growth _instead_ of preventing it, the science of using other approaches should be cut a break.

----------


## Barrex

Wait....You mean she will cut them off completely? She will be flat chested like a man? Or will she remove just some glands or something like that? I am having trouble picturing it all...

----------


## pcosmar

> That's because you're.... never mind.
> 
> Ok, then that's because you haven't personally attended enough funerals to get a clue. But that probably wouldn't work for you either.


Several folks in my family have died from heart attacks..
Should we get our hearts removed?

and you know,, all of my ancestors have died. Except my Mom,, and I suspect that is not long off.

It is simply a fact of life,, and surgical dis-figuration will not prevent that. It will line some pockets,, and may (or may not) alter the timeline.

----------


## jmdrake

> Wait....You mean she will cut them off completely? She will be flat chested like a man? Or will she remove just some glands or something like that? I am having trouble picturing it all...


She's saving her nipples and getting implants.

----------


## pcosmar

> Wait....You mean she will cut them off completely? She will be flat chested like a man? Or will she remove just some glands or something like that? I am having trouble picturing it all...


I suspect that she will have plastic replacements. she still wants to be a famous celebrity. And she won't get any jobs otherwise.

----------


## Weston White

> I'm being a bitch to anybody that thinks that it's better to try to cure cancer than it is to prevent cancer in the first place.


Yet, what if altering one's diet and use of certain hygiene products is in fact an appropriate means of cancer prevention in and of itself? That is to say, what if the underlying problem is not so much a bad gene or set of genes, but the way a gene or set of genes reacts (or as a sort of inflammatory response) to what is contained within one's normal dietary habits or hygiene products, such as aluminum in deodorant, sodium fluoride in everything, artificial sweeteners in beverages and coffees, epoxy in the McNuggets, food coloring and dyes, etc?

----------


## jmdrake

> And I'll STFU when I'm dead. Until then, you can block me or argue with me. Makes no difference to me.  It's not hard for me to feel mentally superior to a guy who thinks getting cancer is a good alternative.


Does lying make you mentally superior?  Because that's are doing.  Your grandchildren must be so proud of a grandmother who can't read statistics, thinks she knows everything, makes up dishonest straw men to "prove" her point, all because she apparently feels guilty about giving advice that might not be based on the full picture.

----------


## angelatc

> Several folks in my family have died from heart attacks..
> Should we get our hearts removed?
> 
> and you know,, all of my ancestors have died. Except my Mom,, and I suspect that is not long off.
> 
> It is simply a fact of life,, and surgical dis-figuration will not prevent that. It will line some pockets,, and may (or may not) alter the timeline.


I do not know how to make this any simpler.  The women in my husband's family carry a gene that means they're probably going to get breast cancer.  So far, the only member of that clan as far back as anybody remembers to make it past 65 is the woman who opted for the double mastectomy.  So you're going to have a helluva time using your anecdotal evidence to convince me that my anecdotal evidence (which happens to be supported by documented scientific results) did not prevent anything.

And enough with the "lining the pockets" nonsense, because the medical industrial complex made far more money off the women who didn't live in an era where the test was available.

----------


## donnay

> That's because you're.... never mind.
> 
> Ok, then that's because you haven't personally attended enough funerals to get a clue. But that probably wouldn't work for you either.



To have 'a clue' is to know that the Cancer Industry is a trillion dollar industry.  They certainly aren't interested in finding a cure, that would cut into their profits.

The sad thing is that your fear allows them to continue their profits and control over people's life.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yet, what if altering one's diet and use of certain hygiene products is in fact an appropriate means of cancer prevention in and of itself? That is to say, what if the underlying problem is not so much a bad gene or set of genes, but the way a gene or set of genes reacts (or as a sort of inflammatory response) to what is contained within one's normal dietary habits or hygiene products, such as aluminum in deodorant, sodium fluoride in everything, artificial sweeteners in beverages and coffees, epoxy in the McNuggets, food coloring and dyes, etc?


Oh no.  Don't give up on the great "Merikun" lifestyle!  That's too much of a sacrifice.

----------


## Seraphim

They essentially scoop out the entire breast (all the tissue), save the nipples then refill the skin with implants, reattach nipple. Voila.

Friend had that done. 




> Wait....You mean she will cut them off completely? She will be flat chested like a man? Or will she remove just some glands or something like that? I am having trouble picturing it all...

----------


## angelatc

> Does lying make you mentally superior?  Because that's are doing.  Your grandchildren must be so proud of a grandmother who can't read statistics, thinks she knows everything, makes up dishonest straw men to "prove" her point, all because she apparently feels guilty about giving advice that might not be based on the full picture.



I'm not lying about anything.  That study you posted didn't address genetic breast cancer - just breast cancer in general.  I even posted the PubMed link to all the HBOC studies for you.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not lying about anything.  That study you posted didn't address genetic breast cancer - just breast cancer in general.  I even posted the PubMed link to all the HBOC studies for you.


You missed the part about the *mutation*.  But...you think you know everything.  When you get a clue read up on other ways to stop estrogen binding besides drugs.

Edit: And here was you lie.

*It's not hard for me to feel mentally superior to a guy who thinks getting cancer is a good alternative.*

Bitch and moan all you want. I never said getting cancer is a good alternative.  If you have to lie to make your point, it means you don't have one.

----------


## donnay

> She's saving her nipples and getting implants.


Another BOOMING industry waits in the wings.

----------


## angelatc

> To have 'a clue' is to know that the Cancer Industry is a trillion dollar industry.  They certainly aren't interested in finding a cure, that would cut into their profits.
> 
> The sad thing is that your fear allows them to continue their profits and control over people's life.



I'm sorry - but as usual you make no sense.  They make far more money treating cancer than preventing it.  But somehow preventing cancer is bad, because science is involved?

I swear, I halfway wonder if you dance naked in the full moon as part of your healing ceremonies.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

Wait...

A woman deciding for herself to remove her breasts is "insane?"  Yet the same people praise those who choose (for themselves and others) to not get vaccinated?  There's hypocrisy...

Health choice = personal choice.

I hope she becomes a voice for the women who more often than not feel that losing their breasts is a loss of their femininity because of the over sexualization of breast cancer.  Stop with the pink "save your boobies," $#@!.  A woman losing her breast to cancer doesn't make her less of a woman or a survivor - a woman has cancer, not just a 'breast.

I mean look at the posts on this thread.  "Wait, you mean she'll be FLAT CHESTED LIKE A MAN!?"  OH MY GOD, THE HORROR OF A WOMAN LOSING A BREAST OR BOTH, IN SUPPORT OF HER _LIFE_!

I knew I'd come out of this thread disappointed.

----------


## jmdrake

> Wait...
> 
> A woman deciding for herself to remove her breasts is "insane?"  Yet the same people praise those who choose (for themselves and others) to not get vaccinated?  There's hypocrisy...
> 
> Health choice = personal choice.
> 
> I hope she becomes a voice for the women who more often than not feel that losing their breasts is a loss of their femininity because of the over sexualization of breast cancer.  Stop with the pink "save your boobies," $#@!.  A woman losing her breast to cancer doesn't make her less of a woman or a survivor - a woman has cancer, not just a 'breast.


I totally agree.  Health choice = personal choice.  And those of us who have merely pointed out that there have been people who have had good outcomes choosing other choices than what gets usually promoted are not the ones denying personal choice.  Speaking only for myself, I haven't called Angelina's choice "insane".

----------


## tod evans

I view surgeries such as this as elective surgery.

So long as tax-payers aren't footing the bill I could care less who chops off what parts or for that matter who has bionic parts installed.

----------


## angelatc

> Another BOOMING industry waits in the wings.



What is wrong with you?  This woman lost her freaking mother to ovarian cancer, and decided that she didn't want to put her kids through the same thing when she found out she carried the same mutated gene, which gave her an 87% of developing the same damned disease.

And you're here screeching because ... somebody somewhere makes a living saving 87% of some lives that would have been lost only a generation ago?

----------


## amy31416

My mother had this done. Both her sisters had breast cancer as well. They found aggressive breast cancer in her right breast, and she opted to have her left breast removed as a preventive measure as well. 

I supported her decision and would have done the same. I may have to choose that for myself someday.

Unfortunately, due to a very rare, hard to detect condition my mother had, the surgery killed her a week later. Her doctor, an extremely thorough, anal-retentive guy who ran a zillion tests on her prior to performing the surgery, quit soon after. I assure you, he was not trying to make money by lopping off someone's "tits."

My aunt, who got breast cancer in her 30's and had to have one breast removed, decided to have the other removed after my mother died and she got some more tests run. She's very happy with her implants.

I've lived a pretty healthy lifestyle and eat a decent diet--anyone care to guess how likely it is that I'll get breast cancer? (It's likely, and I have the precursors for it.)

----------


## Nirvikalpa

One of my closer male friends had his testicle removed due to testicular cancer, a few weeks ago.  I couldn't understand his concern when he came to me asking if he should get a prosthetic and needed a woman's opinion, and asked if "people would judge" him.

I think I do now.

----------


## angelatc

> Clearly in the case of those with a family or genetic history of cancer, .




It isn't a "genetic history" of cancer.  It is a genetic disposition. It means that if you carry one of those specific mutations, you are far more likely than not to develop cancer.   There was an 87% chance that she would have developed cancer. 

If I could take any one of you to a casino that gave you 87% odds of winning a dinner with Ron Paul, you'd line up all day long.  Apparently you'll also line up for an 87% chance of winning cancer, too.  At least you're consistent, I guess.

----------


## tod evans

> One of my closer male friends had his testicle removed due to testicular cancer, a few weeks ago.  I couldn't understand his concern when he came to me asking if he should get a prosthetic and needed a woman's opinion, and asked if "people would judge" him.
> 
> I think I do now.


Just think, he could get a larger or more appealing testicle...

----------


## jmdrake

> It isn't a "genetic history" of cancer.  It is a genetic disposition. It means that if you carry one of those specific mutations, you are far more likely than not to develop cancer.   There was an 87% chance that she would have developed cancer. 
> 
> If I could take any one of you to a casino that gave you 87% odds of winning a dinner with Ron Paul, you'd line up all day long.  Apparently you'll also line up for an 87% chance of winning cancer, too.  At least you're consistent, I guess.

----------


## angelatc

> I've lived a pretty healthy lifestyle and eat a decent diet--anyone care to guess how likely it is that I'll get breast cancer? (It's likely, and I have the precursors for it.)


Hugs.....

Do you have the genetic mutation? 

(And for the record, hardly anybody in my family gets cancer. None that I know of, except my grandfather who had prostate cancer.  It was such a slow progression that the terrible greedy medical profession advised him that he should be concerned about getting it taken care of only if he was still around on his 120th birthday.  He wasn't, because he had a heart attack and died 2.5 decades before reaching that milestone.)

----------


## angelatc

> 


I'm thinking we need to run a forum-wide test for mental retardation.

----------


## angelatc

> Just think, he could get a larger or more appealing testicle...


Steel! Think of the fun and games to be had with TSA!

----------


## tod evans

> Steel! Think of the fun and games to be had with TSA!



Brass...........Gotta stick with the euphemisms..

----------


## angelatc

> I hope she becomes a voice for the women who more often than not feel that losing their breasts is a loss of their femininity because of the over sexualization of breast cancer.  Stop with the pink "save your boobies," $#@!.  A woman losing her breast to cancer doesn't make her less of a woman or a survivor - a woman has cancer, not just a 'breast.


Honestly, if it were me, I don't know what I would do.  I would have hard time with making that decision.  

My husband's cousin went to the other extreme.  She had it done when she was 21, and even adopted kids to try to avoid passing the gene on.  She lost her Mom to breast cancer, and just decided she wasn't going to have anything else to do with it if she could help it.  Not sure I would have made the same call, but I see her point.

----------


## amy31416

> Hugs.....
> 
> Do you have the genetic mutation? 
> 
> (And for the record, hardly anybody in my family gets cancer. None that I know of, except my grandfather who had prostate cancer.  It was such a slow progression that the terrible greedy medical profession advised him that he should be concerned about getting it taken care of only if he was still around on his 120th birthday.  He wasn't, because he had a heart attack and died 2.5 decades before reaching that milestone.)


I don't know for certain. During the time my mother was going through this, the doctor offered to test me for it but I didn't have health insurance. I told him that I live with the assumption that I do have the same mutation, and all my cousins on that side of the family do as well. So far, only cysts have developed, but I've honestly (and stupidly) avoided going to check again since my mother died.

----------


## pcosmar

> My mother had this done. Both her sisters had breast cancer as well. They found aggressive breast cancer in her right breast, and she opted to have her left breast removed as a preventive measure as well. 
> 
> I supported her decision and would have done the same. I may have to choose that for myself someday.
> 
> Unfortunately, due to a very rare, hard to detect condition my mother had, the surgery killed her a week later. Her doctor, an extremely thorough, anal-retentive guy who ran a zillion tests on her prior to performing the surgery, quit soon after. I assure you, he was not trying to make money by lopping off someone's "tits."
> 
> My aunt, who got breast cancer in her 30's and had to have one breast removed, decided to have the other removed after my mother died and she got some more tests run. She's very happy with her implants.
> 
> I've lived a pretty healthy lifestyle and eat a decent diet--anyone care to guess how likely it is that I'll get breast cancer? (It's likely, and I have the precursors for it.)


My mother had one removed,,when it was necessary.  and if it is a concern than it would be wise to stay on top of it..

But to have it done out of fear of what *might* happen,,

well, I am just opposed to living in, and making decisions based on fear.

And I have never been anti-science.. But there is a lot of junk science that drives policy,, (and fear)
Cancer is a reality. but not a guarantee. and death can not be prevented. (also a reality)




Bottom line is.. it is a choice. A dumb choice to remove healthy tissue for no more than a fear that it may one day become unhealthy.
But it is a choice.. like any cosmetic surgery.

----------


## ninepointfive

All I see here is good intentioned people getting flamed for merely suggesting alternatives to conventional medicine.

----------


## Weston White

> I can't believe that you think it's more important to have testicles than to avoid getting cancer.


Well it was only 150-years ago after all that doctors felt most all serious wounds needed to be immediately amputated; that foul smelling wounds required timely amputation for infection had then set in (lending to the reference "sawbones"); that tetanus was caused by (among other misconceptions) exposure to extremely cold or hot weather.

----------


## angelatc

> Could be the vaccines you all take--just sayin'.  Every woman has the gene, it is the mutation of the gene that causes the cancer!
> 
> 
> ETA:  Poor nutrition will cause mutation.


You're just clueless.  That's seriously the dumbest thing that's been posted in this thread so far.

----------


## angelatc

> All I see here is good intentioned people getting flamed for merely suggesting alternatives to conventional medicine.


That's because they're stupid.

----------


## angelatc

> Well it was only 150-years ago after all that doctors felt most all serious wounds needed to be immediately amputated; that foul smelling wounds required timely amputation for infection had then set in (lending to the reference "sawbones"); that tetanus was caused by (among other misconceptions) exposure to extremely cold or hot weather.


I'm pretty sure that half of us still adhere to these theories.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's because they're stupid.


Says the woman who doesn't know how to read stats.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> All I see here is good intentioned people getting flamed for merely suggesting alternatives to conventional medicine.


Do you really think a woman would decide to get a double mastectomy without spending a large amount of time thinking about it, consulting numerous doctors, talking to family, her husband... her children?  I'm sure she had many "suggestions."

All I see here are people (those with absolutely no medical background) criticizing her for taking her health into her own hands.

----------


## amy31416

> My mother had one removed,,when it was necessary.  and if it is a concern than it would be wise to stay on top of it..
> 
> But to have it done out of fear of what *might* happen,,
> 
> well, I am just opposed to living in, and making decisions based on fear.
> 
> And I have never been anti-science.. But there is a lot of junk science that drives policy,, (and fear)
> Cancer is a reality. but not a guarantee. and death can not be prevented. (also a reality)
> 
> ...


Speaking of fear, imagine living with a ticking time bomb in your body. No matter what route you go, when you have the genetic predisposition, there is fear. After the operation, at least my aunt was able to live without the fear or going to a doctor to have her last breast get painfully mashed and irradiated every six months.

It was her choice, and I fully understand it. I certainly wouldn't mock her or put her down for her choice.

----------


## ninepointfive

> Do you really think a woman would decide to get a double mastectomy without spending a large amount of time thinking about it, consulting numerous doctors, talking to family, her husband... her children?  I'm sure she had many "suggestions."
> 
> All I see here are people (those with absolutely no medical background) criticizing her for taking her health into her own hands.



I never said it wasn't a good idea or that those considerations hadn't been taken. I also read the whole thread and didn't see anyone suggest anything to the contrary either.

----------


## jmdrake

> One of my closer male friends had his testicle removed due to testicular cancer, a few weeks ago.  I couldn't understand his concern when he came to me asking if he should get a prosthetic and needed a woman's opinion, and asked if "people would judge" him.
> 
> I think I do now.


I haven't seen a single person suggest that someone with cancer shouldn't get a mastectomy.  A more apt analogy would be your friend not having cancer, but getting both testes removed as a preventative measure.  And even then I say that's his choice.  He just should be fully informed about it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you really think a woman would decide to get a double mastectomy without spending a large amount of time thinking about it, consulting numerous doctors, talking to family, her husband... her children?  I'm sure she had many "suggestions."
> 
> All I see here are people (those with absolutely no medical background) criticizing her for taking her health into her own hands.


Some of the people you *think* have no medical background actually have backgrounds in cancer prevention research.

----------


## amy31416

> I never said it wasn't a good idea or that those considerations hadn't been taken. I also read the whole thread and didn't see anyone suggest anything to the contrary either.


I think many have implied that only stupid people who are pawns of the medical-industrial-governmental complex would ever choose the route of preventively removing breast tissue.

----------


## donnay

> What is wrong with you?  This woman lost her freaking mother to ovarian cancer, and decided that she didn't want to put her kids through the same thing when she found out she carried the same mutated gene, which gave her an 87% of developing the same damned disease.
> 
> And you're here screeching because ... somebody somewhere makes a living saving 87% of some lives that would have been lost only a generation ago?



What's wrong with you?  You are being played like a fiddle and you don't even realize it.

In a truly free market I would have no issues with businesses making trillions of dollars to help people, or even those who sell snake oil.  However, this whole medical industry roping people like cattle with fear is disgusting.  The thing about this so- called science is that people leave common sense on a back burner, and buy into what all these so-called scientist say.  Science is not the end all, be all.  There has been lots of incorrect science purported--some intentional and others not.  To take a leave of your senses just because some scientist somewhere said something is really disheartening for the future of humanity.

Every single person in my grandfather's family died of heart attacks at the age of 65.  My grandmother cooked for my grandfather and she was a stickler about diet and nutrition.  Lo and behold my grandfather had a heart attack when he was 65--recovered and lived to be 85.  Not all is black and white.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think many have implied that only stupid people who are pawns of the medical-industrial-governmental complex would ever choose the route of preventively removing breast tissue.


Some of use who have neither said nor implied that.  But others (not you) feel the need to make up crap just to attack folks with a different point of view.  Sad really.

----------


## amy31416

> Some of use who have neither said nor implied that.  But others (not you) feel the need to make up crap just to attack folks with a different point of view.  Sad really.


I don't think you've said or implied that, so you're cool. But my mother did indeed (as Nikki said) consult with many people and agonized over her decision, and she was in the medical profession for almost her entire life and had two sisters who had gone through the same thing. I don't entirely recall, but I believe I was the one who first brought up the idea of doing preventive surgery on her other breast. It's terribly traumatic, and I didn't want her going through it again at an advanced age when she was less able to handle surgery/chemo. Especially knowing how unreliable and painful mammograms are.

----------


## pcosmar

> Speaking of fear, imagine living with a ticking time bomb in your body.


I do. it is called* mortality.* It is inevitable (short of divine intervention) and there is nothing I can do about it.

Frankly,, I am often amazed that I am still around. I have outlived my Father and Grandfather.

And oddly enough, I have an uncle who is massively overweight and yet fails to succumb to the heart disese that runs in the family.

Really ain't no tellin'.

But it does seem that this radicalsurgery to remove healthy tissue,, on the grounds that there is some "higher risk"  chance that it may turn unhealthy,, is an overreaction and is been pushed by some to almost a fad.

And now a celebrity endorsement.

----------


## mczerone

> DH's Aunt had the same thing done.  Every woman on that side of the family, including my MIL, died of breast cancer, except her.  Men are just as likely to pass this gene on as women, so my sons' daughters will need to be tested. 
> 
> Karen DeCoster can go screw her self-righteous perpetually bitchy self straight to hell.


I agree that DeCoster can be abrasive and self-righteous - but there's a point here.

If you had a free-market medical system, what would be the cheaper option: yearly checks and occasional biopsies followed by mastectomy if necessary, or a "preventative" mastectomy with reconstructive surgery and all the inherent risks to major surgery?

I wouldn't ever say that a woman shouldn't be able to do this - and I'm sure DeCoster would agree. But there is a problem with incentives when the medical industry is subsidized and distorted to favor certain options over others. And notice that doctors will always be super concerned with natural risks while simultaneously dismissing any possibility of risk from their actions. If there were a surgery that could "save" you from a 30% chance of attaining a serious disease that had a 30% risk of a surgical mishap that would result in serious complications, they'd recommend the surgery.

----------


## ninepointfive

I'd like to see some hard proof that the B-17 and apricot seeds really works. What if someone who had a recommendation by an MD to have the breasts preventatively removed just started eating a regimine of apricot seeds, and had bi-annual mammograms to nip any cancer in the bud.

----------


## amy31416

> I do. it is called* mortality.* It is inevitable (short of divine intervention) and there is nothing I can do about it.
> 
> Frankly,, I am often amazed that I am still around. I have outlived my Father and Grandfather.
> 
> And oddly enough, I have an uncle who is massively overweight and yet fails to succumb to the heart disese that runs in the family.
> 
> Really ain't no tellin'.
> 
> But it does seem that this radicalsurgery to remove healthy tissue,, on the grounds that there is some "higher risk"  chance that it may turn unhealthy,, is an overreaction and is been pushed by some to almost a fad.
> ...


I understand your point of view, but in my mother's case (and probably my own), I'll make a different decision than you. I loathe doctors and hospitals and getting groped at, I would not do well going the route of chemo and getting poked at constantly, and having people with their "concern" and the like. I just want to get things over with and move on. I don't wear pink ribbons and join crews of "survivors" and pat myself on the back for having had a disease--I just want it gone or to kill me quickly. And cancer doesn't generally kill quickly and painlessly.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Some of the people you *think* have no medical background actually have backgrounds in cancer prevention research.


Then they are free to share the wealth, as I would love to talk to them, and perhaps I can learn a thing or two.

And no, NaturalNews articles don't count.  I am a scientist - I want hypotheses, experimentations, documentation, results and conclusions... I want the qualitative and quantitative analysis.

And until they make a statement, I am going to assume they really do have no idea... and I will also venture out on a limb here and say you also have no idea about people's professions, but are just making a general statement.

----------


## dannno

> It's not science.  Nor will it ever be.


No, it is absolutely science, I've just found that corporatist science is completely 100% untrustworthy (not 100% wrong, just 100% not trustworthy).

Unfortunately angelatc has zero concept of how corporatism works, the results, nothing, doesn't understand or comprehend it, doesn't want to.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The solution is simple.  Let the free marketplace of ideas work and let people make their own choices.  Pointing out that there are alternatives to radical surgery, and I'm not talking about "secret miracle cures", is a good thing in a free society.  Hey, we'll see what happens when there's a genetic test to predict testicular cancer.


I won't be getting castrated, that's for damn sure.

Maybe I don't know enough about the procedure Angelina Jolie went through, but as it stands or rather as I understand it, that is f***ing crazy. Perhaps someone is more knowledgeable on the risks and success of the treatment than I and let me know what the risks of her developing breast cancer now are? Or is the risk completely gone?

I don't know, the procedure seems radical to me. I can also see a day when people are going to be forced to go through with it. I'd rather not see that day.

----------


## jmdrake

> Then they are free to share the wealth, as I would love to talk to them, and perhaps I can learn a thing or two.
> 
> And no, NaturalNews articles don't count.  I am a scientist - I want hypotheses, experimentations, documentation, results and conclusions... I want the qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> And until they make a statement, I am going to assume they really do have no idea... and I will also venture out on a limb here and say you also have no idea about people's professions, but are just making a general statement.


I know my own background.  I can send  you a resume' if you like.  I know how to read articles on PubMed and I've already shared them.  I haven't posted a single "NaturalNews" link.  No I'm no "PhD level researcher", but I didn't drop off a turnip truck either.  But enough of that.  It is a free marketplace of ideas right?  It shouldn't matter if something is on PubMed or NaturalNews or Drudge or whatever.  People are smart enough (I think) to follow the leads and reach their own conclusions.  Maybe you've already done that to your satisfaction.  If so, find for you.  I do know from personal experience that there I know women (and men) who were told they had no hope and would be soon dead from cancer, who didn't go the conventional route, and are alive and well thank you very much.  That's not to take away from your or Angela or anyone else's different experience.  Either we calmly and rationally exchange information, or we act like RedState.

----------


## sailingaway

> DH's Aunt had the same thing done.  Every woman on that side of the family, including my MIL, died of breast cancer, except her.  Men are just as likely to pass this gene on as women, so my sons' daughters will need to be tested. 
> 
> Karen DeCoster can go screw her self-righteous perpetually bitchy self straight to hell.


I've heard of that. There is a huge risk of it with the one gene. I just don't know how much this helps, but for Pete's sake, it is her body.

----------


## ninepointfive

can we now change subject to how nice Jolie's boobs used to be? good gawd those were a sight to behold.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> I know my own background.  I can send  you a resume' if you like.  I know how to read articles on PubMed and I've already shared them.  I haven't posted a single "NaturalNews" link.  No I'm no "PhD level researcher", but I didn't drop off a turnip truck either.  But enough of that.  It is a free marketplace of ideas right?  It shouldn't matter if something is on PubMed or NaturalNews or Drudge or whatever.  People are smart enough (I think) to follow the leads and reach their own conclusions.  Maybe you've already done that to your satisfaction.  If so, find for you.  I do know from personal experience that there I know women (and men) who were told they had no hope and would be soon dead from cancer, who didn't go the conventional route, and are alive and well thank you very much.  That's not to take away from your or Angela or anyone else's different experience.  Either we calmly and rationally exchange information, or we act like RedState.


I know how to read PubMed, too.

It is a free marketplace for ideas - and if you recall, I first pointed out the simplicity of "her body, her choice," which is something many people seem to have forgotten.




> I do know from personal experience that there I know women (and men) who were told they had no hope and would be soon dead from cancer, who didn't go the conventional route, and are alive and well thank you very much.


So do I.  Please point out where I was attacking alternative treatments, or are you putting words in my mouth?  I favor alternative treatments.

But to assume this woman didn't seek out alternative treatments, have talks with numerous physicians, her family... herself, alone... that's uncalled for.  That's a very extreme conclusion to come to, and I highly, highly doubt she was not educated about it.

----------


## dannno

I'm pretty sure we will find out in a few years that this procedure actually increases the chances of breast cancer.

----------


## ninepointfive

> I'm pretty sure we will find out in a few years that this procedure actually increases the chances of breast cancer.


no breasts - no breast cancer

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm pretty sure we will find out in a few years that this procedure actually increases the chances of breast cancer.


we may find it isn't as effective as hoped, but if mascetomy helps it would seem it couldn't hurt.  But the point is that it is her body and her decision to me. If she had cancer and wanted to use apricot seeds to treat it, I'd say the same. Who am I to make this decision for her?

----------


## jmdrake

> I know how to read PubMed, too.


Good for you.  Angela doesn't.




> It is a free marketplace for ideas - and if you recall, I first pointed out the simplicity of "her body, her choice," which is something many people seem to have forgotten.


And people such as myself have affirmed her choice while talking about alternatives.




> So do I.  Please point out where I was attacking alternative treatments, or are you putting words in my mouth?  I favor alternative treatments.


I never said you were.  However you said this.

_All I see here are people (those with absolutely no medical background) criticizing her for taking her health into her own hands._ 

If that's all you see, then please re-read the thread.  Because that's not all that's been said.




> But to assume this woman didn't seek out alternative treatments, have talks with numerous physicians, her family... herself, alone... that's uncalled for.  That's a very extreme conclusion to come to, and I highly, highly doubt she was not educated about it.


I don't see where anyone has said that.  Just because someone *may* have sought out alternatives doesn't mean that found all possible ones.  I don't know if she has or she hasn't.  It's pretty clear, to me anyway, that news about alternative treatment is suppressed in this country as a whole.

Edit: For all we know she might have even thought about it, but quick looking into it after some "friend" shrilly said "OMG!  Are you crazy?  I've had 5 generations of women in my family to die of breast cancer.  Get your breasts cut off now while you still can!"  Who knows what influences someone's decision?

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> I'm pretty sure we will find out in a few years that this procedure actually increases the chances of breast cancer.


Perhaps not breast cancer.  BRCA1/2 is a suppressor cell when it's functioning normally (meaning it prevents cell growth)... unfortunately when it mutates it does the exact opposite.  BRCA1 is more associated with ovarian/uterine cancers, BRCA2 with pancreatic, stomach cancers...

Opposite in men.  BRCA1 is associated with pancreatic and testicular cancer, but BRCA2 is more associated with male breast cancer.

There are also ~8 other genes linked to the same cancers that BRCA1/2 are linked to, however, BRCA1/2 has a lot of scientific validity.

----------


## torchbearer

i'm sad.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Wait...
> 
> A woman deciding for herself to remove her breasts is "insane?"  Yet the same people praise those who choose (for themselves and others) to not get vaccinated?  There's hypocrisy...
> 
> Health choice = personal choice.
> 
> I hope she becomes a voice for the women who more often than not feel that losing their breasts is a loss of their femininity because of the over sexualization of breast cancer.  Stop with the pink "save your boobies," $#@!.  A woman losing her breast to cancer doesn't make her less of a woman or a survivor - a woman has cancer, not just a 'breast.
> 
> I mean look at the posts on this thread.  "Wait, you mean she'll be FLAT CHESTED LIKE A MAN!?"  OH MY GOD, THE HORROR OF A WOMAN LOSING A BREAST OR BOTH, IN SUPPORT OF HER _LIFE_!
> ...


You pick one post to use in your complaint about men... seemingly as usual. As if you already have a low opinion of men in general, or a higher opinion of your gender. Whatever floats your boat. I'm an $#@!.

I was curious myself though I probably would have worded it differently. I haven't read much into the procedure but it definitely seems radical to me. (not that it's not her choice, and I personally would argue that choice all the way up to euthanasia, as a preventative measure. [if she did not want to go through the possibility of developing breast cancer])

----------


## ninepointfive

NSFW-->  http://vulturemagazine.com.au/wp-con...8/angelina.png

----------


## SewrRatt

What I learned in this thread:

-It's acceptable to use utterly abusive language against other posters unprovoked.

-It's not acceptable to discuss alternative methods because 110% of all women past, present, and future who chose, are choosing, or will choose preventative double mastectomy were/are/will be 110% informed of every possible piece of related information in the universe.

-It's not acceptable to disagree with another person's choice. If we do not celebrate it, it's the same as using violence to take it away.

-At 87% chance of cancer, you're objectively stupid if you don't think amputating parts of your body is a good idea. I look forward to learning about the objective realities of 86%-0% and finding out exactly at which percentage point someone is objectively stupid and deserves to be verbally abused for not thinking major surgery is a good idea.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> You pick one post to use in your complaint about men... seemingly as usual. As if you already have a low opinion of men in general, or a higher opinion of your gender. Whatever floats your boat. I'm an $#@!.
> 
> I was curious myself though I probably would have worded it differently. I haven't read much into the procedure but it definitely seems radical to me. (not that it's not her choice, and I personally would argue that choice all the way up to euthanasia, as a preventative measure. [if she did not want to go through the possibility of developing breast cancer])


I'm sorry, was I complaining about men?  Because majority of the people who give into the "buy pink for breast cancer" bull$#@! is women (which I complained about it hat post).  So, because I used an idiotic statement from a man on this forum... I am somehow sexist (without even pointing out it was a man that said it)?

Here's a hint: I'm more angry at society than any specific sex.  Boohoo.

----------


## jmdrake

> What I learned in this thread:
> 
> -It's acceptable to use utterly abusive language against other posters unprovoked.
> 
> -It's not acceptable to discuss alternative methods because 110% of all women past, present, and future who chose, are choosing, or will choose preventative double mastectomy were/are/will be 110% informed of every possible piece of related information in the universe.
> 
> -It's not acceptable to disagree with another person's choice. If we do not celebrate it, it's the same as using violence to take it away.
> 
> -At 87% chance of cancer, you're objectively stupid if you don't think amputating parts of your body is a good idea. I look forward to learning about the objective realities of 86%-0% and finding out exactly at which percentage point someone is objectively stupid and deserves to be verbally abused for not thinking major surgery is a good idea.


Great summation.

----------


## dannno

> no breasts - no breast cancer


Ya no breasts, just a bunch of scar tissue, but then again some men (though rare) get breast cancer too.

----------


## fisharmor

> Does lying make you mentally superior?  Because  that's are doing.  Your grandchildren must be so proud of a grandmother  who can't read statistics, thinks she knows everything, makes up  dishonest straw men to "prove" her point, all because she apparently  feels guilty about giving advice that might not be based on the full  picture.


You forgot "makes light of other people's childrens medical conditions"

----------


## Athan

> Good for her -- though she's still a liberal nut and thus an enemy of liberty.


I think it is the end of her career. Hollywood is pretty vicious about such things.

----------


## James Madison

> Then they are free to share the wealth, as I would love to talk to them, and perhaps I can learn a thing or two.
> 
> And no, NaturalNews articles don't count.  *I am a scientist - I want hypotheses, experimentations, documentation, results and conclusions... I want the qualitative and quantitative analysis.*
> 
> And until they make a statement, I am going to assume they really do have no idea... and I will also venture out on a limb here and say you also have no idea about people's professions, but are just making a general statement.


Don't count on it from RPFs. I've learned here that science is unreliable because its observations come from the senses, senses are unreliable, no scientific laws, accepted on faith, induction, asserting the consequent!!!!!111!!!11!1 

It's only a matter of time before the derpfest in this thread -- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-Science-Test -- finds its way here.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

Where's the "discussion" on alternative health treatments?  I'm sorry, making a post stating that they exist is not a "discussion" on it.  Making a post stating to "change nutrition!" is not a "discussion."  Discussions have body to them.  I saw one post by JMDrake that linked diet to breast cancer prevention.  If you're going to point out the use of alternative treatments, post about them!  Prove your points, or create another thread to do so (probably preferred)?  But this thread is not a "discussion" on alternative treatments for breast cancer.

----------


## fisharmor

> No, it is absolutely science, I've just found that  corporatist science is completely 100% untrustworthy (not 100% wrong,  just 100% not trustworthy).


Yeah, so I thought I was clear but apparently not.  What I was  saying is that the alternatives to traditional allopathic medicine are  not science, and they never will be, because the allopathic cartel  system we have in place won't allow it.

I'm working on starting  up a relationship with a neurofeedback therapy group.  Older folks might  remember this from the 60's and 70's, where people tried to use  neurofeedback to achieve enlightenment.
Well, mostly because of the  fact that traditional medicine and psychology have so utterly failed to  do anything meaningful about developmental problems in children, the  market has been exploring neurofeedback and applying some scientific  rigor to it.
It's still not science, and likely won't be for quite  some time.  It's certainly not going to be covered by insurance in the  next 20 years.

And if my wife hadn't found out in a 45 second  conversation in a random encounter that a previously completely  nonverbal boy spontaneously started talking after receiving therapy,  _we never would have known to look into it._

That is what I'm saying.  These things aren't science, and they never will be.
But  the fact that "scientific" allopathic medicine is at best ignoring and  at worst suppressing them means that some of us are now actively  eschewing science.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I'm sorry, was I complaining about men?  Because majority of the people who give into the "buy pink for breast cancer" bull$#@! is women (which I complained about it hat post).  So, because I used an idiotic statement from a man on this forum... I am somehow sexist (without even pointing out it was a man that said it)?
> 
> Here's a hint: I'm more angry at society than any specific sex.  Boohoo.


Hmm. Perhaps I read more into your words than you were saying. I have a problem with the commercialization of deadly diseases as well, though awareness is never a bad thing. The, "I love boobies" shirts, as I seem them, are intentionally shocking. "Fight for the cure" might not get a second look but to see someone wearing a shirt that says, "I love boobies," you are going to reread it to see if you just saw what you thought you did. After you reread you will probably link it to breast cancer. I'd also imagine selling those particular shirts and using shock tactics generate more donations. Though don't quote me on this, but I do vaguely recall reading that Komen wasn't as much as an outstanding charity as I kind of expected them to be.

A few women here seem to have a unnecessarily harsh view of men. Sure, many [people] men here say stupid things, but one person doesn't represent anyone else. Certainly not a whole gender. Perhaps it was because of other posts of yours, (I don't know why I would have had that impression of you) that I read into your posts more than what you were saying? As it stands, I apologize. I do get annoyed that certain people seem to have a bias against men in general. (for whatever reason) You being upset with the general attitude of society sums up my opinion well.

----------


## tttppp

> cont
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22520720
> 
> op-ed
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/op....html?hp&_r=1&


There is something called chinese trad medicine for preventative measures. Chopping off both breasts when there is no cancer is stupid. Whose to say theae doctors were even right. What were they basing their medicine on?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I think it is the end of her career. Hollywood is pretty vicious about such things.


I would doubt it. As people have mentioned she is getting implants. I would also think she will get much sympathies. They'll probably announce her that way. ("The woman who is doing so much to promote breast cancer awareness" or something of the like) Whether or not that will be deserved or not, I do not know.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Yeah, so I thought I was clear but apparently not.  What I was  saying is that the alternatives to traditional allopathic medicine are  not science, and they never will be, because the allopathic cartel  system we have in place won't allow it.
> 
> I'm working on starting  up a relationship with a neurofeedback therapy group.  Older folks might  remember this from the 60's and 70's, where people tried to use  neurofeedback to achieve enlightenment.
> Well, mostly because of the  fact that traditional medicine and psychology have so utterly failed to  do anything meaningful about developmental problems in children, the  market has been exploring neurofeedback and applying some scientific  rigor to it.
> It's still not science, and likely won't be for quite  some time.  It's certainly not going to be covered by insurance in the  next 20 years.
> 
> And if my wife hadn't found out in a 45 second  conversation in a random encounter that a previously completely  nonverbal boy spontaneously started talking after receiving therapy,  _we never would have known to look into it._
> 
> That is what I'm saying.  These things aren't science, and they never will be.
> But  the fact that "scientific" allopathic medicine is at best ignoring and  at worst suppressing them means that some of us are now actively  eschewing science.


Allopathic medicine has been suppressing other treatments as long as the AMA has existed.  First it was Osteopathic medicine (D.O., who now are fully licensed in all 50 states and some places abroad to practice fully and do everything a MD can), then Chiropractic medicine, and now it's Naturopathic Medical graduates that are fighting them.  I know wonderful doctors of all 3 (and am aiming for Osteopathic medical school myself).

However, there are some grand MDs (think: Ron and Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Paul Farmer, etc).  The best hope we have is that liberty-leaning individuals go into all paths of medicine.




> Though don't quote me on this, but I do vaguely recall reading that Komen wasn't as much as an outstanding charity as I kind of expected them to be.


They're not, though in the recent years have become better - not the point I would ever consider donating though.




> A few women here seem to have a unnecessarily harsh view of men. Sure, many [people] men here say stupid things, but one person doesn't represent anyone else. Certainly not a whole gender. Perhaps it was because of other posts of yours, (I don't know why I would have had that impression of you) that I read into your posts more than what you were saying? As it stands, I apologize. I do get annoyed that certain people seem to have a bias against men in general. (for whatever reason) You being upset with the general attitude of society sums up my opinion well.


I call out bull$#@! when I see it; male or female.  If that makes me a sexist feminazi bitch so be it.  I will say this though, I've been on numerous dates and have had relationships with multiple men on this forum (mostly friendly, but few romantically) and none complain of me -- so it's either I'm not a feminazi bitch, or your sex on this forum are really dumb.

----------


## fisharmor

> I think it is the end of her career. Hollywood is pretty vicious about such things.


Yeah, Christina Applegate got her show cancelled.....

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You forgot "makes light of other people's childrens medical conditions"


While perhaps not *the* ugliest thread I've seen here, it's in my top ten.

I knew I should have backed out when I had the chance...

*sigh*

----------


## jmdrake

> Don't count on it from RPFs. I've learned here that science is unreliable because its observations come from the senses, senses are unreliable, no scientific laws, accepted on faith, induction, asserting the consequent!!!!!111!!!11!1 
> 
> It's only a matter of time before the derpfest in this thread -- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-Science-Test -- finds its way here.


Only if you find a way to link breasts to religion.

----------


## Seraphim

All 3 major religions wish they had the sort of impact on the world that breasts do. 




> Only if you find a way to link breasts to religion.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Don't count on it from RPFs. I've learned here that science is unreliable because *its observations come from the senses, senses are unreliable, no scientific laws, accepted on faith, induction, asserting the consequent!!!!!111!!!11!1* 
> 
> It's only a matter of time before the derpfest in this thread -- http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-Science-Test -- finds its way here.


Do you realize that philosophers of science still debate things like this (secular and religious alike)?  It's not just a bunch of people on the internetz.  (philosophers in general and logicians also deal with the conclusions of scientists on occasion)

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Oh - you're autistic.  OK - I'll stop rearranging your things.





> I publicly demand an apology for this.





> You forgot "makes light of other people's childrens medical conditions"





> While perhaps not *the* ugliest thread I've seen here, it's in my top ten.
> 
> I knew I should have backed out when I had the chance...
> 
> *sigh*


Yeah, that was pretty $#@!ed up and uncalled for.

----------


## RockEnds

I have too many cancers in my family history and the genes for a predisposition to too many cancers to worry about it.  There are no old people on my dad's side.  For awhile, it looked as if he might be the one to beat the odds.  He certainly outlived most people in the family.  Then three years ago, at the age of 64, he gave up the ghost to lung cancer.  He was not a smoker.  He installed these babies:



Some people spend a lot of time and energy worrying about their fate.  I figure life's too short.  In any case, if I don't happen to develop cancer, there's an APOE4 gene just waiting to work its magic!  

If an individual is worried about it to the point they wish to have radical surgery, they should have the freedom to make that choice.  If it makes them rest easier, then it was a good choice for them.  If another individual wants to take things as they come, they should have the freedom to make that choice as well.  We're all gonna die of something.  Is beating the cancer only to die of a long, debilitating illness in a nursing home really a victory?  There are just no guarantees in life.

----------


## dannno

Wow, didn't know she's getting implants.. So she is getting some bull$#@! permanently shoved into her breasts to *prevent* breast cancer?? 

Cancer is not a natural phenomenon in that it is happening because we are introducing un-natural elements into our bodies. 

Real healthy human breast tissue isn't the enemy, no need to get rid of it.

Again, I'm predicting a lot of these women getting breast tissue removed and are getting implants will still get cancer, they are just getting scammed here.

----------


## donnay

> I have too many cancers in my family history and the genes for a predisposition to too many cancers to worry about it.  There are no old people on my dad's side.  For awhile, it looked as if he might be the one to beat the odds.  He certainly outlived most people in the family.  Then three years ago, at the age of 64, he gave up the ghost to lung cancer.  He was not a smoker.  He installed these babies:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people spend a lot of time and energy worrying about their fate.  I figure life's too short.  In any case, if I don't happen to develop cancer, there's an APOE4 gene just waiting to work its magic!  
> 
> If an individual is worried about it to the point they wish to have radical surgery, they should have the freedom to make that choice.  If it makes them rest easier, then it was a good choice for them.  If another individual wants to take things as they come, they should have the freedom to make that choice as well.  We're all gonna die of something.  Is beating the cancer only to die of a long, debilitating illness in a nursing home really a victory?  There are just no guarantees in life.



Well said.  Sorry for your loss.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yeah, that was pretty $#@!ed up and uncalled for.


Think how ugly this will get when the government cure for the government plague is being passed out...

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Think how ugly this will get when the government cure for the government plague is being passed out...


First responders get it in the first wave, so if I am not on the forums for a while if SHTF, I would suggest not getting it

----------


## tmg19103

Have no time to read all 17 pages, but realize as one poster said, they did not "hack off her tits".

The way they do it these days is your external breast tissue remains. They go in through the nipple, remove everything, and put in implants.

You look very similar to before - or bigger if you got bigger implants.

It's about personal choice as to whether you are concerned about cancer - and I don't knock what she did, or if she just decided to do nothing, or if she went an alternative/natural course.

Her body, her choice. Just as I don't think anybody here wants anybody telling them how to go about medical care, I don't see it as my place to question what anyone chooses to do to their bodies. 

Their life. Their body. Their business. I'll stay out of it. Just stay out of my life, body and business.

It amazes me how easily people forget what RP is all about.

----------


## donnay

A decent article about this subject.

*Two Radical “Brave Choices” to Prevent Cancer: Voluntary Mutilation or Clean Living*
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/two-r...-living_052013

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Think how ugly this will get when the government cure for the government plague is being passed out...


Great comment.

Some people will write that (and this) off as crazy or paranoid but I'm not so sure it is. With all they are doing, it is not too far fetched to picture a scenario where a created virus gets out. (whether intentional or not) I am of the firm belief that as smart as we are, we are dumb. Playing God and merging genes or mutating viruses probably isn't going to work in our favor in the long run. I wonder what has already been created that got out. Perhaps HIV was some people who were too 'smart' for our own good. Just speculation but I'm serious. If whatever or whoever put us here doesn't get tired of our nonsense and start over, we will kill ourselves off. It's a matter of time.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Their life. Their body. Their business. I'll stay out of it. Just stay out of my life, body and business.
> 
> It amazes me how easily people forget what RP is all about.


Read the pages. I don't recall anyone saying she shouldn't have been able to do as she wished. Some people have suggested alternatives. Some people turned unnecessarily into a bitch and insulted many, and some people (myself) learned a lot about the procedure.

A preventative surgery that drastic seems radical to me. I'd never be castrated because of an 87% chance of testicular cancer, but that's just me. I don't expect to live forever anyways. Before I die from testicular cancer or some other unnecessarily painful way, I'd probably be euthanized. (after completing my bucket list) Whether I have some sort of state permission or not, I do not care.

----------


## anaconda

> That's truly insane.  SMH.  This isn't the world I was born in.


Couldn't she have just gone mostly raw vegan and got frequent and detailed check ups?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Great comment.
> 
> Some people will write that (and this) off as crazy or paranoid but I'm not so sure it is. With all they are doing, it is not too far fetched to picture a scenario where a created virus gets out. (whether intentional or not) I am of the firm belief that as smart as we are, we are dumb. *Playing God and merging genes or mutating viruses probably isn't going to work in our favor in the long run. I wonder what has already been created that got out.* Perhaps HIV was some people who were too 'smart' for our own good. Just speculation but I'm serious. If whatever or whoever put us here doesn't get tired of our nonsense and start over, we will kill ourselves off. It's a matter of time.


Exactly what I was getting at...owe ya a rep.

----------


## jmdrake

> Couldn't she have just gone mostly raw vegan and got frequent and detailed check ups?


The woman I mentioned knowing early in this thread did exactly that and is cancer free.  She was told her cancer had metastasised and there was no hope for her.

----------


## V3n

I don't understand this argument at all.  You own your body.  She owns her body.

All research on both sides of the argument is/was available to her just as it was available to you, whether she read it or didn't or got 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, or 10th opinions, we don't know because we don't live her life.  

At the end of the day she made the decision that she decided was right for her.  It's her own body and what she does with it is her own.

----------


## puppetmaster

> And for the record, I think Angelina Jolie is a bat$#@! crazy, homewrecking overrated globalist whore.




REAALLLLLY......???!!! umkay

----------


## puppetmaster

why is this even news for RPF?

----------


## Nirvikalpa

This is why I said what I said in my first post in this thread...

----------


## pcosmar

> why is this even news for RPF?


Many of us like tits. 
and many of us dislike corporate driven agendas.

It was reported in the Corporate media.. A star has breasts removed.

And now lots of little girls will be thinking it is a good idea. (whether they need it or not)

----------


## puppetmaster

> Many of us like tits. 
> and many of us dislike corporate driven agendas.
> 
> It was reported in the Corporate media.. A star has breasts removed.
> 
> And now lots of little girls will be thinking it is a good idea. (whether they need it or not)



I like tits also..... but hers were attached to a bimbo and that is a big downer. yeah the media is all over this BS I just don't get the fascination with actors and actresses.


This is most likely the very first time I have ever typed the word "tits" in my life......hmm weird.
I am a farm boy and tits are for milk......lol

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I like tits also..... but hers were attached to a bimbo and that is a big downer. yeah the media is all over this BS I just don't get the fascination with actors and actresses.


I was more just surprised that someone would preventatively remove both breasts. Seems a little over the top but whatever.

----------


## Seraphim

Human tits produce milk too! You just gotta rub her the right way and release the hounds (sperm) to surround and take the egg captive! Then...BOOM! Lactose a plenty!!!!! MUHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

I'm $#@!ing bored. Don't mind me.





> I like tits also..... but hers were attached to a bimbo and that is a big downer. yeah the media is all over this BS I just don't get the fascination with actors and actresses.
> 
> 
> This is most likely the very first time I have ever typed the word "tits" in my life......hmm weird.
> I am a farm boy and tits are for milk......lol

----------


## donnay

> Couldn't she have just gone mostly raw vegan and got frequent and detailed check ups?



There is plenty of different alternatives to prevent and cure cancer--it is incumbent upon people to do their own research.   I respect her individual choice to do what she did, I just don't condone the publicity it is given to set examples to others to blindly follow.

----------


## Barrex

> ...I mean look at the posts on this thread.  "Wait, you mean she'll be FLAT CHESTED LIKE A MAN!?"  OH MY GOD, THE HORROR OF A WOMAN LOSING A BREAST OR BOTH, IN SUPPORT OF HER _LIFE_!
> 
> I knew I'd come out of this thread disappointed.





> ...  So, because I used an idiotic statement  from a man on this forum... I am somehow sexist (without even pointing  out it was a man that said it)?


Is this because a joke that there are no women on this forum because there are no libertarian women stereotype joke I made? You are still pissed about that?

First of all it wasnt a statement. It was a question. I asked it because I had no clue how invasive procedure is and how much tissue is going to be removed (which you would know if you read my entire post or read just that part and had open mind). I know from my gymnasium biology class that those women that got them removed because cancer is in them are completely removed and look FLAT CHESTED LIKE A MAN. Like I said I had no idea how invasive it is and how much tissue is going to be removed. Woman that got mastectomy has flat chests. In my experience man got flat chests... So to make comparison I said like a man. Why because It is closest thing and still dont see anything negative about men having flat chests... Should I say like a chimpanzee or gorilla or some other comparison? There is no statement at all just question to get informed... and few people responded politely and explained it to me. You on the other hand pretended that I judged her and did something I did not.

Please read following paragraph while playing this music in background:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIuotFZnBtk

That was really harsh. I got feelings too you know...Now I feel cold around my heart. It was not deserved but you still did it.Yes, I understand why things had to happen this way. I understand sensitivity.  But mere understanding does not chase away  the hurt. It does not call upon the sun when dark clouds have loomed  over me. Let the rain come then if it must come! Some people use their own hurt as an excuse for hurting others. Were you hurt? Because you hurt me. Words hurt. Words can rip your heart apart, make you cry and end relationships. Emotional pain when you are unjustly prosecuted for something you didnt do by authoritative feminine figure... You hurt me.





P.s.

When I looked for flat chested animals google pictures gave me picture of Keira Knightley. Imagine trouble I would have been if I wrote "Wait, you mean she'll be FLAT CHESTED LIKE A KEIRA KNIGHTLEY!?"...or something like that...

Or started betting that some pervert will steal her boobs (medical waste)...

Idiotic statement? You didnt see idiot in me yet...you have no idea...

----------


## pcosmar

> As a Libertarian, why shouldn't you get cheaper insurance rates if the odds are much lower that you're going to end up with a terminal illness?


Insurance is a scam. I am not sure what ,,if anything, is libertarian about it other than the choice to make dumb choices..

however as things are presently,, insurance is  hardly a choice.. more like another tax.

At best, it is a bet against yourself..
at worst it is thumbing your nose at God, and declaring that he can not care for you. (but a corporation can)

----------


## sailingaway

> Again, what part of "We've been through this multiple times" do you $#@!ing doubt?  Did you click the damned link???? Because here's what it says, which I could have told you without copying it:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the distinct lack of "live a healthy lifestyle!" on the list.


OK, I'm going through this thread and it may take a while, but angela has family in this situation. Show a little sensitivity, please.  And angela, please stop pulling their guts out through their eye sockets.  I may just end up closing the thread.

--

edit--

Ha! 

Nikki got here first.  Great. I abdicate to her jurisdiction.

----------


## thoughtomator

I'm hoping this means an end to her career as a police state propagandist.

----------


## pcosmar

> OK, I'm going through this thread and it may take a while, but angela has family in this situation. Show a little sensitivity, please.


So do I.. My Mother lost a breast,, and has survived for many years since.

My Wife had surgery to remove cysts when we first met.. and I was with her through it. 
I may be blunt at times,, But removing healthy tissue over fears of what may or may not happen is just dumb.

Treat it if it arises,, surgery if *Necessary*. but elective surgery to promote medical Industry for no reason other than fear,, is beyond dumb.

And promoting such (as a position of celebrity) borders on evil.

----------


## ninepointfive

> OK, I'm going through this thread and it may take a while, but angela has family in this situation. Show a little sensitivity, please.


you mean, "be politically correct"? 

my grandma lost both of her breasts, and I saw no problem with anything anyone said.  edit- except for angela

----------


## amy31416

> So do I.. My Mother lost a breast,, and has survived for many years since.
> 
> My Wife had surgery to remove cysts when we first met.. and I was with her through it. 
> I may be blunt at times,, But removing healthy tissue over fears of what may or may not happen is just dumb.
> 
> *Treat it if it arises,, surgery if Necessary. but elective surgery to promote medical Industry for no reason other than fear,, is beyond dumb.
> *
> And promoting such (as a position of celebrity) borders on evil.


It is not dumb for someone like my mother who would almost assuredly have had cancer within a few years in her other breast and had to continuously go to the doctor and dread the mammograms, biopsies and the results. That is an enormous amount of stress and a guaranteed roller coaster of emotions for the rest of your life. It ends up defining some people, and they make choices different than the one you would have made.

I like you, I respect you, but I respect you a bit less for referring to this type of decision as "dumb" and think the term suits you better for saying it. Argue it all you want, I don't care, but you have no business referring to anyone else as dumb for making a decision that took a LOT of thought and research. 

I know it won't change your mind, but please, shut the hell up with calling people dumb.

----------


## AFPVet

How about we stop negatively mutating our genes? Who's to say that she won't get cancer somewhere else? It's better to prevent negative mutations than hacking off body parts. If we stopped poisoning our environment with Monsanto's chemicals and started using methods which have proven results like diet, perhaps people like Ms. Jolie wouldn't have to resort to such drastic measures.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't understand this argument at all.  You own your body.  She owns her body.
> 
> All research on both sides of the argument is/was available to her just as it was available to you, whether she read it or didn't or got 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, or 10th opinions, we don't know because we don't live her life.  
> 
> At the end of the day she made the decision that she decided was right for her.  It's her own body and what she does with it is her own.


I guess I don't understand your argument at all.  Because she *might* have considered all sides of the argument, that means that others don't have the first amendment right to discuss alternatives?

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Is this because a joke that there are no women on this forum because there are no libertarian women stereotype joke I made? You are still pissed about that?
> 
> First of all it wasnt a statement. It was a question. I asked it because I had no clue how invasive procedure is and how much tissue is going to be removed (which you would know if you read my entire post or read just that part and had open mind). I know from my gymnasium biology class that those women that got them removed because cancer is in them are completely removed and look FLAT CHESTED LIKE A MAN. Like I said I had no idea how invasive it is and how much tissue is going to be removed. Woman that got mastectomy has flat chests. In my experience man got flat chests... So to make comparison I said like a man. Why because It is closest thing and still dont see anything negative about men having flat chests... Should I say like a chimpanzee or gorilla or some other comparison? There is no statement at all just question to get informed... and few people responded politely and explained it to me. You on the other hand pretended that I judged her and did something I did not.
> 
> Please read following paragraph while playing this music in background:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIuotFZnBtk
> 
> That was really harsh. I got feelings too you know...Now I feel cold around my heart. It was not deserved but you still did it.Yes, I understand why things had to happen this way. I understand sensitivity.  But mere understanding does not chase away  the hurt. It does not call upon the sun when dark clouds have loomed  over me. Let the rain come then if it must come! Some people use their own hurt as an excuse for hurting others. Were you hurt? Because you hurt me. Words hurt. Words can rip your heart apart, make you cry and end relationships. Emotional pain when you are unjustly prosecuted for something you didnt do by authoritative feminine figure... You hurt me.
> 
> 
> ...


What the $#@! are you babbling on about?

----------


## RockEnds

> How about we stop mutating our genes? Who's to say that she won't get cancer somewhere else? It's better to prevent mutations than hacking off body parts. If we stopped poisoning our environment with Monsanto's chemicals and started using methods which have proven results like diet, perhaps people like Ms. Jolie wouldn't have to result to such drastic measures.


Mutations happen.  Not all of them are harmful.  Some of them are as benign as blue eyes vs brown eyes.  The dangers in environmental toxins is through gene expression.

----------


## jmdrake

> you mean, "be politically correct"? 
> 
> my grandma lost both of her breasts, and I saw no problem with anything anyone said.  edit- except for angela


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ninepointfive again._

If personal tragedy is an excuse for over the top behavior, then bring on Sarah Brady.

----------


## V3n

> I guess I don't understand your argument at all.  Because she *might* have considered all sides of the argument, that means that others don't have the first amendment right to discuss alternatives?


I didn't say stop discussing it - I said I don't understand why there is a discussion. ..about what someone does with their own body on a "Ron Paul" forum.  Pretty much a main tenant of Libertarianism (as I understand it) is the idea that if you own nothing else, at least you own your own body.

But it's cool - discuss away... I'll just look confused.

----------


## green73

It's funny how humans mostly get cancer. What is it, 1 in 3? Somewhere an oligarch chortles.

----------


## dannno

> I didn't say stop discussing it - I said I don't understand why there is a discussion. ..about what someone does with their own body on a "Ron Paul" forum.  Pretty much a main tenant of Libertarianism (as I understand it) is the idea that if you own nothing else, at least you own your own body.
> 
> But it's cool - discuss away... I'll just look confused.


We're discussing whether it was an intelligent decision, not whether it should be allowed to happen.

For some people, this action just sounds completely insane, knowing what we know about health and the causes of cancer and such.

----------


## green73

> What the $#@! are you babbling on about?


You really hurt him. You need to apologize.

----------


## donnay

Here is some things to think about...

Has anyone stop to think that too many mammograms cause cancer?  I have seen studies where too many mammograms may cause cancer.

How about the dangers of using antiperspirant?  Antiperspirants work by clogging, closing, or blocking the pores that release sweat under your arms  Sweating is detoxification process which is actually good for you to do.  When you clog the pores not allowing to sweat out toxins--where do they go?

How about too much estrogen--many doctors would prescribe estrogen for women going through menopause.  

How about Aspartame, does anyone use it?  In studies, I have research, aspartame caused breast tumors in mice.

----------


## sailingaway

> So do I.. My Mother lost a breast,, and has survived for many years since.
> 
> My Wife had surgery to remove cysts when we first met.. and I was with her through it. 
> I may be blunt at times,, But removing healthy tissue over fears of what may or may not happen is just dumb.
> 
> Treat it if it arises,, surgery if *Necessary*. but elective surgery to promote medical Industry for no reason other than fear,, is beyond dumb.
> 
> And promoting such (as a position of celebrity) borders on evil.


I meant in the situation of having the 'cancer gene' which is a very different situation, which is the only times I know where people have considered this, typically.  I have relatives who had breast cancer as well, but don't have the gene (and lived near a bunch of nuclear testing back in the day as young children, but that is an entirely separate issue...)

----------


## KingNothing

> Go $#@! yourself.
> 
> Nobody told them they would be dead of cancer.  They were tested for the gene because the women in their family die from cancer. It's gone on for generations.   If you can smugly sit there on your smug little chair and seriously blame them for dying, assuming you've got some secret mystery cure that someone in that family didn't try, there's something  seriously $#@!ing wrong with you.
> 
> It's genetic.  Science FTW!



I hate when I agree with you, but the people you're arguing with are being smug, ignorant, incorrect, pieces of garbage.

----------


## sailingaway

> you mean, "be politically correct"? 
> 
> my grandma lost both of her breasts, and I saw no problem with anything anyone said.  edit- except for angela


that isn't having multiple people in the family with that gene and thinking you may have it yourself, possibly, and maybe even exploring the thought process.  Being thoughtful is not the same as political correctness. One is 'thou shalt not discuss' off limit topics, the other is not throwing salt on open wounds.  dunno the situation, didn't have to get into it because Nikki got here first.

----------


## KingNothing

> It's a genetic test.  There's no need to have it annually. Either you carry the gene or you don't.
> 
> So whats your solution?  Just stop the progression of science, because having people die isn't as bad as having them take mandatory tests?
> 
> For the record, I think most states already have laws about discriminating against people based on genetic testing. And really don't understand why you think all of humanity is as evil as our overlords.  Because if it is, there's no hope at all.


You're arguing with people who are stupid.  Don't get yourself so worked up over it.

----------


## KingNothing

> I do not know how to make this any simpler.  The women in my husband's family carry a gene that means they're probably going to get breast cancer.  So far, the only member of that clan as far back as anybody remembers to make it past 65 is the woman who opted for the double mastectomy.  So you're going to have a helluva time using your anecdotal evidence to convince me that my anecdotal evidence (which happens to be supported by documented scientific results) did not prevent anything.
> 
> And enough with the "lining the pockets" nonsense, because the medical industrial complex made far more money off the women who didn't live in an era where the test was available.


Well, sounds like these women should have avoided sugar and vaccines.  Problems, solved.  Breasts, saved.

----------


## KingNothing

> Another BOOMING industry waits in the wings.



And if they eliminate breast cancer entirely?

----------


## KingNothing

> And you're here screeching because ... somebody somewhere makes a living saving 87% of some lives that would have been lost only a generation ago?


The only people who are allowed to make money "helping" others are those who advertise on NaturalNews.com

----------


## KingNothing

> Honestly, if it were me, I don't know what I would do.  I would have hard time with making that decision.  
> 
> My husband's cousin went to the other extreme.  She had it done when she was 21, and even adopted kids to try to avoid passing the gene on.  She lost her Mom to breast cancer, and just decided she wasn't going to have anything else to do with it if she could help it.  Not sure I would have made the same call, but I see her point.


This is absolutely heart breaking.

----------


## Slutter McGee

This was a goddamn fun read. Thank you for the entertainment. Everyone. For those of you who disagree with Jolie, why do you care? Its not like we can't go put in half a dozen $#@!ing movies and reminisce.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

----------


## TheTexan

I wonder how much they'd go for on Ebay

----------


## dannno

> Here is some things to think about...
> 
> Has anyone stop to think that too many mammograms cause cancer?  I have seen studies where too many mammograms may cause cancer.
> 
> How about the dangers of using antiperspirant?  Antiperspirants work by clogging, closing, or blocking the pores that release sweat under your arms  Sweating is detoxification process which is actually good for you to do.  When you clog the pores not allowing to sweat out toxins--where do they go?
> 
> How about too much estrogen--many doctors would prescribe estrogen for women going through menopause.  
> 
> How about Aspartame, does anyone use it?  In studies, I have research, aspartame caused breast tumors in mice.



No, you don't get it, you're being ignorant and smug, those things don't cause breast cancer, BREASTS cause breast cancer, you gotta hack 'em off before it's too late!!

----------


## dannno

> And if they eliminate breast cancer entirely?


By eliminating breasts?!! You're a $#@!ing genius.

----------


## KingNothing

> By eliminating breasts?!! You're a $#@!ing genius.



If your wife's doctor told your wife that she had a 90-percent chance of developing breast cancer, what would you do?  Deny the science?  Tell her to eat some vegetables and avoid plastic?

----------


## Cap

> yeah the media is all over this BS I just don't get the fascination with actors and actresses.


The Dems needed a diversion.

----------


## angelatc

> I'd like to see some hard proof that the B-17 and apricot seeds really works.


*snort*

----------


## tttppp

> If your wife's doctor told your wife that she had a 90-percent chance of developing breast cancer, what would you do?  Deny the science?  Tell her to eat some vegetables and avoid plastic?


Tell her to do chinese traditional medicine or just eat right. You can always have them taken out later. What if a doctor told yoi to remove your penis bexause you have cancer in the family?

----------


## jmdrake

> I hate when I agree with you, but the people you're arguing with are being smug, ignorant, incorrect, pieces of garbage.


  Right.  Because only points of view, experiences, *and freaking science* that agrees with you is "correct".  I showed Angela was wrong using peer reviewed studies.  Anyway, that part of the thread has died down now.  You're just post stirring and trolling at this point.

----------


## jtstellar

*some women are genuinely all for one, and one for all.  to ask a woman to treat another's issue as belonging to someone else and to leave personal emotions out of it is almost like asking them to self-mutate.  why the $#@! is even a flame war going on over 'angelina jolie?'  she almost doubles the age of some of you here.  is someone's grandma being offended here?

----------


## amy31416

> women are genuinely all for one, and one for all.  to ask a woman to treat another's issue as belonging to someone else and to leave personal emotions out of it is almost like asking them to self-mutate


What?

----------


## jmdrake

> I didn't say stop discussing it - I said I don't understand why there is a discussion. ..about what someone does with their own body on a "Ron Paul" forum.  Pretty much a main tenant of Libertarianism (as I understand it) is the idea that if you own nothing else, at least you own your own body.
> 
> But it's cool - discuss away... I'll just look confused.


Consider a different subject for a minute.  Say if someone posted a story about someone investing their life savings in Bitcoins.  Do you think it odd that such a story would spark discussion on a forum where people have deeply divided opinions on the subject?  Because frankly I don't see any difference.  It's still someone making a decision that they have a total right to make, whether or not it's the right decision.  Hopefully such a discussion would be more civil than this one has been...though I doubt it.

----------


## jmdrake

> This was a goddamn fun read. Thank you for the entertainment. Everyone. For those of you who disagree with Jolie, why do you care? Its not like we can't go put in half a dozen $#@!ing movies and reminisce.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Slutter McGee


There are those who agree with the decision, there are those that don't, and there are those that saw "Well there are other possible alternatives."  What I find odd is people freaking out about group 3.

----------


## ninepointfive

> What I find odd is people freaking out about group 3.


there is a trend of hostility, and it begs the question, "what is going on in that person's life"? I wouldn't take it personally.

----------


## dannno

> If your wife's doctor told your wife that she had a 90-percent chance of developing breast cancer, what would you do?  Deny the science?  Tell her to eat some vegetables and avoid plastic?


Raw apple cider vinegar, 2 teaspoons (shake the bottle VERY well) in 8 oz of water with a squeeze of lime and a little raw honey if you're feeling frisky. Twice daily. This will increase your blood's pH, cancer likes acidic blood, cancer won't even survive if you are on this regimen.

Wouldn't hurt to eat a couple raw apricot pits once in a while, if you're in preventative mode. 

No more antiperspirant. 

If she actually GOT breast cancer, which, if she was doing what I said above then it would be extremely unlikely in the first place, then I would have her simply go organic raw vegan along with a daily regiment of the apricot pits and raw apple cider vinegar. 

Of course, it would be my wife's choice what to do, but that is what I would do if I were to get ______ cancer and is what I would encourage her to do.

----------


## jtstellar

> What?


don't type faster than you can think, is "what"

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I hate when I agree with you, but the people you're arguing with are being smug, ignorant, incorrect, pieces of garbage.


Holy $#@!, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. I don't know what is more smug, ignorant, incorrect or garbage worthy than that. Aside from a good deal of angelatc's comments in this thread.

Bizarre.

----------


## dannno

> Raw apple cider vinegar, 2 teaspoons (shake the bottle VERY well) in 8 oz of water with a squeeze of lime and a little raw honey if you're feeling frisky. Twice daily. This will increase your blood's pH, cancer likes acidic blood, cancer won't even survive if you are on this regimen.
> 
> Wouldn't hurt to eat a couple raw apricot pits once in a while, if you're in preventative mode. 
> 
> No more antiperspirant. 
> 
> If she actually GOT breast cancer, which, if she was doing what I said above then it would be extremely unlikely in the first place, then I would have her simply go organic raw vegan along with a daily regiment of the apricot pits and raw apple cider vinegar. 
> 
> Of course, it would be my wife's choice what to do, but that is what I would do if I were to get ______ cancer and is what I would encourage her to do.


On top of that, as much cannabis as you can possibly ingest, as cannabis is known, even by mainstream science, to shrink tumors.

----------


## jtstellar

> There are those who agree with the decision, there are those that don't, and there are those that saw "Well there are other possible alternatives."  What I find odd is people freaking out about group 3.


people constantly try things and fail, and sometimes they willingly give their own life for it.  there's nothing other than gratitude when i had to look up for alternative treatments when my grandfather was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer.  just to think how many risked their own life trying alternative treatments then told others about it

in the end he only had 2~3 weeks, so we didn't try any alternative treatment, but i was thankful those opinions were there.  quite frankly people bitching because enough people hadn't died to give them all the answers in the world, and they go on criticizing alternative treatments as 'lacking science'--ya, how about you spend those 10 billion for clinical studies-- typical psychology of dependent people who sit around for others to handle most problems in their lives.  and they get mad at it, for things not having been handed to them on a silver platter, lmfao.

----------


## ninepointfive

> in the end he only had 2~3 weeks, so we didn't try any alternative treatment


does that mean bedridden? 

big question - what would you do with three weeks left? i'd do something patriotic

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> By eliminating breasts?!! You're a $#@!ing genius.


They can do an even easier surgery to ensure that you never get penile cancer.

----------


## Origanalist

> i'm sad.


Sorry to hear that. What is the news on your sickness?

----------


## donnay

> If your wife's doctor told your wife that she had a 90-percent chance of developing breast cancer, what would you do?  Deny the science?  Tell her to eat some vegetables and avoid plastic?



GET A SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH OPINION and do lot's of research.

----------


## HigherVision

I'd get her some *cannabis oil*:

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> GET A SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH OPINION and do lot's of research.


Asking for a second opinion?  That's contempt of medical personnel. A thump on the head will be the next diagnosis.

----------


## fr33

I'm not fond of the arrogant folks who say "eat healthy" to combat cancer while criticizing every other method.

----------


## donnay

> I'm not fond of the arrogant folks who say "eat healthy" to combat cancer while criticizing every other method.


It's not just "eating healthy"--it's knowing what your body might be deficient in and knowing what you are putting in and on your body that will make all the difference in the world. 

The human body is amazing, given the proper nutrients, it can heal itself.

----------


## RockEnds

> I'm not fond of the arrogant folks who say "eat healthy" to combat cancer while criticizing every other method.


Traditional medicine doesn't work for everyone.  I have a lot of cancer in my family history.  I have one grandparent with no family history of cancer.  At least I have a fighting chance, I guess.  His wife died of uterine cancer in her early 50s, though.  My other grandmother didn't die of cancer.  She died of a stroke at the age of 28, but both of her parents died of cancer in their 50s.  My other grandparent died of bladder cancer.  Not one single person in my family has had any luck with conventional cancer treatment.  Not one.  Parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, none of them lived past the first year.  We have our after funeral dinner at the tavern.  We all know what's coming.

I just don't have a lot of faith in conventional medicine, so when I got sick in the mid 90s, I chose alternative medicine.  I didn't have cancer, but I was quite ill.  I'm still here.  I'm not in perfect health, but I'm still kicking.  My doctor suggested a hysterectomy when I was 26 given my family health history, my infertility, and some menstrual difficulties.  Pissed me off.  I got up to shake my finger at him, and he ran for the door.  Apparently his other disrobed patients were more polite?  I dunno.  All I know is with his bedside manners, surely I wasn't the first naked woman to give him a piece of her mind.  Doctors kinda like to remove lady parts.  Maybe before it's necessary.

I gave birth to a healthy baby girl a the age of 38.  If I'd listened to him, she wouldn't be here.  In all those years, I didn't use birth control, and then, one day my stuff just worked again.  Of course, I quit drinking tap water, started taking natural supplements, gave up processed foods, switched to non-petroleum cleaning and hygiene products, traded my antiperspirant for a deodorant stone, and all that stuff that some folks here are sure do nothing to improve one's health.

Whatever.  Each to his own.  But health care is a very personal decision.  It's not one size fits all, and living better just might extend one's life.  Maybe.  I don't think that's arrogant.

----------


## HigherVision

Please watch this people:

----------


## Dogsoldier

Hey if all women started doing this that would make the lazy men Doctors find a cure very quickly. They'd have a cure for it in a few months time.

----------


## fr33

Yes I can agree that alternative medicine has it's place but it's not like cancer only exists because of Monsanto and fluoride. Some people, whether it's genetic or whatever, have a predisposition to get cancer. When you read about young kids with Leukemia it simply is not likely they got it from eating unhealthy, nor will they defeat the disease by improving their diets or lifestyles.

----------


## HigherVision

> Hey if all women started doing this that would make the lazy men Doctors find a cure very quickly. They'd have a cure for it in a few months time.


The cure is literally posted in a video one post above you.

----------


## ninepointfive

> Traditional medicine doesn't work for everyone.  I have a lot of cancer in my family history.  I have one grandparent with no family history of cancer.  At least I have a fighting chance, I guess.  His wife died of uterine cancer in her early 50s, though.  My other grandmother didn't die of cancer.  She died of a stroke at the age of 28, but both of her parents died of cancer in their 50s.  My other grandparent died of bladder cancer.  Not one single person in my family has had any luck with conventional cancer treatment.  Not one.  Parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, none of them lived past the first year.  We have our after funeral dinner at the tavern.  We all know what's coming.
> 
> I just don't have a lot of faith in conventional medicine, so when I got sick in the mid 90s, I chose alternative medicine.  I didn't have cancer, but I was quite ill.  I'm still here.  I'm not in perfect health, but I'm still kicking.  My doctor suggested a hysterectomy when I was 26 given my family health history, my infertility, and some menstrual difficulties.  Pissed me off.  I got up to shake my finger at him, and he ran for the door.  Apparently his other disrobed patients were more polite?  I dunno.  All I know is with his bedside manners, surely I wasn't the first naked woman to give him a piece of her mind.  Doctors kinda like to remove lady parts.  Maybe before it's necessary.
> 
> I gave birth to a healthy baby girl a the age of 38.  If I'd listened to him, she wouldn't be here.  In all those years, I didn't use birth control, and then, one day my stuff just worked again.  Of course, I quit drinking tap water, started taking natural supplements, gave up processed foods, switched to non-petroleum cleaning and hygiene products, traded my antiperspirant for a deodorant stone, and all that stuff that some folks here are sure do nothing to improve one's health.
> 
> Whatever.  Each to his own.  But health care is a very personal decision.  It's not one size fits all, and living better just might extend one's life.  Maybe.  I don't think that's arrogant.



now that's the kind of story we need to hear. thanks for sharing

----------


## RockEnds

> Yes I can agree that alternative medicine has it's place but it's not like cancer only exists because of Monsanto and fluoride. Some people, whether it's genetic or whatever, have a predisposition to get cancer. When you read about young kids with Leukemia it simply is not likely they got it from eating unhealthy, nor will they defeat the disease by improving their diets or lifestyles.


Yes and no.  Our understanding of inheritance is changing rapidly.  There's a lot of research yet to be done.

----------


## bolil

Man, I already dropped one today so I 'COULD HAVE' given a $#@!.

Good for her, lets get back to state sponsored murder thank you.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I hate when I agree with you, but the people you're arguing with are being smug, ignorant, incorrect, pieces of garbage.





> You're arguing with people who are stupid.  Don't get yourself so worked up over it.


And King Knows Nothing chimes in.

LOL

----------


## anaconda

> That's truly insane.  SMH.  This isn't the world I was born in.



Maybe she is hoping it will give her politically correct cover to get relatively large implants.

----------


## phill4paul

Perhaps she is ambidextrous in here javelin throwing?

----------


## KingNothing

> It's not just "eating healthy"--it's knowing what your body might be deficient in and knowing what you are putting in and on your body that will make all the difference in the world. 
> 
> The human body is amazing, given the proper nutrients, it can heal itself.


And in spite of this, you'll be getting cancer or heart disease some day and you won't be able to diet your way out of it.

----------


## green73

> GET A SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH OPINION and do lot's of research.


You can't. One company has a monopoly on the test.

----------


## KingNothing

> On top of that, as much cannabis as you can possibly ingest, as cannabis is known, even by mainstream science, to shrink tumors.


Absent cannabis, which I agree has been proven to have positive effects, I've known people who have lived exactly as you suggested.  For years.  And then they got cancer, tried to eat perfectly in a Natural News sense, and experienced rapid and massive tumor growth, then died.

Cancer is a dick.

----------


## KingNothing

Multimillionaire Jolie paid a multimillionaire surgeon to remove her breasts, and will pay another multimillionaire to reconstruct them.  She's certainly going to have the best money can buy.  I suspect no one will actually be able to notice a difference, and I suspect that over time whatever quality work she receives, will become affordable to nearly everyone else.

----------


## RockEnds

> You can't. One company has a monopoly on the test.


SCOTUS will be deciding that case soon.

----------


## green73

Meanwhile, Jolie posters are soon to start popping up in doctors offices across the land...

Look for her to become a leading advocate in yet another ill-thought-out crusade.

----------


## green73

> SCOTUS will be deciding that case soon.


I'm sure the black-robbed deities will rule for the best.

----------


## fisharmor

> I suspect that over time whatever quality  work she receives, will become affordable to nearly everyone  else.


Well, suspect what you want, but it's not going to happen, with the road we're currently on.
Cardiopulmonary bypass technology has been around since *1926*.
My father's 2006 bypass surgery - 80 years after the technology was invented - ran over half a million dollars.

----------


## Origanalist

> You can't. One company has a monopoly on the test.


No, that is 100% excellent advice from donnay. People are misdiagnosed all the time. I was, but in the opposite direction. I was told I didn't have cancer for months by a "specialist". If mine had been a different form none of you would have heard of me, I would have died way before I ever heard of RP or the "liberty movement".

Then it was misdiagnosed again by the person at the lab.

Get a second, third opinion, and research the hell out of it. It's your life.

----------


## fisharmor

> big question - what would you do with three weeks left? i'd do something patriotic


Like paint-an-eagle-on-your-truck's-back-window patriotic, or like V-for-Vendetta patriotic?

----------


## RockEnds

> I'm sure the black-robbed deities will rule for the best.


I share your confidence.

----------


## KingNothing

> Well, suspect what you want, but it's not going to happen, with the road we're currently on.
> Cardiopulmonary bypass technology has been around since *1926*.
> My father's 2006 bypass surgery - 80 years after the technology was invented - ran over half a million dollars.



I'm going to venture a guess that the surgery your father had was a tad bit safer and more effective than what was available to people in 1926.

----------


## KingNothing

> No, that is 100% excellent advice from donnay. People are misdiagnosed all the time. I was, but in the opposite direction. I was told I didn't have cancer for months by a "specialist". If mine had been a different form none of you would have heard of me, I would have died way before I ever heard of RP or the "liberty movement".
> 
> Then it was misdiagnosed again by the person at the lab.
> 
> Get a second, third opinion, and research the hell out of it. It's your life.



Such a shame.  Though, with that said, in Donnay's mind your situation couldn't exist -- the medical industry should have been rushing you into costly and unnecessary treatments!

----------


## green73

> I'm going to venture a guess that the surgery your father had was a tad bit safer and more effective than what was available to people in 1926.


No $#@!. People were still getting used to having opposable thumbs in 1926.

----------


## Origanalist

> Such a shame.  Though, with that said, in Donnay's mind your situation couldn't exist -- the medical industry should have been rushing you into costly and unnecessary treatments!


Whatever, I'm glad you can read her mind. My point is that not everyone in the medical field is there for altruistic reasons. There are some really fantastic doctors researchers etc. but there are also many just there to collect a paycheck who couldn't care less about you to the point of negligence. It's it your interest to get involved completely and not just blindly accept what your told.

----------


## Seraphim

Poo flinging was also an advanced method of communication in 1926. The females in particular.




> No $#@!. People were still getting used to having opposable thumbs in 1926.

----------


## Origanalist

> Poo flinging was also an advanced method of communication in 1926. The females in particular.


That explains my Mom.

----------


## donnay

> Such a shame.  Though, with that said, in Donnay's mind your situation couldn't exist -- the medical industry should have been rushing you into costly and unnecessary treatments!


Not only are you naïve but your problem is you presume too much.  Most of the allopathic treatments are unnecessary and extremely costly. 

The whole thing about celebrities doing this or that-- it becomes trendy and cool.  I wonder if Angelina's had family members who died of brain tumors would she consider cutting off her head as a preventive measure?

This type of insanity will continue until people take an active role in knowing their own body and thinking outside of the box.

----------


## RockEnds

> Not only are you naïve but your problem is you presume too much.  Most of the allopathic treatments are unnecessary and extremely costly. 
> 
> The whole thing about celebrities doing this or that-- it becomes trendy and cool.  I wonder if Angelina's had family members who died of brain tumors would she consider cutting off her head as a preventive measure?
> 
> This type of insanity will continue until people take an active role in knowing their own body and thinking outside of the box.


I'm wondering how many of her children have their family medical history so they have an equal opportunity to know which expensive, patented genetic test they should purchase to assist them in making informed decisions about their personal health care.  I haven't read any reports where she addresses that issue.  Since she was so greatly impacted and motivated by the fate of her mother, I hope she's spent some of her wealth to ensure all of her children have as much of an opportunity as possible to get the medical history of their parents.

----------


## jtap

> Maybe she is hoping it will give her politically correct cover to get relatively large implants.


My first thought was also how much her wanting to get implants for "work reasons" had to do with the decision.

She's more than welcome to do what she wants with her body. Assuming she could do a 2-for-1 deal and only have one surgery, then if you are already contemplating having plastic surgery and you happen to have the opportunity to remove cells that you don't need and have a higher risk that they become cancerous and use this as a cover for why you got implants, I could see that. I don't know how much I trust the angle being marketed here of it being done solely for the potential cancer risk. I don't care...but it is interesting. We can't know the true motive. Hollywood is pretty tough on looks and people have even said she's a strange one.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Multimillionaire Jolie paid a multimillionaire surgeon to remove her breasts, and will pay another multimillionaire to reconstruct them.  She's certainly going to have the best money can buy.  I suspect no one will actually be able to notice a difference, and I suspect that over time whatever quality work she receives, will become affordable to nearly everyone else.


Her next topless scene in a movie will be the talk of the town. "Tomb Raider 3D: The Treasure of the Twin Peaks".

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes I can agree that alternative medicine has it's place but it's not like cancer only exists because of Monsanto and fluoride. Some people, whether it's genetic or whatever, have a predisposition to get cancer. When you read about young kids with Leukemia it simply is not likely they got it from eating unhealthy, nor will they defeat the disease by improving their diets or lifestyles.


That's just it.  You didn't have young kids getting Leukemia years ago.  As soon as a baby is born and starts getting infant formula in BPA bottles they are being engaged in an un-healthy lifestyle.  And that says nothing about environmental pollution or chemicals in the water used to make the formula.

----------


## donnay

> I'm wondering how many of her children have their family medical history so they have an equal opportunity to know which expensive, patented genetic test they should purchase to assist them in making informed decisions about their personal health care.  I haven't read any reports where she addresses that issue.  Since she was so greatly impacted and motivated by the fate of her mother, I hope she's spent some of her wealth to ensure all of her children have as much of an opportunity as possible to get the medical history of their parents.


Nor have I read much about her children she has adopted.  Putting things into perspective...she is a CFR member and a "goodwill" ambassador for the UN.  To me, that speaks volumes.








Ah the Kony Propaganda--remember this?

----------


## dannno

> Her next topless scene in a movie will be the talk of the town. "Tomb Raider 3D: The Treasure of the Twin Peaks".


Well if they lift her tits up to her chin they may even be nicer than before.

----------


## Seraphim

Yes, and babies/infants are the ones who's bodies are most unfit to fend off said toxins.




> That's just it.  You didn't have young kids getting Leukemia years ago.  As soon as a baby is born and starts getting infant formula in BPA bottles they are being engaged in an un-healthy lifestyle.  And that says nothing about environmental pollution or chemicals in the water used to make the formula.

----------


## KingNothing

> That's just it.  You didn't have young kids getting Leukemia years ago.


Uhh, proof?

----------


## fisharmor

> I'm going to venture a guess that the surgery  your father had was a tad bit safer and more effective than what was  available to people in 1926.


See, if I was you, I'd have done my homework and countered with  "Yeah but the first successful bypass surgery wasn't done until 1952!"
Only  I wouldn't have, because it doesn't matter if the time elapsed was 80  years or 61 years, your point about it being *more affordable* over  time is still negated.

Prices only go down in unregulated  markets, like LASIK, or in countries where there is no regulation -  hence the new trend toward medical tourism.  Lord knows if I ever need  anything serious done, I'm sure as hell not getting it done here... not  when for half the price I can treat the whole family to a vacation in  Costa Rica.

----------


## donnay

> Uhh, proof?


Leukemia: Soy-Cause of Infant Leukemia: 2010, Genistein is a bioflavonoid enriched in soy products. High levels of maternal soy consumption linked to the development of infant leukemia. Genistein induced infant leukemia. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20638367 



Maternal Diet and infant Leukemia: A Role for DNA topoisomerase II inhibitors caused to fetus in utero: 10 fold increase risk of infant acute myeloid leukemia with increased maternal consumption of DNA topo-2 inhibitor containing foods. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9876473

Dietary topoisomerase II-poisons: Contribution of soy products to infant leukemia- DNA topoisomerase are nuclear enzymes inducing transient breaks in the DNA allowing DNA strands to pass through each other. Maternal exposure to low doses of dietary topoismerase II poisons, including genistein may contribute to development of infant leukemia. This study found at: excli.de/Vol1/hengstleretal02-02.pdf 


2011, Isoflavone research revealed adverse effects on reproductive system. This is also the case with tumor-promoting effects on breast tissue. Questions about the effectiveness and safety of isoflavones have to be clarified.  There are concerns about the maternal consumption of isoflavones due to the development of leukemia in infants. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21438720

Source:
http://toxicstudylist.blogspot.com/

----------


## ninepointfive

> Leukemia: Soy-Cause of Infant Leukemia: 2010, Genistein is a bioflavonoid enriched in soy products. High levels of maternal soy consumption linked to the development of infant leukemia. Genistein induced infant leukemia. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20638367 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal Diet and infant Leukemia: A Role for DNA topoisomerase II inhibitors caused to fetus in utero: 10 fold increase risk of infant acute myeloid leukemia with increased maternal consumption of DNA topo-2 inhibitor containing foods. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9876473
> 
> Dietary topoisomerase II-poisons: Contribution of soy products to infant leukemia- DNA topoisomerase are nuclear enzymes inducing transient breaks in the DNA allowing DNA strands to pass through each other. Maternal exposure to low doses of dietary topoismerase II poisons, including genistein may contribute to development of infant leukemia. This study found at: excli.de/Vol1/hengstleretal02-02.pdf 
> 
> 
> ...




kingnothing is a troll anyways, and he's already called us all stupid - why feed him?

----------


## jmdrake

> Leukemia: Soy-Cause of Infant Leukemia: 2010, Genistein is a bioflavonoid enriched in soy products. High levels of maternal soy consumption linked to the development of infant leukemia. Genistein induced infant leukemia. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20638367 
> 
> 
> 
> Maternal Diet and infant Leukemia: A Role for DNA topoisomerase II inhibitors caused to fetus in utero: 10 fold increase risk of infant acute myeloid leukemia with increased maternal consumption of DNA topo-2 inhibitor containing foods. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9876473
> 
> Dietary topoisomerase II-poisons: Contribution of soy products to infant leukemia- DNA topoisomerase are nuclear enzymes inducing transient breaks in the DNA allowing DNA strands to pass through each other. Maternal exposure to low doses of dietary topoismerase II poisons, including genistein may contribute to development of infant leukemia. This study found at: excli.de/Vol1/hengstleretal02-02.pdf 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for the additional info Donnnay.




> kingnothing is a troll anyways, and he's already called us all stupid - why feed him?


True.  But the added information is helpful for talking with people who are not trolls.  Sometimes I've learned a lot from responses to trolls.  Then sometimes...everything they're asking has already been answered.

----------


## ninepointfive

> Thank you for the additional info Donnnay.
> 
> 
> 
> True.  But the added information is helpful for talking with people who are not trolls.  Sometimes I've learned a lot from responses to trolls.  Then sometimes...everything they're asking has already been answered.



+1

----------


## RockEnds

> Nor have I read much about her children she has adopted.  Putting things into perspective...she is a CFR member and a "goodwill" ambassador for the UN.  To me, that speaks volumes.


Yep, that's the ticket.  They meddle with the affairs and the economy of other nations, then when the culture begins to crumble and the crisis emerges, put they put on their best humanitarian face and "advocate" for the children to be educated in the ways of their new Western overlords, I, I mean, saviors.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> See, if I was you, I'd have done my homework and countered with  "Yeah but the first successful bypass surgery wasn't done until 1952!"
> Only  I wouldn't have, because it doesn't matter if the time elapsed was 80  years or 61 years, your point about it being *more affordable* over  time is still negated.
> 
> Prices only go down in unregulated  markets, like LASIK, or in countries where there is no regulation -  hence the new trend toward medical tourism.  Lord knows if I ever need  anything serious done, I'm sure as hell not getting it done here... not  when for half the price I can treat the whole family to a vacation in  Costa Rica.


Only in a market as so heavily $#@!ed over by government could this happen.

You hit the nail on the head here.

Not only that, but with costs hidden under layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy and multiple "payers", there is no real sense of what something costs, and certainly no "shopping around" to be done, with clearly labeled pricing and competition.

----------


## juleswin

> Wait....You mean she will cut them off completely? She will be flat chested like a man? Or will she remove just some glands or something like that? I am having trouble picturing it all...


The breast tissues are removed and its immediately recontructed and she will most likely come out looking much better than she did before the surgery. Applegate lady had a double mastectomy too and you cannot tell from looking at her chest now.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> True.  But the added information is helpful for talking with people who are not trolls.  Sometimes I've learned a lot from responses to trolls.  Then sometimes...everything they're asking has already been answered.


This is correct.

As frustrating as a troll can be, especially the ones that are personally vindictive, petty and small, the information provided that counters them may be seen by many who are *not* trolls.

Thus, why a trolls acts like a troll.

They *want* you to shut up and go away, so that information that they disagree with, for whatever reason, does *not* get out.

----------


## juleswin

> Several folks in my family have died from heart attacks..
> Should we get our hearts removed?
> 
> and you know,, all of my ancestors have died. Except my Mom,, and I suspect that is not long off.
> 
> It is simply a fact of life,, and surgical dis-figuration will not prevent that. It will line some pockets,, and may (or may not) alter the timeline.


To be fair, you will die without a heart as opposed to some tissue in the chest that just about everyone can live without. A good example is the prostrate, most men will have prostrate cancer in their lifetime, some will live ok with the cancer and end up dying from some other disease but other will die from it. Now in my family, we had many cases of serious prostrate cancer and luckily just one death from it.

So should I be proactive and remove my prostrate before it becomes cancerous or do I wait and treat it like everybody does? This is just like the dilemna women with the breast cancer gene face and its not entirely crazy to go for the surgery

----------


## jtap

> To be fair, you will die without a heart as opposed to some tissue in the chest that just about everyone can live without. A good example is the prostrate, most men will have prostrate cancer in their lifetime, some will live ok with the cancer and end up dying from some other disease but other will die from it. Now in my family, we had many cases of serious prostrate cancer and luckily just one death from it.
> 
> So should I be proactive and remove my prostrate before it becomes cancerous or do I wait and treat it like everybody does? This is just like the dilemna women with the breast cancer gene face and its not entirely crazy to go for the surgery


Who is going to be the first celeb to endorse and be the face of preventative *prostate* removal?

There isn't as much upside when it requires no reconstruction and people don't even know it's missing.

Edit: What about preventative appendectomies if they can find a genetic predisposition to having a burst appendix?

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> That's just it.  You didn't have young kids getting Leukemia years ago.  As soon as a baby is born and starts getting infant formula in *BPA bottles* they are being engaged in an un-healthy lifestyle.  And that says nothing about environmental pollution or chemicals in the water used to make the formula.


It's extremely hard to find baby bottles with BPA added to them now.  This I can vouch for because I studied them, and tried to extract them from plastics 3 years ago, and it was difficult to find them (even using 99c store plastic baby bottles).

The FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles last year, which is years after most manufacturers (Walmart and Kids/ToysRUs in 2008) stopped using it because of public outcry.  So your statement is not true, and hasn't been for years.

----------

In response to the "Back when people ate REAL FOOD, cancer didn't exist" arguement...

Here are 23 photographs of cancer patients back in the early to late 1800's.  Enjoy.

----------


## angelatc

> This is correct.
> 
> As frustrating as a troll can be, especially the ones that are personally vindictive, petty and small, the information provided that counters them may be seen by many who are *not* trolls.
> 
> Thus, why a trolls acts like a troll.
> 
> They *want* you to shut up and go away, so that information that they disagree with, for whatever reason, does *not* get out.



LOL at the notion that the NaturalNewies actually offer legitimate information.

----------


## angelatc

> Multimillionaire Jolie paid a multimillionaire surgeon to remove her breasts, and will pay another multimillionaire to reconstruct them.  She's certainly going to have the best money can buy.  I suspect no one will actually be able to notice a difference, and I suspect that over time whatever quality work she receives, will become affordable to nearly everyone else.



Breast implants were already dirt cheap, because insurance won't cover them for purely cosmetic reasons.  

The Komen Foundation site mentioned that they're working on a vaccine.

----------


## donnay

> It's extremely hard to find baby bottles with BPA added to them now.  This I can vouch for because I studied them, and tried to extract them from plastics 3 years ago, and it was difficult to find them (even using 99c store plastic baby bottles).
> 
> The FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles last year, which is years after most manufacturers (Walmart and Kids/ToysRUs in 2008) stopped using it because of public outcry.  So your statement is not true, and hasn't been for years.


A University of Texas study published a couple of years ago in the Environmental Health Perspectives confirms that hormone-disrupting chemicals leach from *almost all plastics*, even BPA-free plastics.

*Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That Can Be Solved*
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/

*BPA out, BPS in: The Song Remains the Same* 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ng-remains-the

*BPA-Free Products Still Contain Bisphenols of Equal Toxicity*
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ill-toxic.aspx

*'BPA-free' not enough: Endocrine disruptors are in your food, too*
http://www.naturalnews.com/039593_en...#ixzz2TOPxLNBW


As for me, I will stick to glass and stainless steel drinking cups--it's bad enough soy is in EVERYTHING and we have to stay informed and vigilant to keep away from estrogen-mimicking things.

----------


## angelatc

> Raw apple cider vinegar, 2 teaspoons (shake the bottle VERY well) in 8 oz of water with a squeeze of lime and a little raw honey if you're feeling frisky. Twice daily. This will increase your blood's pH, cancer likes acidic blood, cancer won't even survive if you are on this regimen.



Where's the science to back that up?

----------


## donnay

> LOL at the notion that the NaturalNewies actually offer legitimate information.



One of the writers of Natural News is a member of this forum.  You could learn a thing or two from her.

----------


## angelatc

> It's not just "eating healthy"--it's knowing what your body might be deficient in and knowing what you are putting in and on your body that will make all the difference in the world. 
> 
> The human body is amazing, given the proper nutrients, it can heal itself.




If that were even remotely true, the medical profession would never have developed.  We outgrew medicine men for a reason.

----------


## anaconda

> Her next topless scene in a movie will be the talk of the town. "Tomb Raider 3D: The Treasure of the Twin Peaks".


I hope Brad doesn't have a family history of testicular cancer.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> A University of Texas study published a couple of years ago in the Environmental Health Perspectives confirms that hormone-disrupting chemicals leach from *almost all plastics*, even BPA-free plastics.
> 
> *Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That Can Be Solved*
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/
> 
> *BPA out, BPS in: The Song Remains the Same* 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ng-remains-the
> 
> *BPA-Free Products Still Contain Bisphenols of Equal Toxicity*
> ...


I said BPA.  I did *not* say other phthalates and xenoestrogens, because that is not the point *he* brought up now, is it?

----------


## puppetmaster

Hey danno what level do you keep your pH at with this juice?  The apple cider vinegar one?

----------


## donnay

> Where's the science to back that up?




Cancer. A few laboratory studies have found that vinegar may be able to kill cancer cells or slow their growth. Observational studies of people have been confusing. One found that eating vinegar was associated with a decreased risk of esophageal cancer. Another associated it with an increased risk of bladder cancer.

Source:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/apple-cider-vinegar?page=2


*Apples Fight Breast Cancer*

An apple a day may not only keep the doctor away -- new research shows that it may specifically be helpful in protecting against breast cancer.

At Cornell University’s department of food science and Institute for Comparative and Environmental Toxicology, researchers randomly divided rats treated with a known mammary carcinogen into different groups, feeding them either low, middle or high doses of Red Delicious apple extracts (the equivalent of one, three and six apples a day in humans, respectively) or a control extract. Rats fed the strongest apple extract experienced the lowest cancer rate (40% developed cancer)... followed by the group fed middle-strength extract (43%)... and the lowest strength extract (59%). In comparison, 71% of those fed the apple-free control extract developed mammary cancer over the 24-week study period. The study appeared in the December 10, 2008, online edition of Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

 WHAT’S THE SECRET?

 According to researcher Rui Hai Liu, MD, PhD, associate professor of food science at Cornell University, the study demonstrated not only that apple extracts effectively inhibited the growth of mammary tumors in the rats but that the more administered, the greater the anticancer effect. "Not only did animals treated with apple extract have fewer tumors overall, the tumors were smaller, less likely to be malignant and grew more slowly when compared with tumors in the untreated animals," he said.

 Why are apples so powerful against breast cancer, I wondered? Dr. Liu explained to me that apples are one of the best sources of phenolics and flavonoids, which are phytochemicals (bioactive compounds) that have powerful antioxidant and anti-proliferative (antigrowth) effects in the body. In two previous studies, Dr. Liu and his colleagues discovered that phytochemicals from apples effectively inhibited the growth of human breast cancer cells. In another study, Dr. Liu found that phytochemicals from apple peels inhibited an important inflammation pathway, NFkB, in human breast cancer cells, thereby reducing the proliferation of the cancer.

 Dr. Liu told me that although other fruits and vegetables also contain phenolics and flavonoids, apples are one of the best dietary sources of fruit phenolics. In fact, of the top 25 fruits consumed in the US, apples provide 33% of the phenolics that Americans consume annually. "Americans love to eat apples, so it makes sense to encourage them as part of a balanced diet for optimal health," he said, adding that this doesn’t mean anyone should forsake other fruits and vegetables. "It’s clear that regular consumption of fruits, vegetables and whole grains can help to prevent chronic diseases, such as heart disease and cancer," Dr. Liu said.

Source:
http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1498174

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Where's the science to back that up?


Vinegar can improve blood ph.  This has been known to dieticians for a good long time.  Alone, it would take a while for it to work.  You need to combine that with an alkalizing diet.  There are also supplements like BufferPh designed to improve ph.  It's not quackery at all.  Lance Dreher, PhD (who I know personally) designs diets for his clients (he's a personal trainer nowadays, specializing in working with old/sick/obese folks) specifically to improve ph.  Along with diet and lifestyle, imrpoving ph cures diabetes type II and other lifestyle related diseases.

I can dig up some literature on it for you sometime if you're interested. (that is, real published medical literature, not tabloid "literature")

----------


## donnay

> I said BPA.  I did *not* say other phthalates and xenoestrogens, because that is not the point *he* brought up now, is it?


Umm...I think you missed his point totally, but whatever.  


*Molecular analysis of the apoptotic effects of BPA in acute myeloid leukemia cells*
http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/7/1/48

It might be somewhat removed from baby bottles but it still lines the cans of baby formula.


*Infant Formula Can Be a Major Source of BPA: Experts*
http://health.usnews.com/health-news...of-bpa-experts

*Consumer Alert: Toxic Hormone-Disrupting Chemical BPA is Leaching from Food Can Liners*
http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...ticle_6472.cfm

----------


## dannno

> Where's the science to back that up?



Not funded by the medical industrial complex, that's where the science is. (see my last post on you = not understanding corporatism)

----------


## donnay

> If that were even remotely true, the medical profession would never have developed.  We outgrew medicine men for a reason.



Your ignorance is showing.

"The planet is being controlled, to an alarming extent, by elites, or, as I call them, cartels.   There are many cartels, but 7 are the most powerful.  They evolve, they learn from one another, they both compete and cooperate.  Unfortunately, the trend is more towards cooperation. These 7 cartels represent the following areas:  GOVERNMENT, MILITARY, INTELLIGENCE, ENERGY, MONEY, MEDIA, AND MEDICAL.....I came to this map of cartels through my own research on the medical monopoly.  That's where it started, in 1986.  .. Once you understand these cartel elites, you can begin to separate out information into loose layers of importance, as in, which layer of the control game are we talking about?  Because it's all about layers.  And at most layers, the players are forwarding agendas which they do not realize fit into higher and more destructive agendas." ~ Jon Rappoport

"Even during the Cold War, the federal reserve system continued to finance the Soviet Union -- which was "never" a viable economy; it was a Third World economy. And we continued to finance, through the federal reserve system, through the Bank for International Settlements, in Switzerland. That's how we kept the Soviet Union going all these years. That's why we had to spend $248 billion a year for defense against this monstrous Soviet Union during the Cold War!............I became interested in monopolies through the federal reserve system. And I realized that because they now had the power to print money, since 1913, they were printing the money and taking over other areas. So that's why you now have the medical monopoly, the American Medical Association, the medical trust. You have the legal monopoly, which controls the courts of the United States. And when you go into court, you are at their mercy because they can do whatever they wish.....And the education monopoly! And they found "that" was the most important one of all, because, by training the children to accept these other monopolies [and] never question authority........Flexner was John D. Rockefeller's "stool pigeon" in setting up the takeover of the entire medical school industry by Carnegie Foundation, which was a Rockefeller Foundation subsidiary at that time.......When you say "Carnegie Foundation", you're talking about something that has no substance. It's entirely under the domination of the Rockefellers. .................He (Abraham Flexner) did "The Flexner Report", and this changed the medical schools of the United States from homeopathic, naturopathic medicine, to allopathic medicine -- which was a German school of medicine which depended on the heavy use of drugs, radical surgery, and long hospital stays. That's what we've got today, allopathic medicine." ~ Eustace Mullins.  

*100 Years of US Medical Fascism*
http://mises.org/daily/4276

----------


## Lucille

Related: One thing not mentioned in Angelina Jolie's A+ op-ed on BRCA: the testing costs are so high b/c the gene is patented http://j.mp/128hQQx

----------


## donnay

*Angelina Jolie Surgically Removes Breasts to ‘Prevent Cancer’*

by *Anthony Gucciardi* 
May 15th, 2013 

Actress Angelina Jolie is the latest to surgically remove her breasts and partake in a concerning new trend that encourages healthy women to remove their body parts in order to ‘prevent cancer’.

I’ve talked about this trend in the past, with cancer-free Sharon Osbourne and even a Miss America contender deciding to remove their breasts because they carry a mutation of the BRCA1 gene. In fact, some doctors have gone much farther than just encouraging breast removal for those with ‘at risk’ genes. As I discussed back in 2012, some doctors are now making blanket recommendations to remove your limbs in order to ‘prevent’ cancer.

Paying no mind to nutrition or lifestyle, these doctors (who medical professionals I speak to all believe are truly off their rocker) are advocating self-mutilation in the highest degree and advocating it as something courageous. The simple reality is that we know we can alter our health through nutritional and lifestyle changes that directly impact the development of cancer and our overall immunity.

*How Nutrition Impacts Your Genetic Expression*

You see, what Jolie’s highly paid doctors failed to tell her is that she could have significantly impacted the expression of her genes through nutritional changes. This has been demonstrated in numerous instances of scientific research, but the Norwegian University of Science and Technology is one of the latest organizations to highlight the effects. It is important, first, however, to understand how inflammation works within the body. Inflammation has not only been linked to many of the world’s leading diseases such as cancer and heart disease, but it is actually thought to be at the heart of virtually all chronic disease.



We can take this information and examine the latest research to discover that  nutrition can specifically alter the presence of cancer-linked inflammation through changing the very genes that cause inflammation. Nutrition can expand or lessen inflammation in the body through this process, and it can expand or lessen your risk of developing serious disease throughout the body. When you make the right, high quality food choices, a difference is observed. Eating fruits and vegetables verses processed potato chips and microwaved dinners, for example, will literally affect the genes responsible for causing inflammation within the body in two very different ways.

As we see from the lead researcher from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, this is observed to a very large degree. The lead researcher details how inflammation is affected, which as I mentioned has been linked to all chronic disease. In the report, he states:


“This affects not only the genes that cause inflammation in the body, which was what we originally wanted to study, but also genes associated with development of cardiovascular disease, some cancers, dementia, and type 2 diabetes — all the major lifestyle-related diseases.”
.
And we find similar things with antioxidants, which are important to annihilate free radicals in the body that are wreaking havoc on your health from the inside. We find that antioxidants perform a very powerful function in fighting disease at the genetic level, which many people simply don’t even realize.

Jefferson’s Kimmel Cancer Center researchers explain the findings of their research on this subject:


 “Now we have genetic proof that mitochondrial oxidative stress is important for driving tumor growth,” said lead researcher Michael P. Lisanti, M.D., Ph.D.
.
In reality this practice is not inspirational to women, it is instead a tactic that goes against the search for knowledge and healthy living. When we have a society and mindset that we should just start chopping off our limbs to prevent cancer instead of taking on maximized nutrition and eliminating environmental concerns, then we know we’re heading in the wrong direction. We know that literally hundreds of studies have linked household cleaners, the plastic chemical BPA (found in everything from water bottles to ink), and other everyday items are causing breast cancer — but Jolie and other major celebrities have not decided to tackle that issue.

Instead, women are sadly being empowered to harm themselves and damage their own bodies instead of identifying these concerns and generate solutions.



About Anthony Gucciardi:
 Editor of NaturalSociety, producer, consultant, and seeker of truth. Anthony's work has been read by millions worldwide and is routinely featured on major alternative and mainstream news website alike, like the powerful Drudge Report, NaturalNews, Infowars, and many others. Anthony has appeared, oftentimes routinely, on programs like Russia Today (RT), The Alex Jones Show, Coast to Coast AM, and others. Anthony is also a founding member of Natural Attitude and the creator of the independent political website Storyleak

----------


## MelissaWV

There is absolutely no genetic factor to cancer.  Phew.  Thank you, RPFs.  So long as I eat right and don't drink out of plastic bottles, I should be okay.  There are certainly no problems with one's genes, or mutations caused by prior generations' exposure to certain things, that could contribute.

I can sleep more soundly at night.

Seriously... none of you are going to get cancer anyhow, since you live the saintly lifestyle.  Can you let others get ill or make moronic decisions without your looking down on them constantly?

And no, that's not everyone in this thread.  If the shoe doesn't fit, please don't pretend to get all offended.

----------


## donnay

*How Angelina Jolie was duped by cancer doctors into self mutilation for breast cancer she never had* 

Wednesday, May 15, 2013
by *Mike Adams*, the Health Ranger


In a New York Times op-ed explaining her decision to have both of her breasts surgically removed even though she doesn't have breast cancer, Angelina Jolie cited risk numbers as key to her decision. She said that doctors told her she had an "87% risk of breast cancer." Her solution? Undergo three months of surgical procedures and have her breasts cut out.

Problem solved, right? With her breasts removed, she says her risk of breast cancer is now reduced to a mere 5 percent. The same bizarre logic can also be applied to men who cut off their testicles to "prevent testicular cancer" or people who cut out their colons to "prevent colorectal cancer." But that would be insane, so nobody does that, because one of the most basic principles of medicine is that you don't subject patients to the considerable risks and costs of surgery and anesthesia to remove organs that have no disease!

But the really sad part about all this is that Angelina Jolie was lied to. She didn't have an 87% risk of breast cancer in the first place. All the women reading her NYT op-ed piece are also being lied to. Here's why...


How cancer doctors lie with statistics and use fear to scare women into high-profit procedures
The very idea that breast cancer is a "percent risk" is a complete lie. In reality, everyone has cancer micro-tumors in their bodies, including myself. Cancer is not a disease you just "get" like being randomly struck by lightning. It's something you must "manage" or "prevent" day by day, meal by meal, through a lifestyle choice that involves vitamin D supplementation, nutrition, superfoods, vegetable juices and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals and radiation.

So when a doctor says you have a "chance" of getting cancer, what he's implying is that you have no control over cancer, and that's an outright lie. Cancer quackery, in other words.

Even Jolie with her BRCA1 gene that's linked to breast cancer can quite easily follow a dietary and lifestyle plan that suppresses BRCA1 gene expression. It's not rocket science. It's not even difficult. It can be done with simple foods that cost a few dollars a day. Those foods include raw citrus, resveratrol (red grapes or red wine), raw cruciferous vegetables, omega-3 oils and much more. Those same foods also help prevent heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's and other chronic diseases.

Indole-3-carbinol (I3C), by the way, a natural chemical found in cruciferous vegetables like broccoli and cabbage, offers powerful prevention against BRCA1 gene expression. But you don't hear cancer doctors telling women to "eat more cabbage" because that doesn't make the cancer industry any money. You can buy I3C as a potent nutritional supplement from a variety of sources. It's literally cancer prevention in a capsule.

So the whole "chance" argument is pure quackery. There is no chance involved in whether you get cancer. It's all cause and effect. You are either living a pro-cancer lifestyle and therefore growing cancer, or you're living an anti-cancer lifestyle and keeping cancer in check so that it never becomes a problem. Cause and effect is what results in either the growth of cancer tumors or the prevention of cancer tumors. There is no "luck" involved.

It's fascinating, isn't it, that medical doctors don't believe in luck or voodoo on any topic other than cancer. But when it comes to cancer, they want all women to be suckered into the victim mentality that cancer is purely a matter of "luck" and therefore women have no control over their own health outcomes. How dis-empowering! How sick! How incredibly exploitive of women!

If you really want to be informed about breast cancer and the corrupt, dishonest cancer industry, read my related article 10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You're Not Supposed to Know. Or listen to our upcoming FREE Cancer Solutions Summit broadcasting this coming Monday, May 20th.


Why doesn't the cancer industry empower women with a sense of control over their own health?

I find it astonishing that the cancer industry doesn't believe in cause and effect. They would rather scare women with "risk" statistics that imply people have no control over cancer. Empowering women with a sense of control over their own health is the last thing the cancer industry wants to do, because that would cause them to lose customers and lose money.

It's far more profitable to scare all women into a state of such irrational panic that they agree to the most insane things imaginable such as chopping off both their healthy breasts even though they have no cancer. Such women are then convinced they've literally saved their own lives by agreeing to be mutilated by cancer surgeons.

"My chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from 87 percent to under 5 percent," says Jolie. "I can tell my children that they don't need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer."

Will she also tell her children they should mutilate themselves, too, as a form of medical disease prevention? And what happens if she learns she has a risk of brain cancer? Does she chop off her head and call it a cure?


The scam of making women believe there is only ONE way to reduce your "risk" of breast cancer

The other enormous scam in all this is the idea that there's only one way to reduce your "risk" of breast cancer. Even if you believe the fictitious number of "87% risk," why does everyone automatically assume there is one and only one way to lower that risk?

"For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options," writes Jolie in the NYT. Yet she utterly fails to offer women any options other than the one she took: check in to a cancer center and let them play "cut-poison-burn" on your body. Jolie's op-ed piece, which reads as if it were written by the public relations department of the Pink Lotus Breast Center, offers nothing in the way of nutrition advice, lifestyle choices, holistic therapies, wellness, alternative medicine... nothing! What an incredible disservice to all the women of America...

In the world of health, nutrition and cancer, there are thousands of ways to prevent cancer and suppress the expression of BRCA1 genes. But Jolie and the cancer industry seem to imply no options exist other than chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery. Three options only. Nothing else exists in their world, not nutritional prevention, not vitamin D therapy, not vitamin C potentiated micro-chemotherapy, not ozone therapy, sauna treatments, acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine, stress reduction or anything else. You are supposed to believe that none of these things exist!

And why? Because the cancer industry wants to funnel women like cattle into their slash-poison-burn system of quack treatments. And Angelina Jolie is their new cheerleader. Scarred and no doubt experiencing the chest and armpit numbness that almost always accompanies mastectomy surgery, she now seeks to "inspire" other women to exercise their own sick "choice" and have their breasts removed, too!

It is the sickest invocation of women's power that I've ever witnessed. This is not empowering women, it's marching them into self-mutilation. And the "risk" is a complete fraud. In truth, Angelina Jolie had a higher risk of dying on the operating table than dying from breast cancer if she simply followed an anti-cancer lifestyle.


Don't be tricked into self-mutilation by cancer industry quacks
In summary:

• The claim that you have a "percent risk" of breast cancer is a big lie which implies you have no control over cancer.

• BRCA1 genes can be kept quiet (suppressed) through proper foods and lifestyle choices. A gene is not a death sentence.

• The implication that there is only ONE way to reduce breast cancer risk is a complete lie. There are thousands of options and strategies for preventing cancer. Never be cornered into surgery by a group of surgeons pushing irrational fear.

• Cancer micro-tumors exist in everyone. Cancer must be "managed" in everyone to keep it in check and avoid the growth of tumors.

• The cancer industry tricks women using unethical fear tactics to scare women with false statistics into high-profit cancer procedures that only cause them harm.

• The claim that cutting off healthy breasts somehow "empowers" women is sick and demented. Women are far more empowered by honest information on nutrition and healthy living that allows them to keep their bodies intact rather than being sliced up by dishonest cancer surgeons.

----------


## donnay

> There is absolutely no genetic factor to cancer.  Phew.  Thank you, RPFs.  So long as I eat right and don't drink out of plastic bottles, I should be okay.  There are certainly no problems with one's genes, or mutations caused by prior generations' exposure to certain things, that could contribute.
> 
> I can sleep more soundly at night.
> 
> Seriously... none of you are going to get cancer anyhow, since you live the saintly lifestyle.  Can you let others get ill or make moronic decisions without your looking down on them constantly?
> 
> And no, that's not everyone in this thread.  If the shoe doesn't fit, please don't pretend to get all offended.



*Why Your Genes Don't Determine Your Health* 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mar..._b_803069.html

----------


## dannno

> There is absolutely no genetic factor to cancer.  Phew.  Thank you, RPFs.  So long as I eat right and don't drink out of plastic bottles, I should be okay.  There are certainly no problems with one's genes, or mutations caused by prior generations' exposure to certain things, that could contribute.
> 
> I can sleep more soundly at night.
> 
> Seriously... none of you are going to get cancer anyhow, since you live the saintly lifestyle.  Can you let others get ill or make moronic decisions without your looking down on them constantly?
> 
> And no, that's not everyone in this thread.  If the shoe doesn't fit, please don't pretend to get all offended.


Do you understand how genetics work?

What if somebody is only genetically pre-dispositioned to get cancer if they have a bad diet and live in a toxic environment? What if NOBODY is genetically pre-dispositioned to get cancer with an optimal diet and a good environment?

----------


## MelissaWV

> *Why Your Genes Don't Determine Your Health* 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mar..._b_803069.html


That is amazing, really.  It's strange that people in my family who didn't even grow up together have the same relatively rare combination of diseases.  It's odd that folks who did not grow up together find themselves with similar comorbidities later on into adulthood.  It's depressing that someone would admit that a single-gene disorder is genetic, but not leave even the remotest chance that the genetic markers that cause us to develop our internal organs and determine how we will react to the environmental factors people talk about being carcinogenic might have an impact on the eventual outcome.  Nope, there is no genetic component to any of it, even if our genes determine a great deal of how we process things.  Every single person will react precisely the same to those awful environmental factors, which is why I totally give you permission to mutter "I told you so" when you're 120 and I'm what's left of a cremated dust cloud somewhere

----------


## MelissaWV

> Do you understand how genetics work?
> 
> What if somebody is only genetically pre-dispositioned to get cancer if they have a bad diet and live in a toxic environment? What if NOBODY is genetically pre-dispositioned to get cancer with an optimal diet and a good environment?


Actually, I do.  Strange that you talk about predisposition when donnay's article pretty much dismisses that as hooey.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There is absolutely no genetic factor to cancer.  Phew.  Thank you, RPFs.  So long as I eat right and don't drink out of plastic bottles, I should be okay.  There are certainly no problems with one's genes, or mutations caused by prior generations' exposure to certain things, that could contribute.
> 
> I can sleep more soundly at night.
> 
> Seriously... none of you are going to get cancer anyhow, since you live the saintly lifestyle.  Can you let others get ill or make moronic decisions without your looking down on them constantly?
> 
> And no, that's not everyone in this thread.  If the shoe doesn't fit, please don't pretend to get all offended.


genetic tendency isn't a guarantee of anything.  I have a family history (both sides) of heart disease, for example, but neither of my parents got it (yet).

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Umm...I think you missed his point totally, but whatever.  
> 
> 
> *Molecular analysis of the apoptotic effects of BPA in acute myeloid leukemia cells*
> http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/7/1/48
> 
> It might be somewhat removed from baby bottles but it still lines the cans of baby formula.
> 
> 
> ...


No, you just have this little issue with taking people's points and twisting them to fit your agenda, and you always have.  He said *BPA* and *baby bottles*.  You posted links about other phthalates.  Now you're posting about phthalates and baby formula, and BPA in food can liners.

BPA is also in shower curtains, car interiors, and beauty products.  As I said before, I studied it... for a good two years.  For a good two years I breathed phthalates (don't worry, I'm not being literal).

----------


## MelissaWV

> genetic tendency isn't a guarantee of anything.  I have a family history (both sides) of heart disease, for example, but neither of my parents got it (yet).


Please point out where I said it was a guarantee.  There are some in this thread trying to claim it's nearly no factor at all, and prescribing a one-size-fits-all series of solutions.  Strangely enough, they are doing that by posting articles showing how things you do, or your grandmother did, can affect your genes.  

Honestly, I did not think RPF snobbery could go down to a genetic level.  I was wrong.  But since some among us are going to live forever (or as long as there's a pooping box, some pot, some black cumin, and apricot seeds), like I said, they can say "I told you so" long after I've worn myself out and driven myself into a totally not the least bit genetic early grave

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Please point out where I said it was a guarantee.  There are some in this thread trying to claim it's nearly no factor at all, and prescribing a one-size-fits-all series of solutions.  Strangely enough, they are doing that by posting articles showing how things you do, or your grandmother did, can affect your genes.  
> 
> Honestly, I did not think RPF snobbery could go down to a genetic level.  I was wrong.  But since some among us are going to live forever (or as long as there's a pooping box, some pot, some black cumin, and apricot seeds), like I said, they can say "I told you so" long after I've worn myself out and driven myself into a totally not the least bit genetic early grave


What snobbery?  I just illustrated with an example.  FFS.  SMH.


You said:



> There is absolutely no genetic factor to cancer. Phew. Thank you, RPFs. So long as I eat right and don't drink out of plastic bottles, I should be okay. There are certainly no problems with one's genes, or mutations caused by prior generations' exposure to certain things, that could contribute.


I took this as sarcasm, per your usual style.  Hence my previous response.  But I'm probably taking this thread too seriously.  I should leave, I reckon.

----------


## dannno

> That is amazing, really.  *It's strange that people in my family who didn't even grow up together have the same relatively rare combination of diseases.  It's odd that folks who did not grow up together find themselves with similar comorbidities later on into adulthood.*  It's depressing that someone would admit that a single-gene disorder is genetic, but not leave even the remotest chance that the genetic markers that cause us to develop our internal organs and determine how we will react to the environmental factors people talk about being carcinogenic might have an impact on the eventual outcome.  Nope, there is no genetic component to any of it, even if our genes determine a great deal of how we process things.  Every single person will react precisely the same to those awful environmental factors, which is why I totally give you permission to mutter "I told you so" when you're 120 and I'm what's left of a cremated dust cloud somewhere


That just shows that diet and environment are relatively universal among modern civilizations.

----------


## dannno

> Please point out where I said it was a guarantee.  There are some in this thread trying to claim it's nearly no factor at all, and prescribing a one-size-fits-all series of solutions.  Strangely enough, they are doing that by posting articles showing how things you do, or your grandmother did, can affect your genes.  
> 
> Honestly, I did not think RPF snobbery could go down to a genetic level.  I was wrong.  But since some among us are going to live forever (or as long as there's a pooping box, some pot, some black cumin, and apricot seeds), like I said, they can say "I told you so" long after I've worn myself out and driven myself into a totally not the least bit genetic early grave


Have you tried the poop box yet? I've gotten at least 30 or 40 people hooked on it, I'd say I have about a 95%+ success rate of getting people who try it to actually buy one and begin using it regularly. It will change your life.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-doin-it-wrong

I actually just use a folding stool, cheap, convenient and serves multiple purposes.

----------


## MelissaWV

> That just shows that diet and environment are relatively universal among modern civilizations.


Oh of course.  My half-aunt who's a nun and grew up cloistered in a convent in the tropics, and my sister who lives in the suburbs near Buffalo, totally have the same diet and environment.

----------


## dannno

> Oh of course.  My half-aunt who's a nun and grew up cloistered in a convent in the tropics, and my sister who lives in the suburbs near Buffalo, totally have the same diet and environment.


You're mixing up weather and environment.

----------


## green73

*Angelina Jolie Reveals She Is Also Having Her Ovaries Removed*

http://www.businessinsider.com/angel...removed-2013-5

----------


## dannno

> No, you just have this little issue with taking people's points and twisting them to fit your agenda, and you always have.  He said *BPA* and *baby bottles*.  You posted links about other phthalates.  Now you're posting about phthalates and baby formula, and BPA in food can liners.
> 
> BPA is also in shower curtains, car interiors, and beauty products.  As I said before, I studied it... for a good two years.  For a good two years I breathed phthalates (don't worry, I'm not being literal).


So those things were all around and used nearly as frequently before childhood Leukemia rates skyrocketed? I think jmdrake's point still stands that before those types of chemicals were used as much, cancer rates in children were lower.

And yes, people did get cancer in the 1800s, there are actually mummies and skeletons from thousands of years ago with cancer. I think cancer rates have been increasing due to our environment, but according to those who follow the paleo diet, it was about 10,000 years ago when grains were introduced where our omega 3:6 ration started skewing, and this causes inflammatory conditions like heart disease and cancer. So I doubt you would find many, if any instances at all of cancer in hunter gatherer societies, especially before the ocean became polluted.

----------


## MelissaWV

> You're mixing up weather and environment.


You're being deliberately obtuse.  

Are you saying that the suburbs --- full of toxins, devoid of trees and helpful plants most of the year, thriving on prepackaged foods and grocery store conveniences, traveling by car and breathing in the bus fumes, sleeping in a townhome with constant climate control, drinking barely-filtered water --- are equivalent in environment to a convent in the tropics --- with fresh fruit literally growing onsite, numerous trees helping filter the air, dependence on breezes rather than air conditioning, walking or biking?  

I won't even get into the added stresses my sister has with children and her husband.  

Totally different factors and environment, same outcomes.  Not the least bit genetic.  

Ah but something much better just made an appearance (thank God), so I'll leave you to it.    G'night!

----------


## dannno

> *Angelina Jolie Reveals She Is Also Having Her Ovaries Removed*
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/angel...removed-2013-5


She's just going to end up getting brain cancer or something. You can't take off everything.

----------


## donnay

> She's just going to end up getting brain cancer or something. You can't take off everything.


If that happens then she can simply cut off her head. <s>

----------


## dannno

> You're being deliberately obtuse.


Did the nuns eat much bread do you think? I don't doubt lack of air pollution, I still have no idea what type of environment the nun in the tropics actually had and what her environment was like as a child. 

I admit it would be an interesting case study.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> *So those things were all around and used nearly as frequently before childhood Leukemia rates skyrocketed?* I think jmdrake's point still stands that before those types of chemicals were used as much, cancer rates in children were lower.
> 
> And yes, people did get cancer in the 1800s, there are actually mummies and skeletons from thousands of years ago with cancer. I think cancer rates have been increasing due to our environment, but according to those who follow the paleo diet, it was about 10,000 years ago when grains were introduced where our omega 3:6 ration started skewing, and this causes inflammatory conditions like heart disease and cancer. So I doubt you would find many, if any instances at all of cancer in hunter gatherer societies, especially before the ocean became polluted.


Who said they were?  *Not me*.  You're just as bad as donnay with putting words in people's mouths.  He said BPA is in baby bottles.  It's not.  I provided the links.  Whatever the hell you and donnay are insinuating from that is of your own mind-effery.

----------


## RockEnds

> Oh of course.  My half-aunt who's a nun and grew up cloistered in a convent in the tropics, and my sister who lives in the suburbs near Buffalo, totally have the same diet and environment.


So say your sister and your half aunt have the same mutation that has a correlation with a particular cancer, and they both develop it.  Say another unrelated family has members with that same mutation, yet they do not develop the cancer.  Why not?  If a cancer caused strictly by a genetic mutation, individuals in both families should develop the cancer.    

All people with an extra copy of Chr 21 have Down's Syndrome.  There are other diseases that are very clearly caused by changes in the dna alone.  Predispositions based upon highly correlated genetic mutations are not that cut and dry.  Even if an individual has an 87% chance of developing a cancer, that still leaves a 13% chance they will remain cancer free.  If the cancer is caused by _nothing_ but a mutation, each individual with that mutation should have 100 percent chance of developing the cancer.  

I linked a BBC documentary that explains the research fairly well in simple terms.  If you're really interested, it's worth watching.  Epigenetics is where it's at.  It's the future of genetic research.  It's worth taking the time to at least become familiar with what it is and why it's important.

----------


## dannno

> Who said they were?  *Not me*.  You're just as bad as donnay with putting words in people's mouths.  He said BPA is in baby bottles.  It's not.  I provided the links.  Whatever the hell you and donnay are insinuating from that is of your own mind-effery.


I'm just pointing out jmdrake and donnay seem to be intellectually honest here - jmdrake made the point that a particular kind of cancer that affects children didn't start until BPA was added to baby bottles. They may have removed BPA in the last few years, but other similar chemicals still exist so you wouldn't see childhood leukemia rates dropping off or anything. 

So I guess my point is, if you were simply trying to educate jmdrake that BPA isn't in bottles anymore but his point that those types of chemicals could be causing childhood leukemia is still valid, that's fine, but if true then donnay was really just helping to educate you, if you didn't already know, that many other similar chemicals exist in other types of plastics and products.

----------


## green73

This sort of brings her cutting herself to fill a vial with blood for Billy Bob to hang around his neck into context. The CFR needs more like her!

----------


## ninepointfive

Must I mention the snobbery, and all the intellectual buttfuckery from anyone opposed to the natural crowd? Nothing but condescension and namecalling by all the traditional medical know it alls and their sympathisers. You'd think alternate medicine would be welcome, and never once did I see the natural crowd say the traditional medical crowd was wrong.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> I'm just pointing out jmdrake and donnay seem to be intellectually honest here - jmdrake made the point that a particular kind of cancer that affects children didn't start until BPA was added to baby bottles. They may have removed BPA in the last few years, but other similar chemicals still exist so you wouldn't see childhood leukemia rates dropping off or anything. 
> 
> So I guess my point is, if you were simply trying to educate jmdrake that BPA isn't in bottles anymore but his point that those types of chemicals could be causing childhood leukemia is still valid, that's fine, *but if true then donnay was really just helping to educate you, if you didn't already know, that many other similar chemicals exist in other types of plastics and products*.


Have you been paying attention at all... ?

From this thread:




> BPA is also in shower curtains, car interiors, and beauty products. As I said before, I studied it... for a good two years. For a good two years I breathed phthalates (don't worry, I'm not being literal).





> It's extremely hard to find baby bottles with BPA added to them now. This I can vouch for because I studied them, and tried to extract them from plastics 3 years ago, and it was difficult to find them (even using 99c store plastic baby bottles).


From other threads: 




> I'll find my study on phthalates and post it here. I tested for BPA (bisphenol A), DMP (dimethyl phthalate) and DEP (diethyl phthalate). I focused on ingestion though, through food and tupperware leaching, according to different temperature settings (room temperature, heated) and different pH containments (acidic, alkaline and neutral).
> 
> The plastics I used were purchased a dollar store - and even back then (2011) it was really difficult to find tupperware without a "bisphenol free!" sticker. *Had it been a few years prior, I could have just picked up a baby bottle*.
> 
> That said, all of my plastics leached.
> 
> Glass is the way to go.


^ Even admitted they were in baby bottles prior.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ght=phthalates




> Research on the leaching of food and liquid contaminants from plastics (plasticizers, phthalates) using high performance liquid chromatography with variables such as pH and temperature.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4590757

----------


## green73

> Must I mention the snobbery, and all the intellectual buttfuckery from anyone opposed to the natural crowd? Nothing but condescension and namecalling by all the traditional medical know it alls and their sympathisers. You'd think alternate medicine would be welcome, and never once did I see the natural crowd say the traditional medical crowd was wrong.

----------


## dannno

Ya I know, my point is that what you said to jmdrake about BPA didn't weaken his argument that __(insert new plastic chemical here)__ very well may be one of the main reasons why childhood leukemia rates have risen so dramatically, you were merely helping to facilitate an education campaign so that his argument in the future can be stronger by saying BPA and other modern plastics cause __________________ instead of merely saying BPA causes _______________.

donnay and jmdrake were just replying to help bolster their argument that these new chemicals that cause the same thing as BPA are still are used in baby products.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Must I mention the snobbery, and all the intellectual buttfuckery from anyone opposed to the natural crowd? Nothing but condescension and namecalling by all the traditional medical know it alls and their sympathisers. You'd think alternate medicine would be welcome, and never once did I see the natural crowd say the traditional medical crowd was wrong.


Oh jesus christ.  Who here supports traditional medicine, and who supports alternate medicine?  I haven't seen anyone say either is a crock of $#@!...

----------


## MelissaWV

> Must I mention the snobbery, and all the intellectual buttfuckery from anyone opposed to the natural crowd? Nothing but condescension and namecalling by all the traditional medical know it alls and their sympathisers. You'd think alternate medicine would be welcome, and never once did I see the natural crowd say the traditional medical crowd was wrong.


In all fairness, I only went a few pages into this thread to find these.  I could add more, I'm sure?




> That's truly *insane*.  SMH.  This isn't the world I was born in.





> Actually, I also know a woman whose cancer is in remission since she radically changed her diet.
> It's not science.  Nor will it ever be.
> Because  *hacking off tits is more profitable than diet regimens, and so  cartel-blessed federal study dollars are never going to get allocated to diet studies.*
> 
> Of course, I have a penis, so what do I know.....





> You're shifting the goalpost.  The stated goal is cancer prevention.  Not cancer treatment.
> *Whether  or not my suspicion that money is a factor is correct, it's still  macabre for an industry to leap straight to amputation as the solution.*
> Why not amputate women's heads?  That will prevent all forms of cancer, you know.
> 
> 
> I never made that claim.  I made the claim that  alternative medicines are not science and will never be given the  opportunity to be science.
> 
> 
> I'm thinking with the one that isn't being intentionally abrasive.


^ That presumes that someone who arrives at the decision to amputate something, or remove an organ, leapt straight to the solution.  That'd be rather bonkers.  I would hope it would be an informed medical decision, and I assume that's what most of us would do --- regardless of what answer we personally arrive at.




> The medical/government complex will have people chopping off fingers and toes for hangnails before too much longer.
> 
> FFS...





> Guess what,?
> it is not a guarantee of anything except having no breasts.
> 
> She is still going to die.. and if "genetically susceptible" to cancer it will be cancer some place else.
> 
> Seems to me it is a *dumb* tradeoff,, based on a lot of fear mongering.

----------


## angelatc

> She's just going to end up getting brain cancer or something. You can't take off everything.



That's just idiotic.  She inheirited *a mutated gene* that predisposes her to *a very specific type of cancer*.  Getting her breasts and ovaries removed means that her chance of contracting that type of cancer drops from 87% to less than 5%.  I don't know why some of you seem to refuse to believe those relatively simple facts.

----------


## ninepointfive

> In all fairness, I only went a few pages into this thread to find these.  I could add more, I'm sure?



okok....   =(

----------


## amy31416

> Must I mention the snobbery, and all the intellectual buttfuckery from anyone opposed to the natural crowd? Nothing but condescension and namecalling by all the traditional medical know it alls and their sympathisers. You'd think alternate medicine would be welcome, and never once did I see the natural crowd say the traditional medical crowd was wrong.


I've been called dumb by people I consider at least an ally, if not an e-friend. And I was neither hostile nor polite, only related my experiences. I truly believe there's room for both traditional and natural medicine. Personally, I'd prefer the natural route, but I think we need to face that it isn't all that effective most of the time.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> I've been called dumb by people I consider at least an ally, if not an e-friend. And I was neither hostile nor polite, only related my experiences. *I truly believe there's room for both traditional and natural medicine*. Personally, I'd prefer the natural route, but I think we need to face that it isn't all that effective most of the time.


+rep.  A nice balance would be wonderful.

----------


## ninepointfive

note to self - never talk breast cancer with women. ever. 

EVER

----------


## jmdrake

> It's extremely hard to find baby bottles with BPA added to them now.  This I can vouch for because I studied them, and tried to extract them from plastics 3 years ago, and it was difficult to find them (even using 99c store plastic baby bottles).
> 
> The FDA banned the use of BPA in baby bottles last year, which is years after most manufacturers (Walmart and Kids/ToysRUs in 2008) stopped using it because of public outcry.  So your statement is not true, and hasn't been for years.
> 
> ----------
> 
> In response to the "Back when people ate REAL FOOD, cancer didn't exist" arguement...
> 
> Here are 23 photographs of cancer patients back in the early to late 1800's.  Enjoy.


Let's see here.  

1) You honestly believe that a ban *from last year* would mean that there wouldn't be kids alive today that might have been affected by BPA?

2) I didn't just mention BPA.  I also talked about the formula itself, the chemicals in the water used to make the formula ect.  In other words *I mentioned a whole RANGE of toxins children are exposed to today that weren't exposed to 100 years ago.*  My point is, just because kids haven't had a lifetime of "eating bad food" doesn't mean they haven't had significant toxic exposures.

3) Ummm...since I was addressing the question regarding childhood cancer, why did you link to pictures of *adults* with cancer?

4) Notice that your pictures had the title *rare* as in....there weren't a lot of them.  Nobody claimed that cancer didn't exist 100 years ago.

5) Not everybody in the "good old days" ate good food.  Many ate like crap.  

Really, I'm surprised that with your earlier insistence on academic rigour, you now resort to sensationalist pictures to argue against a point that was never made.  If you want to accurately compare past to present, here's something that's actually on point.  Breast cancer rates in young women have been rising.

http://radio.foxnews.com/2013/02/27/.../#.UZQphEl3-_I

----------


## amy31416

> note to self - never talk breast cancer with women. ever. 
> 
> EVER


I promise that I won't tell you what you should do or judge your choices should you ever get testicular cancer.

It's not about talking, it's about judging and dictating.

----------


## ninepointfive

> I promise that I won't tell you what you should do or judge your choices should you ever get testicular cancer.
> 
> It's not about talking, it's about judging and dictating.


well, actually a celebrity convinced me that they need them removed pre-cancer stage. so the appt is scheduled for a month out. wish me luck!

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Let's see here.  
> 
> 1) You honestly believe that a ban *from last year* would mean that there wouldn't be kids alive today that might have been affected by BPA?
> 
> 2) I didn't just mention BPA.  I also talked about the formula itself, the chemicals in the water used to make the formula ect.  In other words *I mentioned a whole RANGE of toxins children are exposed to today that weren't exposed to 100 years ago.*  My point is, just because kids haven't had a lifetime of "eating bad food" doesn't mean they haven't had significant toxic exposures.
> 
> 3) Ummm...since I was addressing the question regarding childhood cancer, why did you link to pictures of *adults* with cancer?
> 
> 4) Notice that your pictures had the title *rare* as in....there weren't a lot of them.  Nobody claimed that cancer didn't exist 100 years ago.
> ...


The pictures/link in my first post were not in any relation to what you said, hence the "-----------" break.  Simply to point out that cancer has existed even when nutrition wasn't perfect but far better than it is now.

For someone who was, throughout this thread, correcting people's mistakes, I thought it was fit to correct one of your own with something I directly understood.

Otherwise I agreed with you, for the most part, but hey... thanks for the insult?

----------


## amy31416

> well, actually a celebrity convinced me that they need them removed pre-cancer stage. so the appt is scheduled for a month out. wish me luck!


Hop to it then...I had to weigh the options before Jolie weighed in with her "expertise." So I'm cooler, or something. Or I'm an evil demon who helped kill her own mother.

----------


## MelissaWV

> note to self - never talk breast cancer with women. ever. 
> 
> EVER


I know no one will believe this, but if it had gone the same way, I would have posted similarly regardless of what body part was being removed.  I often do when I'm at work.  

And yes, there are guys that get both testicles removed when only one shows cancerous growth.  There are also men who get breast tissue removed, people who have their gall bladders taken out (fun fact for the "no genetic link" people earlier in the thread: gall bladder cancer rates are way higher among certain ethnicities/geographic origins, even generations down the line, with no regard for where or how the folks are living now), a portion of their liver, or any number of things... and they are not necessarily cancerous at the time.  There is amputation of a limb due to mild infections or lack of circulation and the fear of the limb becoming septic if left as it is.  There is non-selective debridement of necrotic tissue, which takes out some of the healthy tissue in the area as well.  There are removals of the prostate early on.  There are operations to resection the stomach for cosmetic purposes.

So no, not just breast cancer

----------


## dannno

> I'm an evil demon who helped kill her own mother.


I KNEW it!!

----------


## jmdrake

> The pictures/link in my first post were not in any relation to what you said, hence the "-----------" break.  Simply to point out that cancer has existed even when nutrition wasn't perfect but far better than it is now.
> 
> Nice try...


Okay.  My mistake.    As for the state of nutrition in the 1800s, the late 1800s is when the Seventh Day Adventist church came into being and started telling people that smoking was killing them and that they were eating like crap.  And while there are legit criticisms of SDAs (and I say that even though I am one), church members have consistently had a longer lifespan than the general population, and yes that includes if you control for smoking.  My point?  That even in the 1800s there was room for improvement in diet.  In fact there wasn't this whole widespread "eat healthy" movement that there is now.  Or at least the definition of "healthy eating" from the 1800s isn't what it is now.

But yes.  If your specific point is that there are people who got cancer years ago that is definitely true.  Not sure what the significance of that is though.

----------


## amy31416

> I KNEW it!!


I'm actually not ready to joke about that yet since I was so involved in her decisions and care. I know you don't mean anything bad by it...I'm pretty sure anyways.

----------


## amy31416

> I KNEW it!!


I'm actually not ready to joke about that yet since I was so involved in her decisions and care. I know you don't mean anything bad by it...I'm pretty sure anyways.

----------


## angelatc

> Hop to it then...I had to weigh the options before Jolie weighed in with her "expertise." So I'm cooler, or something. Or I'm an evil demon who helped kill her own mother.


That's not true in the least.  Nobody could have known what the outcome was going to be, Amy.  Please try not to blame yourself. I'm sure your Mom wouldn't want that.

----------


## Lucille

TCM teaches we have inherited qi and acquired qi.  She killed two birds with one stone!

She can do what she wants.  It's her body and her money, and I can understand her fear.  But removing organs is a pretty big f'n deal too.

She always has been a bit extreme though.  Drugs, sex, general weirdness, all those kids (and probably more coming), and now this.

Wasn't she a cutter?

----------


## fisharmor

> *Angelina Jolie Reveals She Is Also Having Her Ovaries Removed*
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/angel...removed-2013-5


Perhaps she's a big Hellboy fan?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

From



> Everyone should make their own choice


To 




> $#@! you.


Any questions about what kind of person angelatc is should be answered by now.  For simply suggesting that he knows people who avoided cancer with natural remedies, angelatc rears her ugly, statist head.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm thinking we need to run a forum-wide test for mental retardation.


Let me guess... an automatic affirmative for anti-vaxxers, anti-preventive amputationers, and anti-government-run science and medical industry?

----------


## Origanalist

> Perhaps she's a big Hellboy fan?


Addadicktome next?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Okay.  My mistake.    As for the state of nutrition in the 1800s, the late 1800s is when the Seventh Day Adventist church came into being and started telling people that smoking was killing them and that they were eating like crap.  And while there are legit criticisms of SDAs (and I say that even though I am one), church members have consistently had a longer lifespan than the general population, and yes that includes if you control for smoking.  My point?  That even in the 1800s there was room for improvement in diet.  In fact there wasn't this whole widespread "eat healthy" movement that there is now.  Or at least the definition of "healthy eating" from the 1800s isn't what it is now.
> 
> But yes.  If your specific point is that there are people who got cancer years ago that is definitely true.  Not sure what the significance of that is though.


If you want to know how to eat healthy, just consult the great "food pyramid" that the government has so graciously provided us with.  I'm sure angelatc would approve because she loves to suck government cock.

----------


## donnay

> That is amazing, really.  It's strange that people in my family who didn't even grow up together have the same relatively rare combination of diseases.  It's odd that folks who did not grow up together find themselves with similar comorbidities later on into adulthood.  It's depressing that someone would admit that a single-gene disorder is genetic, but not leave even the remotest chance that the genetic markers that cause us to develop our internal organs and determine how we will react to the environmental factors people talk about being carcinogenic might have an impact on the eventual outcome.  Nope, there is no genetic component to any of it, even if our genes determine a great deal of how we process things.  Every single person will react precisely the same to those awful environmental factors, which is why I totally give you permission to mutter "I told you so" when you're 120 and I'm what's left of a cremated dust cloud somewhere


Even the UN is forced to admit that genetics are not the main cause of these chronic illnesses and diseases.

*Man-made chemicals cited in health scourges: UN report*

(Reuters) - 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:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...91I0NJ20130219


Epigenetics--look up the term.

----------


## RockEnds

This is a very condensed version of epigenetics:




And from NOVA:

----------


## jmdrake

> That is amazing, really.  It's strange that people in my family who didn't even grow up together have the same relatively rare combination of diseases.  It's odd that folks who did not grow up together find themselves with similar comorbidities later on into adulthood.  It's depressing that someone would admit that a single-gene disorder is genetic, but not leave even the remotest chance that the genetic markers that cause us to develop our internal organs and determine how we will react to the environmental factors people talk about being carcinogenic might have an impact on the eventual outcome.  Nope, there is no genetic component to any of it, even if our genes determine a great deal of how we process things.  Every single person will react precisely the same to those awful environmental factors, which is why I totally give you permission to mutter "I told you so" when you're 120 and I'm what's left of a cremated dust cloud somewhere


Did you even bother to read the article?  Why does it seem that some of the people pushing "science" the hardest are being the least scientific?  The cliff notes version of the article is that the new science of epigenetics shows that our lifestyle choices affect what physical traits our descendants inherit.  It's not an "either / or" proposition.

_Why Your Genes Don't Determine Your Health
Posted: 01/01/11 11:11 AM ET

The decoding of the human genome at the dawn of the millennium carried the hope and promise of the beginning of the end of human suffering. However, after more than a decade of intense exploration of the human genome the burden of human disease and suffering has only increased across the globe. Heart disease, cancer, and diabetes as well as allergic and autoimmune disorders have all continued to skyrocket. Hope has given way to disappointment as scientists have recognized that, other than in single gene disorders likes Down's syndrome, your genes don't determine your fate.

In November of this year a review on genomics, Type 2 diabetes and obesity in the New England Journal of Medicine (i) sadly reported on how little correlation exists between obesity, diabetes and your genes. There are associated patterns that confer small risks, but the authors lament the lack of stronger connections between genetic makeup and the biggest disease epidemic of our time (obesity and diabetes) with refrains such as "modest effect size," "relatively few successes," "remains far from clear," "poorly captured by existing biologic knowledge."

The story of your health is much more complex than genetic programming. It is ultimately determined by the dynamic interplay of the environment washing over genes creating the "you" of this moment. The good news is that this has been the year of discoveries about "omics"--epigenomics, exposomics, nutrigenomics and microbiomics and toxigenomics--that do, in fact, hold the key to unlocking our health and disease mysteries.

The Epigenome: Bypassing Darwin and Evolution

More important than our collection of genes, it now appears, is how those genes are controlled by both internal and external factors--our thoughts, stress, social connections, what we eat, our level of physical and mental activity, and our exposure to microbes and environmental toxins. These factors are switches that turn genes on and off and determine which proteins are expressed. The expressed proteins, in turn, trigger signals of disease or health.

What's even more striking is that if your DNA is tagged by an environmental factor, such as a pesticide, the impact this environmental factor has on your genes can be passed down through generations. The "epigenome" become inheritable. That means if your grandmother ate too much sugar, or smoked, or was exposed to mercury from too much sushi, the genetic modifications she incurred from this exposure could affect you. Her epigenome would carry an increased risk of disease that could be passed down from generation to generation. Interestingly, the Darwinian and Lamarckian worldviews are intersecting in 2010.

The Exposome: Environmental Influences on Health and Disease

In October 2010 Science magazine(ii) published an important paper that reviewed the notion of the "exposome"--the idea that the environment in which your genes live is more important than your genes themselves. What this suggests is that applying genomics to treat disease is misguided because 70-90 percent of your disease risk is related to your environment exposures and the resultant alterations in molecules that wash over your genes.

The question then is how do we measure and change our "exposome"--or the totality of the impact of the environment on your genes. We must address not just one factor but the whole collection of interacting factors that determine health and disease--toxins, food, microbes, internal chemicals including all the biologically active molecules that control inflammation, oxidative stress, gut flora, and other natural processes.

Emerging biomarkers and analytic techniques will soon allow us to map our exposome from a drop of blood, and measure change over time. Using novel treatments that help identify and remove known external toxins (like pesticides and mercury) and strategies that change the internal environment including diet, nutrients, probiotics, and detoxification would help you change your "exposome" and lower your overall disease risk.

Once this new paradigm of understanding how a lifetime of interacting exposures interacts with your genes to determine your chronic disease risk, once the gene-environment interactions are mapped more carefully, then the promise of the genomic revolution can be fully realized.

Nutrigenome: Eating Your Way to Better Genes

The most important thing you do to control your genes every day is eat well. Food; and the combination and quality of macronutrients (protein, fat, carbohydrate), micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), fiber, and phytonutrients (plant-based bioactive compounds); all wash over your DNA every day turning on or off, up or down signals from your genes. This field, called nutrigenomics,(iii) offers a powerful way for you to control your destiny.

Researchers have found, for example, that depending on your genes, you may respond better to different diets--some do better with more fat and protein and less carbs, others may not. One of the most important discoveries of the decade is how food--whether it is plant-based, nutrient-rich, phytonutrients-rich food, or processed, high sugar, nutrient-depleted food--changes your gene expression in real time over the course of weeks to months. Dr. Dean Ornish showed how this works in his seminal prostate cancer research.(iv) He was able to beneficially affect over 500 cancer-controlling genes simply by having his patients eat a plant-based, whole foods diet.

Microbiome: The Most Important DNA in Your Body Is Not Your Own

The human body hosts 100 trillion microorganisms. The DNA of the bugs living in and on you, outnumber your own DNA by 100 times. This is called the microbiome. (v) Our bodies are simply a host environment for bacteria. They use us for their own purposes. The molecules produced by the DNA of these bacteria have significant impact on our health. This is called "metaproteomics."

This microbiome, particularly the ecosystem of nearly 500 bugs that live in your gut, have been linked to everything from obesity, to cancer, to autoimmune and allergic disorders and even heart disease and diabetes. Our modern lifestyle and diet and the overuse of antibiotics has changed the population of bacteria living in our guts and it has made us sick. (vi) Which bugs we grow in our intestine determine whether we will be fat or thin, inflamed or healthy. The critical discovery of this microbiome and its implications for influencing many of the diseases of the 21st century will provide novel treatments involving changing our diets and the use of pre-and probiotics to shift the gut ecosystem into a health-promoting balance. We are only as healthy as our gut bacteria.

What the Future Holds

The giddy back-slapping decoding of the human genome, has given way to a more sober view of the limits of genomics and the remarkable understanding of what we all knew intuitively--that how we live, the quality of our relationships, the food we eat, how we use our bodies, and the environment that washes over us and determines much more than our genes ever will. The next decade will better characterize how the environment affects gene expression--the genome-exposome interactions--and our health, and provide us better ways to measure and improve those interactions and help us create the best expression of ourselves.

For more information on how your environment influences your genes and to keep up on the latest findings in this exciting new field of medicine go to drhyman.com.

Now I'd like to know your thoughts on this subject.

Do you think your environment is as important as your genes in determining health or disease?

What actions do you plan to take to incorporate this new science into your life?

In the New Year would you consider changing your diet and lifestyle to improve your health? What changes do you plan to make?

Let me know your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

To your good health,

Mark Hyman, MD

References

(i) McCarthy, M.I. 2010. Genomics, type 2 diabetes, and obesity. N Engl J Med. 363(24): 2339-50. Review.

(ii) Rappapport, S., et al. 2010. Environment and disease risks. Science. 330: 460-461

(iii) Grayson, M. 2010. Nutrigenomics. Nature. 468(7327): S1.

(iv) Ornish, D., Magbanua, M.J., Weidner, G., et al. 2008. Changes in prostate gene expression in men undergoing an intensive nutrition and lifestyle intervention. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105(24): 8369-74.

(v) Caesar, R., Fak, F., Bäckhed F. 2010. Effects of gut microbiota on obesity and atherosclerosis via modulation of inflammation and lipid metabolism. J Intern Med. 268(4): 320-8. doi: 10.1111 Review

(vi) De Filippo, C., Cavalieri, D., Di Paola, M., et al. 2010. Impact of diet in shaping gut microbiota revealed by a comparative study in children from Europe and rural Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 107(33): 14691-6

Mark Hyman, M.D. is a practicing physician, founder of The UltraWellness Center, a four-time New York Times bestselling author, and an international leader in the field of Functional Medicine. You can follow him on Twitter, connect with him on LinkedIn, watch his videos on YouTube, become a fan on Facebook, and subscribe to his newsletter._

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Are people here seriously implying that environment doesn't affect cancer rates?  That's effed up!  Everyone knows that toxins can increase the likelihood of cancer, including things like mercury and asbestos, and tar found in cigarettes (sorry to all the "cigarettes are the new guns" people).  

If you ARE willing to admit that things in the environment can cause cancer, what's so radical about believing that things in the environment can prevent cancer?

So, I'm sure everyone is willing to admit that certain things can cause cancer, but then angelatc et al here would have you believe that simply decreasing exposure to those same toxins will not lower your risk of cancer!  WOW!  How stupid can you get?  Well, as long as you're not angelatc, you're not a total loss yet.

----------


## Carlybee

I could give a whoop what she does. I wouldn't do it but its her boobs.

----------


## FriedChicken

If someone asked me last week 'how many replies do you think a thread about Jolie's boobs will get?' I'd guess quite a few. This wouldn't have been the thread I had in mind though!

Personally, I'm with the home remedy peeps as I know more than person who has cured themselves of cancer and know a lady who makes a living as a councilor/advice giver/nutrition specialist who has assisted many people cure themselves. 

But if my wife had the mutated gene we would definitely closely monitor our lifestyles and do everything we could to keep the odds of cancer down.
If someone held no hope for natural cures I don't think I'd blame them for having this done.

----------


## KingNothing

> Personally, I'm with the home remedy peeps as I know more than person who has cured themselves of cancer


As someone who has lived with nurses that worked on Cancer floors in hospitals, anecdotal evidence tells me "home remedies" are tragically ineffective.

----------


## ninepointfive

check this guy and the black salve out:

----------


## amy31416

Just out of curiosity, what, exactly, would the natural remedy crowd do if they knew for certain they had this breast cancer gene that increased their odds of getting it to around 90%?

----------


## ninepointfive

> Just out of curiosity, what, exactly, would the natural remedy crowd do if they knew for certain they had this breast cancer gene that increased their odds of getting it to around 90%?


take more precautions by regularly consulting a doctor, and having tests done. Plus, have all the sexy guys rub my boobs regularly to check for lumps.

----------


## RockEnds

> As someone who has lived with nurses that worked on Cancer floors in hospitals, anecdotal evidence tells me "home remedies" are tragically ineffective.


As someone whose father worked in cancer wards all over the world then developed cancer and died possibly as a result of it, certainly unable to benefit from it, anecdotal evidence tells me conventional medicine can be tragically ineffective.

----------


## juleswin

> Just out of curiosity, what, exactly, would the natural remedy crowd do if they knew for certain they had this breast cancer gene that increased their odds of getting it to around 90%?


I guess they will cross that bridge when they get there. One doesn't start researching weight loss remedy until they become obese. So my guess is they will research natural cures for cancer when the time comes

----------


## juleswin

> As someone whose father worked in cancer wards all over the world then developed cancer and died possibly as a result of it, certainly unable to benefit from it, anecdotal evidence tells me conventional medicine can be tragically ineffective.


Tragically ineffective and expensive*

----------


## donnay

> Just out of curiosity, what, exactly, would the natural remedy crowd do if they knew for certain they had this breast cancer gene that increased their odds of getting it to around 90%?


Do a lot of research with regards to dietary changes.  Also look into vitamin and mineral deficiencies.

----------


## FriedChicken

> As someone who has lived with nurses that worked on Cancer floors in hospitals, anecdotal evidence tells me "home remedies" are tragically ineffective.


As someone who saw his 21 year old sister in-law die in agony 9 months after being diagnosed and doing everything the doctors recommended and was even considered "out of the woods" only a month before her death ... I'd argue the chemo, radiation and surgery went through was pretty tragically ineffective as well.

I know people who have been cured by the hospitals remedy before also.

I know there are sad stories on both side. As for me and my research ... I feel there is more success going natural. If I or a loved one was diagnosed I would go to the Gerson hospital in Mexico for treatment who has a higher success rate than hospitals in the US.

----------


## jmdrake

> As someone who has lived with nurses that worked on Cancer floors in hospitals, anecdotal evidence tells me "home remedies" are tragically ineffective.


Well I have my own anecdotal evidence of people given up for dead after doing conventional treatments who were completely cured after trying natural remedies.  And I've seen people, who should have known better, just accept the "the medical doctor said I have 6 months to live so I guess I'll go into hospice" prognosis...and die in 6 months.




> Just out of curiosity, what, exactly, would the natural remedy crowd do if they knew for certain they had this breast cancer gene that increased their odds of getting it to around 90%?


Well as a guy I think the fair comparison would be if I found I had the testicular cancer equivalent.  And in that case there's no way in hell I'd cut both my balls off just because I *might* get cancer in the future.  I understand guys who get one or both removed *after* getting cancer.  Now what would I do on the positive side?  Whatever it took!  I already know there are things in my lifestyle that I could do to improve my health.  If I was facing down cancer I wouldn't put anything off.  And I'd stick with it.  Here's an "anecdote" of my own.  My (now) ex-wife is a medical doctor.  Her sister's (now ex) husband had colitis.  He was told he would be dead in a year or so.  (And if I'm naming the wrong disease, chalk it up to my faulty memory.)  Anyway, she (my ex) prayed about it (yes she's another medical doctor that actually believes in God and creation), and felt impressed to tell him to go on an all fruit diet.  Well he did and the problem cleared itself up.  That was over a decade ago.  But....he eventually went back to his habits of eating whatever he wanted.  Now of course he couldn't just be on fruit the rest of his life, but he doesn't watch his diet at all now.  So...his problems came back some even though he still isn't at death's door.

So...that's what I would do.  I would go 100% organic, stick to mostly raw fruits and veggies, do lots of clean water, juicing, fresh air, exercise, sunshine, rest etc.  I might move out further into the country to get the cleanest air possible.  And then...I wouldn't worry about it.

Now he's the question for the pro-amputation people.  What would you do if you found out you had a 90% chance of eventually developing brain cancer?

----------


## jmdrake

> As someone who saw his 21 year old sister in-law die in agony 9 months after being diagnosed and doing everything the doctors recommended and was even considered "out of the woods" only a month before her death ... I'd argue the chemo, radiation and surgery went through was pretty tragically ineffective as well.
> 
> I know people who have been cured by the hospitals remedy before also.
> 
> I know there are sad stories on both side. As for me and my research ... I feel there is more success going natural. If I or a loved one was diagnosed I would go to the Gerson hospital in Mexico for treatment who has a higher success rate than hospitals in the US.


Yep.  When a natural cure doesn't work, it's a tragedy.  When modern medicine doesn't work it's a statistic.

----------


## jmdrake

> take more precautions by regularly consulting a doctor, and having tests done. Plus, have all the sexy guys rub my boobs regularly to check for lumps.


Funniest commercial ever.

----------


## Carlybee

Well I know someone who eradicated a breast tumor with black salve aka balm of gilead and also someone who went into remission by using iodine therapy..she is also a naturopath. Now that's not saying these things will work if it has metasticized..I don't know. But if I had the gene but no cancer I would begin with agressive monitoring such as thermography and look into implementing an anti cancer diet first.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> If you want to know how to eat healthy, just consult the great "food pyramid" that the government has so graciously provided us with.  I'm sure angelatc would approve because *she loves to suck government cock*.


Did you seriously just call her out two posts before this post, posting 'look what type of horrible person she is for telling someone to $#@! themselves!' and then post this $#@!?

What type of a person does this make you then... ?

----------


## FriedChicken

wish people could leave the bitterness and name calling out of the conversation. Every thread in the health freedom sub-forum ends up this way - a showdown of disrespect. 
Exchanges of contrasting views doesn't have to get ugly.

I'm not saying I always practice what I preach, so that wish extends to my own behavior as well.

----------


## ninepointfive

> wish people could leave the bitterness and name calling out of the conversation. Every thread in the health freedom sub-forum ends up this way - a showdown of disrespect. 
> Exchanges of contrasting views doesn't have to get ugly.
> 
> I'm not saying I always practice what I preach, so that wish extends to my own behavior as well.



100% 

Actually I reported the offending forum member starting the negativity, and the mods did nothing but come to her aid. clear the deck.

----------


## fisharmor

> Just out of curiosity, what, exactly, would the  natural remedy crowd do if they knew for certain they had this breast  cancer gene that increased their odds of getting it to around  90%?


Well, as I hinted before, I'm not in the natural remedy crowd, I'm  in the "mainstream medicine has $#@!ed up too many times just in my  interactions with them for me to trust them farther than I can spit"  crowd.

So if it was me, I'd do what I always do: I'd look at all angles.
And believe me, Steve Jobs would be on the front of my mind the whole time.

----------


## Lucille

Profoundly affected indeed.




> Witnessing her mothers desperate six-year battle against ovarian cancer, which took her life aged 56, profoundly affected Angelina. Since her death, Angelina has suffered from depression and her relationship with Brad Pitt has experienced extreme lows as a result.
> 
> She once paid tribute to Marcheline, saying: I will never be as good a mother as she was. She was just grace incarnate. She was the most generous, loving  shes better than me.
> 
> So affected has Angelina been that she sometimes checks into the Raffles LErmitage hotel in Beverly Hills where her mother lived for the past two years of her life, to try to feel close to her.

----------


## amy31416

> Did you seriously just call her out two posts before this post, posting 'look what type of horrible person she is for telling someone to $#@! themselves!' and then post this $#@!?
> 
> What type of a person does this make you then... ?


Has Angela been harsh? Absolutely. But PCWV is a regular when it comes to the name-calling. In an evolution thread, I believe he went so far as to call me a "$#@!" or some sort of bitch (I think both), and I hadn't called him a thing. Then he whines on and on when someone's a meanie to him. I didn't report him or cry about it when he's called me something, so he really should shut his mouth or stop being the jerk he complains about.

----------


## angelatc

> Has Angela been harsh? Absolutely. But PCWV is a regular when it comes to the name-calling. In an evolution thread, I believe he went so far as to call me a "$#@!" or some sort of bitch (I think both), and I hadn't called him a thing. Then he whines on and on when someone's a meanie to him. I didn't report him or cry about it when he's called me something, so he really should shut his mouth or stop being the jerk he complains about.



I'm pretty sure I didn't call him any names here.  I generally keep him on ignore.

----------


## angelatc

> As someone whose father worked in cancer wards all over the world then developed cancer and died possibly as a result of it, certainly unable to benefit from it, anecdotal evidence tells me conventional medicine can be tragically ineffective.


I am sorry about your father. I'm usually a fan of irony, but not always.  My MIL and her sister were both nurses.

----------


## angelatc

> Now he's the question for the pro-amputation people.  What would you do if you found out you had a 90% chance of eventually developing brain cancer?



I wouldn't take medical advice from RonPaulForums.com.

----------


## amy31416

> I'm pretty sure I didn't call him any names here.  I generally keep him on ignore.


You probably didn't, I was just speaking generally.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

There are worse things than death. Fear not death, but the hell we are living in.

Why people 'fear' death so much I have no idea...it's like REM sleep at night, you'll have no idea what has happened, whereas in this life we must lead, we do feel, think, and live in intolerable conditions, and chopping off one your pleasure organs seems absurd. Quality > Quantity. Would you rather live to 65 and be active, fit, and healthy for those years, or live to 125 and be fragile, incontinent, at the mercy of your 'support' systems whether human or machine, and live a miserable existence? 

So, yeah, there are other things to consider than just life or death. Also, women should not act like their situation is SO much worse than Men's, when statistically, Men are much more likely to die from, and have prostate cancer than women with breast cancer. /shrug

----------


## MelissaWV

> Well I have my own anecdotal evidence of people given up for dead after doing conventional treatments who were completely cured after trying natural remedies.  And I've seen people, who should have known better, just accept the "the medical doctor said I have 6 months to live so I guess I'll go into hospice" prognosis...and die in 6 months.
> 
> 
> 
> Well as a guy I think the fair comparison would be if I found I had the testicular cancer equivalent.  ...
> 
> So...that's what I would do.  I would go 100% organic, stick to mostly raw fruits and veggies, do lots of clean water, juicing, fresh air, exercise, sunshine, rest etc.  I might move out further into the country to get the cleanest air possible.  And then...I wouldn't worry about it.
> 
> Now he's the question for the pro-amputation people.  What would you do if you found out you had a 90% chance of eventually developing brain cancer?


And all of that would factor into your decision.  It would be an informed one.  Two points, though:

1. Men do get breast cancer... and that rate is likely to go up due to numerous factors.
2. I don't think there are "pro-amputation" people here.  I think there are people who consider that it is an option... and would weigh that option in with the other ones.  I gave a variety of examples where people have sacrificed living, healthy tissue under the impression that it will prevent a much worse problem from manifesting.  This is just an extreme example.

----------


## jmdrake

> And all of that would factor into your decision.  It would be an informed one.  Two points, though:
> 
> 1. Men do get breast cancer... and that rate is likely to go up due to numerous factors.


Sure.  Richard Roundtree got breast cancer.  But I don't speaking for myself I'd be much less concerned about a pre-emptive male mastectomy as I would testicle removal.  And I think I'd be less concerned about a mastectomy as a man that I would be if I was a woman.  




> 2. I don't think there are "pro-amputation" people here.  I think there are people who consider that it is an option... and would weigh that option in with the other ones.  I gave a variety of examples where people have sacrificed living, healthy tissue under the impression that it will prevent a much worse problem from manifesting.  This is just an extreme example.


I would call Angela "pro-amputation".  She pretty much said I was crazy for saying I wouldn't want to pre-emptively get my balls cut off just because some genetic test said I had a high chance of getting testicular cancer.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Did you even bother to read the article?  Why does it seem that some of the people pushing "science" the hardest are being the least scientific?  The cliff notes version of the article is that the new science of epigenetics shows that our lifestyle choices affect what physical traits our descendants inherit.  It's not an "either / or" proposition.
> 
> ...


I did read it, and I find it a disingenuously titled article.  I was responding to prior posts discussing why the "gene for breast cancer" idea was just some kind of moneymaking falsehood.  There are certain things that make you much, MUCH more likely to get certain diseases.  I'm at zero risk for testicular cancer, for instance.  I have a higher risk of ovarian cancer than you do.

What some on the forums don't seem to admit, though, is that I am also at a much higher risk of gall bladder cancer than everyone else who's posted in this thread (unless I've mixed up who's who) on a simply genetic basis.  I can do all I'd like to reduce that risk, but eating well and pursuing every naturopathic remedy suggested to me will never bring my risk down to the level that most of the folks in the thread naturally have.  Why is that relevant?  By the time you start having gall bladder cancer symptoms and show up in the ER (or start seeking natural remedies, which will definitely cloud the diagnosis), the cancer is already advanced and likely impacting your liver and lymphatic symptoms.  In other words, once it pops up it is already very late in the game.  Even removal of the affected areas will not necessarily help you much.  The mortality rate is pretty grim for something that seems so unnecessary.  My grandmother has it.  My mother had issues with her gall bladder but it wasn't cancerous.  I am actually consulting with a few folks on the idea of just getting mine taken out now, and have previously talked about getting other things I'm not using much removed to preclude more health complications.  Am I basing this on environmental factors?  No.  Again, I could lower my risks a little bit with diet, but it will never make up for the genetic component.  That is why thinking that you can pray or diet or supplement or exercise every disease risk away is just as bad as thinking that none of those things will contribute at all.

I am much more a believer that our situations tend to be different from one another.  The article itself had a few good points, but all of it swims under the banner of genes simply not being that important compared to environment, except when it comes to mutations.  I addressed that in an earlier post, btw, so I'm not sure what you get out of insinuating I didn't read the article... when I referred to it and talked about portions of it.  

Somehow this has all evolved to "well if I had the gene I would eat better, etc." when it began with the affirmation that, really, there was no genetic marker for it.  It seems a wee bit contradictory.  

If it happens to your breasts, though, you may come to a decision about them.  Even if your decision was to do nothing at all, it'd be yours to have made, and in the end you're the one that has to live or die with choices on any portion of the spectrum.

----------


## angelatc

> I did read it, and I find it a disingenuously titled article.  I was responding to prior posts discussing why the "gene for breast cancer" idea was just some kind of moneymaking falsehood.  There are certain things that make you much, MUCH more likely to get certain diseases.  I'm at zero risk for testicular cancer, for instance.  I have a higher risk of ovarian cancer than you do.
> 
> What some on the forums don't seem to admit, though, is that I am also at a much higher risk of gall bladder cancer than everyone else who's posted in this thread (unless I've mixed up who's who) on a simply genetic basis. .



Uhm, maybe this is too personal and I am sorry if it is, but have you considered having your gall bladder removed preemptively?

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Has Angela been harsh? Absolutely. But PCWV is a regular when it comes to the name-calling. In an evolution thread, I believe he went so far as to call me a "$#@!" or some sort of bitch (I think both), and I hadn't called him a thing. Then he whines on and on when someone's a meanie to him. I didn't report him or cry about it when he's called me something, so he really should shut his mouth or stop being the jerk he complains about.


Oh he has called me names too.  Pretty sure if you have a vagina around here he's called you a $#@! or a bitch.

I leave it.  He looks like an ass, and isn't doing himself any favors.

----------


## Lucille

> There are worse things than death. Fear not death, but the hell we are living in.
> 
> Why people 'fear' death so much I have no idea...it's like REM sleep at night, you'll have no idea what has happened, whereas in this life we must lead, we do feel, think, and live in intolerable conditions, and chopping off one your pleasure organs seems absurd. Quality > Quantity. Would you rather live to 65 and be active, fit, and healthy for those years, or live to 125 and be fragile, incontinent, at the mercy of your 'support' systems whether human or machine, and live a miserable existence?


She's removing four sexual organs total.

Removing her ovaries is a much bigger deal than the breasts.  She will have to go on hormone replacement therapy, which does not help much at all and, ironically, increases cancer risk.  It also increases the risk of heart disease and other serious health issues (including psychological problems, which she already has).

She should really rethink that decision.  Her risk is 50% but I wouldn't do it.  It's not worth it.

----------


## jmdrake

While you might not like the article title, it is accurate.  Genes don't determine your health.  That doesn't mean they don't influence it.  And in your zeal to defend the right to choose pre-emptive mastectomy as an option, you seem to be looking over the fact that some of us were initially attacked in this thread *merely for offering other options*.  I feel for you in the decision that you have to make regarding your gallbladder.  I think I'd choose something other than its removal while it was still healthy if it was me.  I know I would if we were talking about my testes.  Of course all of these decisions are affected by how we all think about our own bodies, our own personal experience with natural and "modern" medicine, the personal research we've done, and a whole host of other things.




> I did read it, and I find it a disingenuously titled article.  I was responding to prior posts discussing why the "gene for breast cancer" idea was just some kind of moneymaking falsehood.  There are certain things that make you much, MUCH more likely to get certain diseases.  I'm at zero risk for testicular cancer, for instance.  I have a higher risk of ovarian cancer than you do.
> 
> What some on the forums don't seem to admit, though, is that I am also at a much higher risk of gall bladder cancer than everyone else who's posted in this thread (unless I've mixed up who's who) on a simply genetic basis.  I can do all I'd like to reduce that risk, but eating well and pursuing every naturopathic remedy suggested to me will never bring my risk down to the level that most of the folks in the thread naturally have.  Why is that relevant?  By the time you start having gall bladder cancer symptoms and show up in the ER (or start seeking natural remedies, which will definitely cloud the diagnosis), the cancer is already advanced and likely impacting your liver and lymphatic symptoms.  In other words, once it pops up it is already very late in the game.  Even removal of the affected areas will not necessarily help you much.  The mortality rate is pretty grim for something that seems so unnecessary.  My grandmother has it.  My mother had issues with her gall bladder but it wasn't cancerous.  I am actually consulting with a few folks on the idea of just getting mine taken out now, and have previously talked about getting other things I'm not using much removed to preclude more health complications.  Am I basing this on environmental factors?  No.  Again, I could lower my risks a little bit with diet, but it will never make up for the genetic component.  That is why thinking that you can pray or diet or supplement or exercise every disease risk away is just as bad as thinking that none of those things will contribute at all.
> 
> I am much more a believer that our situations tend to be different from one another.  The article itself had a few good points, but all of it swims under the banner of genes simply not being that important compared to environment, except when it comes to mutations.  I addressed that in an earlier post, btw, so I'm not sure what you get out of insinuating I didn't read the article... when I referred to it and talked about portions of it.  
> 
> Somehow this has all evolved to "well if I had the gene I would eat better, etc." when it began with the affirmation that, really, there was no genetic marker for it.  It seems a wee bit contradictory.  
> 
> If it happens to your breasts, though, you may come to a decision about them.  Even if your decision was to do nothing at all, it'd be yours to have made, and in the end you're the one that has to live or die with choices on any portion of the spectrum.

----------


## angelatc

> Sure.  Richard Roundtree got breast cancer.  But I don't speaking for myself I'd be much less concerned about a pre-emptive male mastectomy as I would testicle removal.  And I think I'd be less concerned about a mastectomy as a man that I would be if I was a woman.  
> 
> 
> 
> I would call Angela "pro-amputation".  She pretty much said I was crazy for saying I wouldn't want to pre-emptively get my balls cut off just because some genetic test said I had a high chance of getting testicular cancer.



I don't care what you do with your balls.  But I would indeed think you were crazy for not getting them cut off if it would immediately reduce your astronomically high chance of getting cancer.

Heck, I also think it's weird that men are so utterly attached to their balls. Shoot - most of them balk at the thought of a mere vasectomy, and it's not because they're sissies about pain - it's that they seem to associate their entire persona with their sex organs.

But that's got nothing to do with cancer. It's just a guy thing.

----------


## angelatc

> She's removing four sexual organs total.
> 
> Removing her ovaries is a much bigger deal than the breasts.  She will have to go on hormone replacement therapy, which does not help much at all and, ironically, increases cancer risk.  It also increases the risk of heart disease and other serious health issues (including psychological problems, which she already has).
> 
> She should really rethink that decision.  Her risk is 50% but I wouldn't do it.  It's not worth it.



Ovarian cancer is one of the most painful cancers there is.   I'd definitely do it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't care what you do with your balls.  But I would indeed think you were crazy for not getting them cut off if it would immediately reduce your astronomically high chance of getting cancer.
> 
> Heck,* I also think it's weird that men are so utterly attached to their balls.* Shoot - most of them balk at the thought of a mere vasectomy, and it's not because they're sissies about pain - it's that they seem to associate their entire persona with their sex organs.
> 
> But that's got nothing to do with cancer. It's just a guy thing.


Where do you think males' testosterone comes from?  The balls are pretty handy for that.  In a way, a man's persona is shaped by his genitals.  A problem "down there" is invariably going to result in problems elsewhere.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Uhm, maybe this is too personal and I am sorry if it is, but have you considered having your gall bladder removed preemptively?


I am considering it, and I am only just starting to get fully educated on the subject.  I have opted against pre-emptive removal of an organ or two in the past, but  gall bladder surgery is thankfully not that intense and the post-surgical lifestyle changes are minimal.

* * *

As to jm, the example was more about the genetic component.  For some diseases, the genetic portion cannot be mitigated reliably by environmental adjustments, so in fact it IS determined by your genes.  It depends greatly on the disease.  I'm not a big believer in getting something lopped off if it doesn't need to be (see above; I've considered it and decided against it before), but if someone else does it, it's their business, rather like those plastic surgery people who get 1000 procedures done and look godawful to me.  




> And in your zeal to defend the right to choose pre-emptive mastectomy as an option, you seem to be looking over the fact that some of us were initially attacked in this thread merely for offering other options.


I haven't.  In your zeal to condemn it (feels weird when someone else twists your position...) you seem to be overlooking the fact that some of us were initially attacked in this thread merely for saying it was her business.

Honestly, it really does come down to that, and though I cringe at the idea that someone might consider it "brave" or "trendy" to favor this course over another based solely on "Angelina did it," I hope that most people would take their medical decisions more seriously than that.  I haven't condoned attacks on either side of this.  I do get annoyed at certain folks who literally think everyone who takes a pill or goes to the hospital or gets more "mainstream" treatment is a total idiot, and feel an intense need to say so, when in fact their own preferred course of treatment has no better track record. 

In the end there's no cure for eventually dying.  I'll be damned if I'm going to do it counting apricot seeds into the palm of my hand, or staring at the next dose of chemotherapy   but that's just me.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't care what you do with your balls.  But I would indeed think you were crazy for not getting them cut off if it would immediately reduce your astronomically high chance of getting cancer.
> 
> Heck, I also think it's weird that men are so utterly attached to their balls. Shoot - most of them balk at the thought of a mere vasectomy, and it's not because they're sissies about pain - it's that they seem to associate their entire persona with their sex organs.
> 
> But that's got nothing to do with cancer. It's just a guy thing.


For the record I wouldn't get my gallbladder cut out either, but largely because I know there are other ways to astronomically reduce my chances of getting cancer, even if you don't understand the science enough to get it.  But thank you for further proving my point to MelissaVW.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> *Where do you think males' testosterone comes from?  The balls are pretty handy for that.  In a way, a man's persona is shaped by his genitals*.  A problem "down there" is invariably going to result in problems elsewhere.


And where does a woman's estrogen (and testosterone, for that matter) come from?  Yet many women get hysterectomies and oophorectomies - which are risky surgeries with a LOT of downtime, unfortunately - simply because their husbands refuse to even consider the possibility of having a vasectomy.  A vasectomy is an in and out simple procedure (you can even return to work that day) and science is getting close to being able to make it reversible if the man so chooses...

*Edit:* Just pointing it out.

----------


## amy31416

> Oh he has called me names too.  Pretty sure if you have a vagina around here he's called you a $#@! or a bitch.
> 
> I leave it.  He looks like an ass, and isn't doing himself any favors.


Good. That's just one of the reasons I'd never report it.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> I don't care what you do with your balls.  But I would indeed think you were crazy for not getting them cut off if it would immediately reduce your astronomically high chance of getting cancer.
> 
> Heck, I also think it's weird that men are so utterly attached to their balls. Shoot - most of them balk at the thought of a mere vasectomy, and it's not because they're sissies about pain - it's that they seem to associate their entire persona with their sex organs.
> 
> But that's got nothing to do with cancer. It's just a guy thing.


Its not weird. Its the most evolutionary important element of the male human body. And it also shapes personality. I wouldn't give up my balls.

Slutter McGee

EDIT: The world will be much better with little mini Slutter McGees running about everywhere.

----------


## jmdrake

> As to jm, the example was more about the genetic component.  For some diseases, the genetic portion cannot be mitigated reliably by environmental adjustments, so in fact it IS determined by your genes.


The evidence that I've seen and presented suggests that genetic breast cancer risk can be mitigated.  And the article was pointing out that even which genes get turned on when they are  passed on to your offspring can be mitigated.  That's important considering that someone said one of her female relatives decided not to ever have kids for fear she might pass on a bad cancer gene.




> I haven't.  In your zeal to condemn it (feels weird when someone else twists your position...) you seem to be overlooking the fact that some of us were initially attacked in this thread merely for saying it was her business.


You haven't defended the right to choose mastectomy as an option?  Ummmm...but okay.  I don't see how that's true, but okay.  I have not condemned the mastectomy choice, but have consistently pointed out other options.  I don't even know why you apparently feel insulted by my pointing out that you are zealously defending what is a legitimate option.  Should it not be defended?  




> Honestly, it really does come down to that, and though I cringe at the idea that someone might consider it "brave" or "trendy" to favor this course over another based solely on "Angelina did it," I hope that most people would take their medical decisions more seriously than that.  I haven't condoned attacks on either side of this.  I do get annoyed at certain folks who literally think everyone who takes a pill or goes to the hospital or gets more "mainstream" treatment is a total idiot, and feel an intense need to say so, when in fact their own preferred course of treatment has no better track record.


Fine.




> In the end there's no cure for eventually dying.  I'll be damned if I'm going to do it counting apricot seeds into the palm of my hand, or staring at the next dose of chemotherapy   but that's just me.


True.  We all have to make our own life choices.

----------


## jmdrake

> And where does a woman's estrogen (and testosterone, for that matter) come from?  Yet many women get hysterectomies and oophorectomies - which are risky surgeries with a LOT of downtime, unfortunately - simply because their husbands refuse to even consider the possibility of having a vasectomy.  A vasectomy is an in and out simple procedure (you can even return to work that day) and science is getting close to being able to make it reversible if the man so chooses...
> 
> *Edit:* Just pointing it out.


A) You left out tubal ligation.  Tubal ligation is reversible (unlike hysterectomies and oophorectomies)

B) If we're going with NAP and each person having full say over his/her own body, why should a male have to consider having a vasectomy if he's not pushing his partner to have tubal ligation?  Isn't it a little selfish for a woman to say "I don't want any more kids so you should have your thing cut?"

C) Women have long had "the pill" as an ongoing option.

D) I had a vasectomy and now regret it and it was strictly based on the "I don't want any more kids and I think you should have the surgery" position of the now ex-wife.

E) Thankfully there is a better option for men now.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1400708.html

----------


## MelissaWV

> A) You left out tubal ligation.
> 
> B) If we're going with NAP and each person having full say over his/her own body, why should a male have to consider having a vasectomy if he's not pushing his partner to have tubal ligation?  Isn't it a little selfish for a woman to say "I don't want any more kids so you should have your thing cut?"
> 
> C) Women have long had "the pill" as an ongoing option.
> 
> D) I had a vasectomy and now regret it and it was strictly based on the "I don't want any more kids and I think you should have the surgery" position of the now ex-wife.
> 
> E) Thankfully there is a better option for men now.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1400708.html


Wow.

Okay point by point...

A) Tubal ligation is still a risky surgery, with significant downtime.

B) If a COUPLE wants no more children, they should weigh their options.  From a strictly logical standpoint, the surgery with the least risk and least downtime would be preferable to one that can cause a whole lot of issues.  They may not decide that way.  Neither party should get pressured into it, and there are myriad birth control options out there these days.

C) Many women cannot use "the pill" or a lot of other options.  This would be something to consider.

D) You let yourself be pressured into that, and it absolutely stinks.  Maybe a reversal is in order, if it is medically plausible for you?

E) Yep there are a lot of options on both sides now.

----------


## MelissaWV

Tubal ligation:




> Its mortality rates in Bangladesh, the UK, and US, are 1/5000, 1/10,000, and 1/25,000, respectively. Women experience complications both during and after surgery (e.g., twisting of the tube, sometimes accompanied by gangrene, and accumulation of fluid in a tube). After tubal ligation, many women develop endometriosis. Torsion, hydrosalpinx, and/or endometriosis contribute to increased menstrual pain. Disturbance of the local flora can cause sepsis (e.g., toxic shock syndrome). Some women have a severe inflammatory reaction to the silicone in clips and rings. Tubal ligation may be linked to an increased risk of cervical cancer.
> 
> Many sterilized women eventually undergo hysterectomy. Many women experience excessive bleeding during menstruation, but many physicians discount this as women not knowing their own bodies and subjective estimates of blood loss. Impaired ovarian blood supply and altered nerve supply to the tube and/or ovary are possible causes for post-tubal ligation menstruation problems. Many women experience memory loss, general decline in feeling of well-being, lethargy, and loss of libido after tubal ligation, indicating a spontaneous iatrogenic menopause.


You could go the natural route, too

----------


## RockEnds

> I am sorry about your father. I'm usually a fan of irony, but not always.  My MIL and her sister were both nurses.


Thanks Angela.  He was a technician.  They gave him radiation therapy on a machine he installed himself, but the hair of the dog just didn't work out.  He was done after one treatment.  He was a good guy.  A better person than me.

----------


## jmdrake

> Wow.
> 
> Okay point by point...
> 
> A) Tubal ligation is still a risky surgery, with significant downtime.
> 
> B) If a COUPLE wants no more children, they should weigh their options.  From a strictly logical standpoint, the surgery with the least risk and least downtime would be preferable to one that can cause a whole lot of issues.  They may not decide that way.  Neither party should get pressured into it, and there are myriad birth control options out there these days.
> 
> C) Many women cannot use "the pill" or a lot of other options.  This would be something to consider.
> ...


I would only consider a reversal *if* I met and married some other woman that really wanted to have kids with me, and then I'd have to think about it.  You see, I was told it would be painless and easy....but it wasn't.  I got a hematoma and was done for a few weeks.  It was swollen up like an orange.  Yeah I know.  Supposedly tubal ligation is statistically worse.  Anyway, I don't fully blame the ex.  She did tell here obgyn she wanted her tubes tied when she delivered.  The obgyn (also a woman) refused and said "Lots of women say that when their going through pregnancy and then change their minds.  We'll talk about it a few months later."  Well the change of mind was on who was getting what.    Anyway it's all good.  I'm probably too old to start again changing diapers.

----------


## jmdrake

> Tubal ligation:
> 
> 
> 
> You could go the natural route, too


I know you jest, but yes there is the rhythm method.  And on top of the diaphragms, condoms, cervical caps, IUDs...hey, where was RPF back in 2003 when I needed it?

----------


## MelissaWV

> I know you jest, but yes there is the rhythm method.  And on top of the diaphragms, condoms, cervical caps, IUDs...hey, where was RPF back in 2003 when I needed it?


I don't really jest, actually, though pretty much everything has its "oops" level (that even includes vasectomies).  A lot of societies had their herbal versions of birth control even before they were sure "how babby was formed."

RPF was just a twinkle in Josh's eye in 2003.

----------


## Origanalist

> Thanks Angela.  He was a technician.  They gave him radiation therapy on a machine he installed himself, but the hair of the dog just didn't work out.  He was done after one treatment.  He was a good guy.  A better person than me.


Radiation treatment is hardcore. I made them stop mine before they were done.

----------


## angelatc

> For the record I wouldn't get my gallbladder cut out either, but largely because I know there are other ways to astronomically reduce my chances of getting cancer, even if you don't understand the science enough to get it.  But thank you for further proving my point to MelissaVW.



I still think you're wrong. I think that the "live healthy and you will run a lower risk of getting cancer" is true, but that the genetic defect trumps that.  I mean, I'm looking at Angelina Jolie and thinking she probably doesn't eat fast food every night.

----------


## jmdrake

> I still think you're wrong. I think that the "live healthy and you will run a lower risk of getting cancer" is true, but that the genetic defect trumps that.  I mean, I'm looking at Angelina Jolie and thinking she probably doesn't eat fast food every night.


You're entitled to your opinion.  Just realize that that's what it is...an opinion.  And realize that other people have other opinions and have reasons for their opinions that are just as scientific and just as valid as yours.  As far as what Angelina Jolie eats....there are lots of people that eat garbage and still look good.  Then again, she could be eating healthy as well.  That really doesn't change any point I've made though.

Edit: And FTR, adopting as healthy of a lifestyle as possible may go beyond just not eating junk food.  Case in point the anecdote I have of the ex-brother-in-law that went on a 100% fruit diet for his colitus.  I guess my point is, for most people there is always room for improvement.  I don't eat junk food, but if I was facing a cancer risk, I would make a quantum leap in my lifestyle.  The woman I mentioned early went straight raw fruits and veggies to beat her cancer.  And she had been put on a death watch.  And again, everyone has to make their own choice for mitigating risk.  

Edit 2: Also there might be specific foods that one might need to eat more of to fight ward off specific disease.  Again you mentioned tamoxifen as a possible preventative measure for breast cancer.  But, again, there are natural alternatives for tamoxifen.

----------


## RockEnds

> Just out of curiosity, what, exactly, would the natural remedy crowd do if they knew for certain they had this breast cancer gene that increased their odds of getting it to around 90%?


I meant to answer this yesterday, but I didn't get back to it.  Sorry.  It's a good question that deserves an answer.

First, SCOTUS must decide that brca isn't a privately owned gene.  I'll pay $99 to get a million snps genome wide done, but I won't pay $3500 to get 2 genes tested.  Not happenin'.

_If_ the test becomes affordable, and I learn I have the gene, I won't be shocked.   I also won't be worried about breast or ovarian cancer since I don't have a family history of those.  I do, however, have a family history of uterine, colon, and stomach cancer.  I also know I have other genes that increase my odds of developing stomach and pancreatic cancer.  All of those cancers are also associated with brca mutations.  

Honestly, I don't think the results of a brca test would have much of an impact on my decisions one way or another.  Whether the test would be positive or negative, I would still have the same family history.  The only thing that could change the family history is to learn that there was a non-paternal event.  If one of my grandpas wasn't really my grandpa, and it turned out that one of my parents had a handful of unknown sisters, all of whom died of breast cancer, then that would change the equation.  I still don't see myself running to have surgery before symptoms.  If I were given to that, I would have had the hysterectomy back in the 90s.  

But that's just me, and it's just my decision.  I'm aware that I may pay for that decision with my life.  And to me, the information is the most important.  Genetic testing is the most useful to those who do NOT have a family medical history.  I was in that position until the age of 21.  One of the very first things both of my parents told me when I met them was who died of what cancers, and what medical concerns I should entertain.  I think the genetic testing is a very personal choice, and the decisions made with the information obtained from that testing is an equally personal choice.  The science is not perfect.  No test can tell someone when or if they will develop a particular type of cancer.  Any decision we make is a roll of the dice.  Each time I have surgery, it's a roll of the dice because I have a mutation that makes me function less than optimally under anesthesia.  Even with that gene, maybe it'll be okay.  Maybe it won't.  I have one good marker, and one that doesn't do what it needs to do.  

It's a gamble.  Any decision in either direction is a gamble.  Personally, I would rather do the dietary changes.  I would rather take the gamble with natural medicine.  It's my personal choice.  I don't expect the rest of the world to make the same decision.  I do expect that others won't throw rotten tomatoes over the choice I've made.  That's all.

----------


## jllundqu

RIP, beautiful breasts, RIP

----------


## jj-

She wanted to get rid of her breasts for some weird reason (she seems a bit nuts), and used the genetics thing as an excuse.

----------


## jj-

> Why do you not believe in science?


LOL, As if "science" was one list of things to believe, and there was only one theory. There are scientists who recognize the influence of genes, but point out that lifestyle and nutrition are more important factors when it comes to getting cancer. You could do many things to reduce chances of getting cancer, one very well documented example is getting your vitamin D level up, preferably through sun exposure, avoiding vegetable oils, even consuming aspirin, and keeping stress low.

----------


## jj-

> $#@! you.
> 
> Nobody told them they would be dead of cancer.  They were tested for the gene because the women in their family die from cancer. It's gone on for generations.   If you can smugly sit there on your smug little chair and seriously blame them for dying, assuming you've got some secret mystery cure that someone in that family didn't try, there's something  seriously $#@!ing wrong with you.
> 
> It's genetic.  Science FTW!


Wow. What a lunatic.

----------


## jj-

> I'm pretty sure we will find out in a few years that this procedure actually increases the chances of breast cancer.


It won't be surprising to find in a few years that removing her ovaries might alter her hormonal balance and increase the risk for other cancers.

----------


## jj-

> Just out of curiosity, what, exactly, would the natural remedy crowd do if they knew for certain they had this breast cancer gene that increased their odds of getting it to around 90%?


There is not one "natural crowd". There are lots of diversity, and disputes, and attacks. I follow alternative views on medicine, but if you ask me what I'd do, it'd probably be different from what dannno or donnay might do.

----------


## amy31416

> There is not one "natural crowd". There are lots of diversity, and disputes, and attacks. I follow alternative views on medicine, but if you ask me what I'd do, it'd probably be different from what dannno or donnay might do.


That's part of my point--it's all very vague and nebulous. Anything from "take care of yourself, eat better," to B17 to "smoke pot" to eating apricot seeds. I can't make much of it, and some folks who post, it really sounds like gibberish or that people who have the condition have been targeted by the gov't. When it comes down to brass tacks, there's no clarity, and many of the so-called experts come off as charlatans.

I'm still open to it because of the research I've done independently on some things, but the bad rap that natural remedies often get can be just as deserved as the bad rap that traditional medicine gets.

----------


## jj-

> That's part of my point--it's all very vague and nebulous. Anything from "take care of yourself, eat better," to B17 to "smoke pot" to eating apricot seeds. I can't make much of it, and some folks who post, it really sounds like gibberish or that people who have the condition have been targeted by the gov't. When it comes down to brass tacks, there's no clarity, and many of the so-called experts come off as charlatans.
> 
> I'm still open to it because of the research I've done independently on some things, but the bad rap that natural remedies often get can be just as deserved as the bad rap that traditional medicine gets.


I disagree, that's because you put them all in one group, the "natural crowd". If you're more specific, they have specific suggestions, for example, the Ray Peat crowd will mention that rats in a fat-free diet tend to not get cancer, and will use that to advise you to avoid all significant sources of polyunsaturated fats. They'll also advise you to keep your metabolism high and to avoid soy and raw vegetables, while having at least 80 grams of protein a day, have aspirin as it reduces the chances of some cancers while giving you other benefits. Having vitamin K2 will counteract the blood-thinning effects of aspirin, and this vitamin also has reduced the chances of prostate cancer in rats. If you do get cancer, they might advise you to use thyroid to increase you metabolism until you have a pulse of 90. So they have very specific advice. If you get prostate cancer, for example, they would treat it with pregnenolone, progesterone, and thyroid, anti-estrogen substances, because they think relative high estrogen is the cause of prostate cancer. Again, there is clarity in the advice.

----------


## SewrRatt

*I don't know if it applies to this particular statistic or not,* but a lot of studies basically mislead people when they say something like "if you have this gene you have an 87% chance of getting breast cancer." What they really mean is 87% of people in their study with the gene developed breast cancer. That's not the same thing as you personally having an 87% chance of getting cancer. Correlation is not causation.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

I heard on a segment about Angelina Jolie that her mother was a health-nut (essentially) and lived her life every day in fear she was going to develop cancer, and ate healthy, drank healthy (including lemon with apple vinegar everyday, according to Angelina's stepfather), etc.

Angelina adopted her mother's health-conscious views and she herself was very pro-organic, and was on an all-organic diet when she was pregnant and breastfeeding, and probably longer.

----------


## erowe1

> *I don't know if it applies to this particular statistic or not,* but a lot of studies basically mislead people when they say something like "if you have this gene you have an 87% chance of getting breast cancer." What they really mean is 87% of people in their study with the gene developed breast cancer. That's not the same thing as you personally having an 87% chance of getting cancer. Correlation is not causation.


Isn't correlation enough here?

----------


## RockEnds

> I heard on a segment about Angelina Jolie that her mother was a health-nut (essentially) and lived her life every day in fear she was going to develop cancer, and ate healthy, drank healthy (including lemon with apple vinegar everyday, according to Angelina's stepfather), etc.
> 
> Angelina adopted her mother's health-conscious views and she herself was very pro-organic, and was on an all-organic diet when she was pregnant and breastfeeding, and probably longer.


Oh, from the way things sound, she had reason to believe she was at risk.  People do this.  It happens all the time.  It's a huge decision, and hopefully people will really do their research and think twice before jumping on the bandwagon, but it's not a completely unreasonable decision given her family history coupled with the fact that she inherited the gene.  My biggest gripe with her isn't that she had it done or even that she seems to be promoting it.  I do have genuine issues with the fact that she seems to be promoting a genetic test that is quite expensive due to the fact that the gene itself is recognized as corporate owned when in fact, family history is still the biggest indicator of risk to an individual.  She has the family history.  That's WHY she had the test.  

She is an adoptive mother and should understand as well as anyone that many people in this country are legally prohibited the opportunity to make contact with their family and learn their medical risks.  She has made no statement about that at all.  Nothing.  Her focus has been around this test and her own personal experience with her mother.  This test is cost prohibitive.  Approximately 3 percent of the population is adopted, and no one knows how many of those individuals have cleared the legal hurdles necessary to get the information they need to contact their mom, or cousin Sue, or Uncle Joe to at least have an opportunity to know what health risks they and their descendants may face.  Genetic testing is helpful to those individuals, but it is NOT a replacement for family medical history.  

I didn't think much of her to begin with.  I think less of her for not addressing that issue given her intimacy with it.

----------


## donnay

100 Years of US Medical Fascism
http://mises.org/daily/4276




> "We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released. But consider - if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as something else."
> 
> - Dr. Richard Day, Medical Director, Planned Parenthood
> - March 20, 1969


See Congressional Record from 1953 talking about suppression of cancer treatments:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?bdn7d6i2m0uyt80

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's part of my point--it's all very vague and nebulous. Anything from "take care of yourself, eat better," to B17 to "smoke pot" to eating apricot seeds. I can't make much of it, and some folks who post, it really sounds like gibberish or that people who have the condition have been targeted by the gov't. When it comes down to brass tacks, there's no clarity, and many of the so-called experts come off as charlatans.
> 
> I'm still open to it because of the research I've done independently on some things, but the bad rap that natural remedies often get can be just as deserved as the bad rap that traditional medicine gets.


Unfortunately, legitimate science WRT diet, exercise, and supplementation gets mixed up with quackery more often than not.   That's why free information you find in nutrition and health tabloids is worth what it costs-nothing.  As a general rule, you're going to incur _some_ expense to get useful information-consulting a nutritionist, working with a trainer, etc.

----------


## green73

Man has Prostate Removed After Tests Reveal 'Jolie' Gene Flaw

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/46...lina-jolie.htm

thread
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...olie-Gene-Flaw

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Oh, from the way things sound, she had reason to believe she was at risk.  People do this.  It happens all the time.  It's a huge decision, and hopefully people will really do their research and think twice before jumping on the bandwagon, but it's not a completely unreasonable decision given her family history coupled with the fact that she inherited the gene.  My biggest gripe with her isn't that she had it done or even that she seems to be promoting it.  I do have genuine issues with the fact that she seems to be promoting a genetic test that is quite expensive due to the fact that the gene itself is recognized as corporate owned when in fact, family history is still the biggest indicator of risk to an individual.  She has the family history.  That's WHY she had the test.  
> 
> She is an adoptive mother and should understand as well as anyone that many people in this country are legally prohibited the opportunity to make contact with their family and learn their medical risks.  She has made no statement about that at all.  Nothing.  Her focus has been around this test and her own personal experience with her mother.  This test is cost prohibitive.  Approximately 3 percent of the population is adopted, and no one knows how many of those individuals have cleared the legal hurdles necessary to get the information they need to contact their mom, or cousin Sue, or Uncle Joe to at least have an opportunity to know what health risks they and their descendants may face.  Genetic testing is helpful to those individuals, but it is NOT a replacement for family medical history.  
> 
> I didn't think much of her to begin with.  I think less of her for not addressing that issue given her intimacy with it.


Interesting post. Thanks.

----------


## jmdrake

> Man has Prostate Removed After Tests Reveal 'Jolie' Gene Flaw
> 
> http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/46...lina-jolie.htm
> 
> thread
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...olie-Gene-Flaw


SMH.  So what happens when someone has a brain cancer gene?  I don't care what any "angie" thinks about it.  There's no way in hell I'd do that.  No way in hell.

----------


## amy31416

> SMH.  So what happens when someone has a brain cancer gene?  I don't care what any "angie" thinks about it.  There's no way in hell I'd do that.  No way in hell.


The "brain cancer gene" is not a reasonable comparison because you generally can't live without your brain, so you'd have the same result (death) faster. Pick another.

And I don't think anyone's saying that you should pre-emptively remove anything, but it is a discussion on options. Nobody's saying you should, nobody's saying you shouldn't try other options if you find yourself in such an unfortunate position.

It is strange to me that men are generally freaking out more about a woman deciding to have a pre-emptive surgery on her breasts. I don't care what some guy with the genes for testicular cancer does unless he's a close relative or friend.

----------


## Lucille

Left-libertarian Arthur Silber takes it apart like only he can.

The Ruling Class as Full-Time Sadistic Torturers 
http://www.powerofnarrative.blogspot...-sadistic.html




> The New York Times is perhaps the primary journalistic organ of the ruling class. It is written by and for the benefit of the ruling class. They don't write it for you and me, bub, not in any positive sense. They write it to manipulate us, to keep us in our place, to make sure we mind our betters, to make sure we follow orders. When you're regularly reminded of how utterly worthless you are if you are not blessed by power and wealth, you won't protest too much. You're merely a piece of $#@!. The ruling class doesn't listen to $#@!, and it certainly doesn't try to educate it. It gets rid of $#@!. You see this dynamic at work in the Times in matters large and small, in ways that are laughable and in ways that are horrifying.
> [...]
> So we come to Angelina Jolie and her widely-read, widely-praised article, "My Medical Choice." It is an article written by an unimaginably privileged person, about procedures available only to those who are enormously privileged. Those who can afford to do what Jolie did (even if it's only being tested in the way she was) almost certainly already have all the information she offers. As for everyone else -- which is most people -- well, it's just another meal or ticket they will never be able to afford, another trip they can never take, another home they can only look at and gape in wonder that people live in such splendor.* This is how the people who matter live, you worthless, putrid thing; gaze in wonder on your betters. Of course, in this case she's talking about people's lives, so the contrast is much starker. Jolie's article is an exercise in narcissistic self-congratulation; it is immensely sadistic and cruel.*
> 
> Oh, Arthur, some will wail. She's sharing, she's trying to educate. How can anyone be angry about that? If it is impossible for most people to take any of the actions Jolie recommends, what's the point -- except to remind them that they will never be able to avail themselves of procedures that might save their lives? To remind people of matters of this kind is cruel, unforgivably so in my view. Here's Ruth Fowler:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Seraphim

All your tits r belong to us!

----------


## FSP-Rebel

So, do these women that undergo this surgery have fake ones put back in or what?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The "brain cancer gene" is not a reasonable comparison because you generally can't live without your brain, so you'd have the same result (death) faster. Pick another.
> 
> And I don't think anyone's saying that you should pre-emptively remove anything, but it is a discussion on options. Nobody's saying you should, nobody's saying you shouldn't try other options if you find yourself in such an unfortunate position.
> *
> It is strange to me that men are generally freaking out more about a woman deciding to have a pre-emptive surgery on her breasts.* I don't care what some guy with the genes for testicular cancer does unless he's a close relative or friend.


Why strange?  You know us boys like our toys.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> The "brain cancer gene" is not a reasonable comparison *because you generally can't live without your brain*


I don't know about that. Last time I checked the GOP and Democrats got a combined 98.3% of the vote in 2012.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't know about that. Last time I checked the GOP and Democrats got a combined 98.3% of the vote in 2012.


+rep  LOLZ

----------


## jmdrake

> The "brain cancer gene" is not a reasonable comparison because you generally can't live without your brain, so you'd have the same result (death) faster. Pick another.


Say if you had a particular cancer that was known to start only in the frontal lobe?




> And I don't think anyone's saying that you should pre-emptively remove anything, but it is a discussion on options. Nobody's saying you should, nobody's saying you shouldn't try other options if you find yourself in such an unfortunate position.


SMH *Angela called me a moron for saying that I wouldn't pre-emptively cut off my balls if I had a gene linked to testicular cancer!  I don't know why the women in this thread want to call out Paul and not Angela.  Then again....maybe that is obvious.*




> It is strange to me that men are generally freaking out more about a woman deciding to have a pre-emptive surgery on her breasts. I don't care what some guy with the genes for testicular cancer does unless he's a close relative or friend.


I find it strange that you are over-exaggerating the position of men in this thread, ignoring the women, like donnay, that agree with their position, and ignoring women like Angela who attack men for saying they wouldn't want their balls cut off if they had a cancer gene.  My position *stated on page one* was merely to note that I personally knew a woman who had breast cancer, was told she wouldn't survive, took natural medicines, and is now doing well.  That generated a "$#@! you" from Angela.  I'm not shocked.  While lately she and I had been getting along, I have seen her go off like that for no justifiable reason before.  I'm just sad that you and other women in this thread seem to not be willing to call her out on it and instead turn your criticism, unjustifiably IMO, at the men.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Just as her Mom died of cancer (ovarian in her case), Jolie's aunt has now also died from (breast) cancer. 

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/e...3-e9ddd820cbda




> ESCONDIDO, Calif. (AP)  Less than two weeks after Angelina Jolie revealed she'd had a double mastectomy to avoid breast cancer, her aunt died from the disease Sunday.
> 
> Debbie Martin died at age 61 at a hospital in Escondido, Calif., near San Diego, her husband, Ron Martin, told The Associated Press.
> 
> Debbie Martin was the younger sister of Jolie's mother, Marcheline Bertrand, whose own death from ovarian cancer in 2007 inspired the surgery that Jolie described in a May 14 op-ed in the New York Times.


More at link.

----------


## amy31416

> Say if you had a particular cancer that was known to start only in the frontal lobe?
> 
> 
> 
> SMH *Angela called me a moron for saying that I wouldn't pre-emptively cut off my balls if I had a gene linked to testicular cancer!  I don't know why the women in this thread want to call out Paul and not Angela.  Then again....maybe that is obvious.*
> 
> 
> 
> I find it strange that you are over-exaggerating the position of men in this thread, ignoring the women, like donnay, that agree with their position, and ignoring women like Angela who attack men for saying they wouldn't want their balls cut off if they had a cancer gene.  My position *stated on page one* was merely to note that I personally knew a woman who had breast cancer, was told she wouldn't survive, took natural medicines, and is now doing well.  That generated a "$#@! you" from Angela.  I'm not shocked.  While lately she and I had been getting along, I have seen her go off like that for no justifiable reason before.  I'm just sad that you and other women in this thread seem to not be willing to call her out on it and instead turn your criticism, unjustifiably IMO, at the men.


I'll be totally honest. I don't believe that your friend was cured by "natural" means. I am more critical of men because it's none of your business unless it's someone close to you, and you'd better take responsibility for your advice to them.

----------


## FriedChicken

> I'll be totally honest. I don't believe that your friend was cured by "natural" means. I am more critical of men because it's none of your business unless it's someone close to you, and you'd better take responsibility for your advice to them.


Just out of curiosity - are you saying the story is a lie or otherwise distorted or that you contribute her survival to a factor other than her change in lifestyle? 

In Japan there are at least two major hospitals that use a method referred to as the "advanced Gerson" method and have documented many good results. I don't know their over-all cure rate but enough of their patients live to justify two hospitals using the method. The conditions they have had success with include advance stage cancers.
In the US the medical community has labeled the method dangerous and kooky and have outlawed any medical doctor or hospital from administering the treatment. There was a hospital that tried to open in California and was forced to move to Mexico (it is run by American trained/certified doctors).

They have documented success stories as well, some of their patients went to them as a last resort after being told there was nothing more traditional treatment could do for them and survived under the care of the hospital.

I'm honestly curious, not in a accusing way, if you think that the success of the treatments (whatever the success rate may be, I don't have the stats) is a farce or explained by a factor other than the change in treatment.

----------


## FriedChicken

Personally I'm a fan of the nutritional cures, but there is also what some might consider more 'scientific' cures found by Burzinski (sp?) that deal directly with genes. He is researching legally but basically blocked from administering to willing public (there are people practically begging to be treated with his discoveries if I understand correctly) because he is only allowed to administer treatment for research purposes and the patients have to meet a certain criteria.

If I understand correctly he has some astounding success stories. 

I haven't researched him much, might be getting some details wrong.

----------


## amy31416

> Just out of curiosity - are you saying the story is a lie or otherwise distorted or that you contribute her survival to a factor other than her change in lifestyle? 
> 
> In Japan there are at least two major hospitals that use a method referred to as the "advanced Gerson" method and have documented many good results. I don't know their over-all cure rate but enough of their patients live to justify two hospitals using the method. The conditions they have had success with include advance stage cancers.
> In the US the medical community has labeled the method dangerous and kooky and have outlawed any medical doctor or hospital from administering the treatment. There was a hospital that tried to open in California and was forced to move to Mexico (it is run by American trained/certified doctors).
> 
> They have documented success stories as well, some of their patients went to them as a last resort after being told there was nothing more traditional treatment could do for them and survived under the care of the hospital.
> 
> I'm honestly curious, not in a accusing way, if you think that the success of the treatments (whatever the success rate may be, I don't have the stats) is a farce or explained by a factor other than the change in treatment.


The latter. I think that once you get to the point where the cancer is that advanced, no natural treatments will help much. Misdiagnosis is more likely than a natural cure in that case.

A lot of this "natural cure" stuff can make people pretty angry and closed to suggestions because many people have dealt with terminal diseases where they tried everything and the end result was still the same, and of course there's the unfettered truth that everyone will die in some way.

This is one case that JMDrake brings to the table, yet there are many, many more cases of people surviving cancer via the traditional route--surgery/chemo, etc. Perhaps some see it as a double standard that I "let" Angela get away with harsh criticism against the natural cure folks, but I have quite a few reasons to buy into traditional medicine over natural cures. Dialysis kept my grandfather alive. Stents and various heart treatments kept my mother alive long beyond her first heart attack. My aunt's mastectomies kept her cancer from spreading. The heimlich maneuver delivered by my mother kept me alive. Hospital treatment for my brother after a bad fall kept him alive.

I mean--what do you people want? You want us to put herbs on a broken bone rather than get it set in the hospital?

----------


## angelatc

http://www.newser.com/story/168541/j...st-cancer.html

Angelina Jolie's aunt (her mother's sister) dies of breast cancer.

----------


## donnay

Cancer Cure - SUPPRESSED
http://whale.to/cancer/kelley/app3.html

----------


## KingNothing

Several people very close to me have gone with "natural cures" and died, just as they would have if they went with the normal treatment program.

Conversely, my aunt was diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer 20 years ago and is still alive.  She went with the "quack" doctors, and was given a litany of treatments including chemo, radiation, and surgery.  Silly her.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The latter. I think that once you get to the point where the cancer is that advanced, no natural treatments will help much. Misdiagnosis is more likely than a natural cure in that case.
> 
> A lot of this "natural cure" stuff can make people pretty angry and closed to suggestions because many people have dealt with terminal diseases where they tried everything and the end result was still the same, and of course there's the unfettered truth that everyone will die in some way.
> 
> This is one case that JMDrake brings to the table, yet there are many, many more cases of people surviving cancer via the traditional route--surgery/chemo, etc. Perhaps some see it as a double standard that I "let" Angela get away with harsh criticism against the natural cure folks, but I have quite a few reasons to buy into traditional medicine over natural cures. *Dialysis kept my grandfather alive. Stents and various heart treatments kept my mother alive long beyond her first heart attack.* My aunt's mastectomies kept her cancer from spreading. The heimlich maneuver delivered by my mother kept me alive. Hospital treatment for my brother after a bad fall kept him alive.
> 
> I mean--what do you people want? You want us to put herbs on a broken bone rather than get it set in the hospital?


There are plenty of criticisms for the "natural" folks, but the bolded above are are treatments for symptoms, not cures.  Things like diabetes (type II) and heart disease can be treated and cured by lifestyle changes.  They are symptoms of chronic inflammation.  Since everyone is different, individuals will have to see professionals who can read bloodwork and are familiar with the science of diet, lifestyle, physiology, etc. (this is not a DIY job or something the guy at the vitamin store can teach you) That said, if the disease has gotten to a really extreme point, the case can be made for more extreme stuff like dialysis and heart surgery. /ramble

----------


## jmdrake

> I'll be totally honest. I don't believe that your friend was cured by "natural" means. I am more critical of men because it's none of your business unless it's someone close to you, and you'd better take responsibility for your advice to them.


I'll be totally honest.  I'm glad my internet went out so my original reply was lost.  It was probably too harsh.  

Donnay, *a woman* has been the main one pushing the natural remedies.  So to make this a "man versus woman" thing in nonsense.  

You can believe what you want.  But I'm not lying and neither was my friend.  And it wasn't a "false diagnosis."  And I've seen that happen more than once.  Do the natural remedies always work?  No.  Do you the conventional remedies always work?  Again no.  If you were paying attention to the science I looked up, rather than writing me off because I'm a man (or is it because I have a different point of view?), you would have seen how I addressed angelatc with peer reviewed science.  One showed that even with the BCRA gene, there are lifestyle options that chances of getting breast cancer.  Angela honed in on the fact that one of the choices was pre-emptive chemotherapy.  I pointed out that the same effect can be achieved through natural means.  But you'd have to have been paying attention, and not just writing off "men" (and women who disagree with you).




> The latter. I think that once you get to the point where the cancer is that advanced, no natural treatments will help much. Misdiagnosis is more likely than a natural cure in that case.
> 
> A lot of this "natural cure" stuff can make people pretty angry and closed to suggestions because many people have dealt with terminal diseases where they tried everything and the end result was still the same, and of course there's the unfettered truth that everyone will die in some way.


So people should just sit on information they have because someone might no matter how you present it just because of their own past experiences?  Sorry, but I simply disagree.




> This is one case that JMDrake brings to the table, yet there are many, many more cases of people surviving cancer via the traditional route--surgery/chemo, etc.


There are many more people who use the traditional route.  That's a definite case of correlation not equalling causation.  In fact, you don't even have correlation.  That's like saying "There are more people who went to public school that go to college than were homeschooled."  I wasn't attempting to give statistics.  Just a personal story.  That said, the science I looked up at PubMed proved my position right and angelaTC's wrong, despite the fact that I'm a "man" and this is "none of my business."  




> Perhaps some see it as a double standard that I "let" Angela get away with harsh criticism against the natural cure folks, but I have quite a few reasons to buy into traditional medicine over natural cures.


That's no excuse.  You've attributed to the natural cure side what AngelaTC was doing, namely telling others what they should and should not be doing rather than just giving options.




> Dialysis kept my grandfather alive. Stents and various heart treatments kept my mother alive long beyond her first heart attack. My aunt's mastectomies kept her cancer from spreading. The heimlich maneuver delivered by my mother kept me alive. Hospital treatment for my brother after a bad fall kept him alive.
> 
> I mean--what do you people want? You want us to put herbs on a broken bone rather than get it set in the hospital?


Straw man argument.  This whole thread started because some of us had the audacity to suggest that there might be other options to cutting off perfectly healthy breasts or testicles.  (Again, this isn't a "man versus woman" thing).  And the heimlich maneuver is just as natural as drinking herbal tea.  The same for getting a bone set.  I haven't spoken against women with breast cancer getting mastectomies or men with testicular cancer having them removed.  In fact I haven't seen anyone else say that either.  But I felt, and still feel, that there are options other than *doing that pre-emptively when the tissue is still healthy* that should at least be considered.  PubMed seems to agree with me.  Maybe PubMed is dominated by sexist men who just want to force women to keep their natural breasts.

----------


## FriedChicken

> Several people very close to me have gone with "natural cures" and died, just as they would have if they went with the normal treatment program.
> 
> Conversely, my aunt was diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer 20 years ago and is still alive.  She went with the "quack" doctors, and was given a litany of treatments including chemo, radiation, and surgery.  Silly her.


I'm extremely sorry for your losses.
Recently my wife just went through the biggest tragedy of her life so far in losing her little sister and best friend to cancer - losing someone to this awful dieses is very tough because it is so ruthless and unforgiving.

However, her sister made the same decision as your aunt made to follow conventional treatment only arrived at a very, very, painful death (while my wife was holding her) as the outcome rather than 20 more years of life.

I think there is emotionally raw spots left in everyone who has lost someone to this dieses as treatments seem to be an ongoing argument and 'what if' questions are left in everyone's minds.
I'm sure you understand that as well as I.

So please understand that small quips like "silly her" hit a lot deeper with some than others as I'm sure someone making quips about conventional treatment might hit deeper with someone in your shoes.


This particular thread is one I have found myself needing many deep breaths while reading and often just choosing not to reply as a better option than replying.

----------


## jj-

> Conversely, my aunt was diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer 20 years ago and is still alive.  *She went with the "quack" doctors, and was given a litany of treatments including chemo, radiation, and surgery.  Silly her.*


Even before therapies for cancer were created, a percentage of people with cancer got cured without doing anything at all.

----------


## KingNothing

> This particular thread is one I have found myself needing many deep breaths while reading and often just choosing not to reply as a better option than replying.


My point has been that folks shouldn't disregard conventional medicine just because it is conventional.  Doctors are not all bad.  In fact, most of pretty freaking excellent, and if you're lucky, you can find one that cares deeply about you and your family and will do everything he/she can to improve your life.

At the same time, non-traditional medicine is not a cure-all.  Eating healthy is its own reward -- whether it cures your cancer, and evidence suggests that it won't, does not matter.  Proper dieting gives a person more energy and a better ability to fight-off cancer.  I would never disparage it.  However, this belief that it alone is the proper course of action and that traditional medicine should be eschewed is dangerous and silly.

----------


## amy31416

> I'll be totally honest.  I'm glad my internet went out so my original reply was lost.  It was probably too harsh.  
> 
> Donnay, *a woman* has been the main one pushing the natural remedies.  So to make this a "man versus woman" thing in nonsense.  
> 
> You can believe what you want.  But I'm not lying and neither was my friend.  And it wasn't a "false diagnosis."  And I've seen that happen more than once.  Do the natural remedies always work?  No.  Do you the conventional remedies always work?  Again no.  If you were paying attention to the science I looked up, rather than writing me off because I'm a man (or is it because I have a different point of view?), you would have seen how I addressed angelatc with peer reviewed science.  One showed that even with the BCRA gene, there are lifestyle options that chances of getting breast cancer.  Angela honed in on the fact that one of the choices was pre-emptive chemotherapy.  I pointed out that the same effect can be achieved through natural means.  But you'd have to have been paying attention, and not just writing off "men" (and women who disagree with you).
> 
> 
> 
> So people should just sit on information they have because someone might no matter how you present it just because of their own past experiences?  Sorry, but I simply disagree.
> ...


I knew it would make you angry, but that's simply my opinion. And I know I'll piss off a lot of people when I also say that I think that much of what Donnnay posts is wishful thinking.

I'll be completely honest again--I didn't thoroughly read your response because I knew it'd be angry and accusational.

Yet, the truth remains that traditional medicine, despite some major letdowns I've had (and everyone will have because everyone's going to die), I don't believe that marijuana, dandelion root, B-17 or whatever your choice is will cure aggressive cancers. I hold the door open for early stage reversal, but not late stage.

If I choose a medical procedure, you have no business judging me or any other woman. You have influence with your wife and other female family members.

All this said, I would like to hear the percentage cancer rates of a pool of women with the gene who had pre-emptive surgery vs. those who tried any number of natural remedies.

I am not a betting person, but I'd be willing to wager quite a bit that the former party (pre-emptive surgery) has a far lower rate of breast cancer--do you deny that?

This is actually important to me because I, and likely all my female cousins and our offspring may well carry this gene. So, if my responses make you angry, I'm okay with that--it's not your life, it's not your business, and I think that most of the natural cures for something like this are total, $#@!ing bull$#@!. And what makes me angry about that is that I may have family members losing their lives because they believe it. My cousins and I are all getting to the point where this is likely to start to rear it's ugly head.

However, I won't judge you if you choose the natural route over getting your balls cut off. If you were family/friend, I might have a talk with you.

Folks who push natural remedies are often over-the-top, not recognizing that traditional medicine/options do actually work in many circumstances. I've been a big proponent of honey and silver for wound healing--and that's because the research (and personal results) actually support it.

However, none of this really matters. You have your solidified opinion, I mostly have mine.

----------


## jmdrake

> I knew it would make you angry, but that's simply my opinion. And I know I'll piss off a lot of people when I also say that I think that much of what Donnnay posts is wishful thinking.
> 
> I'll be completely honest again--I didn't thoroughly read your response because I knew it'd be angry and accusational.


Oh trust me.  I wasn't angry when I posted my response.  Nor was I "accusational".  (That word isn't even in the dictionary).  I was factual.  And I was disappointed.  You making this into a "man versus woman thing" was cheap.  And I think you know that.  I will never take the women at RPF who complain about men here seriously on that point again.




> Yet, the truth remains that traditional medicine, despite some major letdowns I've had (and everyone will have because everyone's going to die), I don't believe that marijuana, dandelion root, B-17 or whatever your choice is will cure aggressive cancers. I hold the door open for early stage reversal, but not late stage.


And you're welcome to your opinion, as wrong as it is.  




> If I choose a medical procedure, you have no business judging me or any other woman. You have influence with your wife and other female family members.


*You have no business dishonestly insinuating that I or anyone else have judged you for your medical decision*.  I'm putting that in bold not out of "anger" or to be "accusational" but so that you can stop for a minute and quit being "accusational" yourself.




> All this said, I would like to hear the percentage cancer rates of a pool of women with the gene who had pre-emptive surgery vs. those who tried any number of natural remedies.


At this point the pool of women who have had pre-emptive surgery based on a gene test that has just come out is so small that your request is absurd.  Maybe that's something to revisit in a decade or so.




> I am not a betting person, but I'd be willing to wager quite a bit that the former party (pre-emptive surgery) has a far lower rate of breast cancer--do you deny that?


What the hell difference does it make what I affirm or deny at this point?  You've made it clear that you have a closed mind.




> This is actually important to me because I, and likely all my female cousins and our offspring may well carry this gene. So, if my responses make you angry, I'm okay with that--it's not your life, it's not your business, and I think that most of the natural cures for something like this are total, $#@!ing bull$#@!. And what makes me angry about that is that I may have family members losing their lives because they believe it. My cousins and I are all getting to the point where this is likely to start to rear it's ugly head.


If you feel that way, that nobody who's not a woman or who doesn't have the gene or whatever has no right to say anything because "it's not their business" and everything they say is "$#@!ing bull$#@!" then why are you even bothering to reply?  Why not just put me on ignore?  Clearly you are the one angry and the one making accusations.  I've provided some facts.  That's all I've done.  Some from my own personal experience.  Some from PubMed.  Take it or leave it.




> However, I won't judge you if you choose the natural route over getting your balls cut off. If you were family/friend, I might have a talk with you.
> 
> Folks who push natural remedies are often over-the-top, not recognizing that traditional medicine/options do actually work in many circumstances. I've been a big proponent of honey and silver for wound healing--and that's because the research (and personal results) actually support it.


Okay.  You are being retarded now!  My dad just came back from proton therapy for prostate cancer.  Just because I have an open mind about natural remedies, have known people who have been healed by them, an would recommend someone at least consider them before cutting off their balls or their breasts doesn't mean that I'm totally against modern medicine.  *So get off your high horse.*  You're not the only one to have cancer in your family.

/rant




> However, none of this really matters. You have your solidified opinion, I mostly have mine.


Have whatever opinion you want.  It's the dishonest accusations, the straw men, the red herrings, and the fake "it's none of your business" BS *when I was never offering you personal advice about your own cancer situation* that's irritating.  If you had said "I've decided to get my breasts cut off" and I started commenting that would be one thing.  (And it would be stupid to post something like that on the internet and not expect people to comment).  But this thread wasn't about you.  It wasn't about angelaTC.  It was about Angelina freaking Jolie.  And anybody has just the same right to comment on it and give their own opinion.  And if their opinion offends you because someone else in your passed made you feel bad for the medical choice you made, tough!  You have no business bringing such baggage into the thread as if cancer is your own personal property.  Sorry but the "victim" game you're playing is as weak as the silly "men versus women" game you played earlier.  I'm not impressed.  (Not that you care if I am impressed).

----------


## green73

*Angelina Jolie has ovaries removed*

https://news.yahoo.com/angelina-joli...084101779.html

----------


## The Gold Standard

You bumped this awful thread for that? Oh well. She should be able to remove any body parts she wants to. I question the effectiveness, and I would be surprised if after being cut open all of these times she doesn't end up with some form of cancer. But to each his (or her as it were) own.

----------


## TheTexan

So.. did she get fake ones?

----------


## Weston White

So, I wonder what is next on her list, brain or lungs?  I am betting on the former.

----------


## donnay

*Beware of Organ Removal for "Cancer Prevention": Jolie's Precautionary Tale*



Tuesday, March 24th 2015 at 6:15 am
Written By:  Sayer Ji, Founder



*Angelina Jolie has just announced she has removed her ovaries and fallopian tubes to "prevent cancer," following her decision last year to remove her breasts for the same reason. Is this medically justified, sane behavior?* 

With Angelina Jolie's *recent announcement* that she had her ovaries and fallopian tubes removed because of both a BRCA 'gene defect' and a history of breast and ovarian cancer in her family, the idea that genes play a dominant role in determining biological destiny and cancer risk is proliferating in the mainstream media and popular consciousness uncontrollably like a cancer.  

Back in 2014, in a New York Times Op-Ed titled, "*My Medical Choice*," Angelina Jolie explained why she chose to have a double mastectomy, recounting what her doctors told her was the extreme health risk associated with her BRCA1 'gene mutation':

*"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."* 

At first glance, these estimates are frightening. Who, given such a bleak prognosis, wouldn't also feel compelled towards aggressive intervention when doing nothing (watchful waiting) would result in a 50% increased risk of developing the most lethal gynecological cancer known to exist. [1]

*But where do these numbers come from? How did her caretakers arrive with any certainty at this figure?*

The reality is that the average woman's lifetime risk of ovarian cancer is exceedingly small, with the overall risk of developing ovarian cancer by 65 years of age being 0.8 percent and the lifetime risk 1.8 percent.[2] For those with a first-degree relative developing ovarian cancer, as is the case for Jolie, the risk estimates show increases to 4.4 and 9.4 percent, respectively.[3]  

It is also important to realize that lifetime ovarian cancer risk does not exist in a vacuum. Considering that it is not cancer (at any site) but heart disease that is the #1 killer of women, focusing on ovarian cancer risk as the primary threat to health is myopic at best, faulty reasoning with deadly consequences at worse. If Jolie had chose to go without radical surgical intervention, it is statistically more likely she would have died from heart-related death than cancer of any kind. The reality is that the lifetime risk of heart disease related death in women is in top position at 23.5%, according to CDC statistics, versus cancer which takes #2 position at 22.1%. And within cancer related deaths in women, breast, lung, colorectal cancer, uterine, thyroid, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and melanomas are top on the list, with ovarian cancer in the 8th in position.



Given this context, how Angelina's doctors can justify expressing the relative risk of 50% in a way that colloquially comes off as absolute risk, is a mystery. But even if her prognosticators are accurate at reading the 'tea leaves' of her genome and family history, their attempts at predicting the future reflect a profound misunderstanding of the ovarian cancer statistics as a whole, and the nature of cancer itself.

*Continued...*

----------


## Ronin Truth

I wonder if Brad ever secretly regrets dumping Jennifer yet.

----------


## Danke

> *Angelina Jolie has ovaries removed*
> 
> https://news.yahoo.com/angelina-joli...084101779.html


Has anyone informed HB there are some ovaries now available for him?

----------


## jmdrake

> You bumped this awful thread for that? Oh well. She should be able to remove any body parts she wants to. I question the effectiveness, and I would be surprised if after being cut open all of these times she doesn't end up with some form of cancer. But to each his (or her as it were) own.


LOL.  Yeah, it could have been put in a new thread.

----------


## jmdrake

> I wonder if Brad ever secretly regrets dumping Jennifer yet.


Word!

----------


## jmdrake

> So, I wonder what is next on her list, brain or lungs?  I am betting on the former.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

It would be funny enough if she just recommended both of those things as preventative measures, but to actually do that to oneself... that takes balls.  She's incredibly stupid for doing it... but she's got balls... at least until she gets them removed.

----------


## Suzanimal

> It would be funny enough if she just recommended both of those things as preventative measures, but to actually do that to oneself... that takes balls.  She's incredibly stupid for doing it... but* she's got balls... at least until she gets them removed*.


She did. In this article, they referred to the ovary as the "female gonad".
http://www.medicinenet.com/menopause/page2.htm

And I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but what about the risks she took undergoing the surgical procedures and also the effects of sending her body into early menopause - that's what happened when she had her ovaries removed.

----------


## Terry1

Oh--FYI on the breast cancer thread here.  I have refused the mammograms now for years and do my own self examination now on occasion.  There's new medically proven scientific evidence now that the mammograms are causing most of the breast cancers by squishing the breast to the point of releasing cancer cells that would have otherwise remained dormant and causing tumors in the breasts.

I thought it was strange that there was this huge-huge epidemic of breast cancers in the U.S.  Along with this epidemic is also fund raising organizations raising millions upon millions of dollars for "research".   Behind every noble cause--corruption lurks.

One more thing--mammograms expose the breast to over a thousand times more the radiation than a single chest xray.  Read the facts before you trot down to get a mammogram next time.  I refused when my doctor recommended it and gave him the new medical research on it.  He's never bothered me again about it either.

Nothing like creating an illness in order to promote a multi-billion dollar organization to promote the cure is there.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ammograms.aspx

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/con...e-harm-they-do

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/con...e-harm-they-do

----------


## Carlybee

> Oh--FYI on the breast cancer thread here.  I have refused the mammograms now for years and do my own self examination now on occasion.  There's new medically proven scientific evidence now that the mammograms are causing most of the breast cancers by squishing the breast to the point of releasing cancer cells that would have otherwise remained dormant and causing tumors in the breasts.
> 
> I thought it was strange that there was this huge-huge epidemic of breast cancers in the U.S.  Along with this epidemic is also fund raising organizations raising millions upon millions of dollars for "research".   Behind every noble cause--corruption lurks.
> 
> One more thing--mammograms expose the breast to over a thousand times more the radiation than a single chest xray.  Read the facts before you trot down to get a mammogram next time.  I refused when my doctor recommended it and gave him the new medical research on it.  He's never bothered me again about it either.
> 
> Nothing like creating an illness in order to promote a multi-billion dollar organization to promote the cure is there.
> 
> http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ammograms.aspx
> ...



I don't have them either. I have some scar tissue from a biopsy I had years ago that always shows up as a mass. Last 2 times I had a mammogram they always try to get me to go to a surgeon. If it had been cancer, I would already be dead by now.  Not to mention how painful mammograms are besides all the other issues.

----------


## donnay

*The Silent Epidemic of Iodine Deficiency*

*IODINE DEFICIENCY*

*Iodine, Thyroid and Cancer* 

*Iodine and Breast Health: 6 Things You Need to Know*

*Everything You Need To Know About Iodine*

----------


## Nxo

> Oh--FYI on the breast cancer thread here.  I have refused the mammograms now for years and do my own self examination now on occasion.  There's new medically proven scientific evidence now that the mammograms are causing most of the breast cancers by squishing the breast to the point of releasing cancer cells that would have otherwise remained dormant and causing tumors in the breasts.
> 
> I thought it was strange that there was this huge-huge epidemic of breast cancers in the U.S.  Along with this epidemic is also fund raising organizations raising millions upon millions of dollars for "research".   Behind every noble cause--corruption lurks.
> 
> One more thing--mammograms expose the breast to over a thousand times more the radiation than a single chest xray.  Read the facts before you trot down to get a mammogram next time.  I refused when my doctor recommended it and gave him the new medical research on it.  He's never bothered me again about it either.
> 
> Nothing like creating an illness in order to promote a multi-billion dollar organization to promote the cure is there.


It's not that it is just the "new medical research" that shows that mammograms are seriously dangerous, this has been known to science since the beginning of its introduction. The problem is that the huge medical industry has been disregarding or denying the real dangers of the procedure, having misguided the public systematically.

----------


## Nxo

> Oh--FYI on the breast cancer thread here.  I have refused the mammograms now for years and do my own self examination now on occasion.  There's new medically proven scientific evidence now that the mammograms are causing most of the breast cancers by squishing the breast to the point of releasing cancer cells that would have otherwise remained dormant and causing tumors in the breasts.
> 
> I thought it was strange that there was this huge-huge epidemic of breast cancers in the U.S.  Along with this epidemic is also fund raising organizations raising millions upon millions of dollars for "research".   Behind every noble cause--corruption lurks.
> 
> One more thing--mammograms expose the breast to over a thousand times more the radiation than a single chest xray.  Read the facts before you trot down to get a mammogram next time.  I refused when my doctor recommended it and gave him the new medical research on it.  He's never bothered me again about it either.
> 
> Nothing like creating an illness in order to promote a multi-billion dollar organization to promote the cure is there.


Also, the well known fact that low dosage x-rays are a major cause of cancer, particularly breast cancer (read "The Mammogram Myth" by Rolf Hefti - see Mammography Risks), has been established decades ago, yet the medical business has never stopped using and recommending them, confirms your notion about the criminal medical industry (_"Nothing like creating an illness in order to promote a multi-billion dollar organization to promote the cure is there.")._

----------

