Sunday, May 19

Did Angelina Jolie really had prophylactic mastectomies? Profiting from disease mongering

We all have heard that Angelina Jolie did two mastectomies and as many strange stories are being told to people it made some of those who are constantly reading the independent media, sites that raise awareness on the mainstream media lies and alternative sources claim for evidences when there is profit involved.

What is behind it all? Money, profit from fear that medicine is doing repeatedly with the help of the mainstream media and celebrities.

Disease Awareness Campaigns has more to do with taking money from people than improving their health.
At the British parliament review "The Influence of Pharmaceutical Industry" there is a topic dedicated to these campaigns at page 69.

The cancer industry makes billions of dollars using the most diabolical weapons. Take a look at this article from NaturalNews and be aware that if Angelina Jolie did mastectomies she was fooled.
Don't be another one!

Conventional medicine openly admits to confusion over BRCA1 gene
Saturday, May 18, 2013 by: Jonathan Landsman


Don't remove your breasts until you read this "NCI disclaimer"...

Many of us have heard the conventional talking points that refer to an "87% higher risk for breast cancer" - if one tests positive for the BRCA1 gene mutation. But, I'm here to tell you, that this is a complete fabrication of the medical truth.

I'll be honest - when I read this statement by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) - I nearly fell off my chair. Even if you test positive for the BRCA1 gene mutation - your risk of getting breast cancer may still be caused by other factors.

In other words, the BRCA1 gene may not really be the cause of breast cancer.

Read for yourself what the National Cancer Institute says about BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations...

"It is important to note, however, that most research related to BRCA1 and BRCA2 has been done on large families with many individuals affected by cancer. Estimates of breast and ovarian cancer risk associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have been calculated from studies of these families. Because family members share a proportion of their genes and, often, their environment, it is possible that the large number of cancer cases seen in these families may be due in part to other genetic or environmental factors. Therefore, risk estimates that are based on families with many affected members may not accurately reflect the levels of risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers in the general population. In addition, no data are available from long-term studies of the general population comparing cancer risk in women who have harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations with women who do not have such mutations. Therefore, the percentages given above are estimates that may change as more data become available."

I hope you understand the magnitude of what you've just read. The NCI has openly admitted that your risk for breast cancer stems from a wide variety of "genetic or environmental factors".

Simply put, the NCI really doesn't know (scientifically) how much of any risk factor causes cancer - including the presence of a BRCA1 mutation.

If you have any doubt about what you just read ... check it out yourself - at the National Cancer Institute website link:

How the conventional cancer industry profits from your ignorance

The cancer industry would like you to believe that you are a victim of your genes with very little power to control your own health.

Let's be clear, we are not victims of our genes. Even conventional science admits that our environment is a major risk factor for developing cancer. Our lifestyle has everything to do with the health (and expression) of our genes.

In fact, the research is so strong that they will do everything in their power to suppress this information and focus on disseminating fraudulent propaganda that makes you feel helpless and disempowered.

They know if the truth came out they would be out of business.

There is a very good article by NaturalNews' editor Mark Adams about the consequences of Angelina Jolie
crusade on promoting prophylactic mastectomies: here.


Mark p.s.2 said...

In North America , another prophylactic procedure is cutting off the foreskin of baby boys.
The incidence of death from blood loss or "accidental mutilation" during the procedure is much greater (1 in 100? vs 1 in 100,000)than the disease it might prevent.
Ryleigh McWillis died in August 2002

Ana said...

"Some doctors deem circumcision medically unnecessary and refuse to perform the procedure."

This is the last phrase of the article.
They are Canadian.
I would love to see the list with the name of this doctors.

Circumcision is barbarian.

Ana said...

Thank you for the link.
I think I'll make a post about it.