Angelina Jolie May Have Been Fooled Into Thinking She Needed to Have Her Breasts Removed

Eye Roll 10

Angelina JolieWas Angelina Jolie duped into an unnecessary double mastectomy by greedy surgeons who just wanted to mutilate her for no other reason than to cash in on the expensive procedure? Such is the theory going around naturalistic circles. There are plenty of people who sincerely believe that cancer -- even if you are genetically predisposed to certain types of it -- can readily be prevented by certain foods, vitamins, and a healthy lifestyle. If only it were so.

By now, the whole world knows that Angelina Jolie opted for a double mastectomy -- and will likely opt to remove her ovaries -- due to the fact that she carries the gene that makes breast and ovarian cancer much more likely. Her mother also died of ovarian cancer. Angelina wrote movingly of her decision to remove her breast tissue in The New York Times, saying:

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

But the editor of NaturalNews.com, Mike Adams, totally disagrees. He feels that Angelina was "duped" into having major surgery to get rid of a disease she didn't even have. He says:

Angelina was lied to ... The very idea that breast cancer is a 'percent risk' is a lie ... 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.

Adams says that Jolie and others with the gene could follow a lifestyle and dietary plan that "suppresses BRCA1 gene expression." He suggests a diet that includes raw citrus, grapes or red wine, raw cruciferous vegetables, and omega-3 oils. He rails:

... you don't hear cancer doctors telling women to 'eat more cabbage' because that doesn't make the cancer industry any money.

The medical industry is certainly not saying that a healthy diet and lifestyle (no smoking, little drinking, exercise, destressing, etc.) wouldn't contribute to lowering your chances of getting cancer. There are scads of articles written by doctors that recommend healthy choices for lowering your risk. (And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "healthy lifestyle" industry ALSO making money?)

But since Adams thinks that the whole "the whole 'chance' argument is pure quackery," he's not saying that a healthy lifestyle will decrease your chances of getting cancer. He's saying it will guarantee you don't get it. But this is quakery.

Paul McCartney's late wife, Linda, was a fanatic health nut and world famous vegetarian who was one of the first people to tout the value of organic foods. She died of breast cancer at age 56. My niece, who was breastfed until she could walk and was raised by a health nut mom, died of brain cancer at age 7. One of my former roommates, one of the healthiest people I know, a woman who doesn't drink, smoke, eats her veggies, and runs her marathons, got breast cancer in her early 30s. So when Mike Adams says:

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.

He is insulting everyone, like my niece, who died of cancer and did nothing WRONG. The idea that people "deserve" their cancer because they were living a "pro-cancer" lifestyle is outrageous!

It's wonderful to think we can "control" cancer ... but we can't. Some people, however, will stick to diet, exercise, homeopathic remedies, chanting, whatever. And their cancer will go into remission. But we won't really know what caused the cancer to go into remission. There's no scientifically proven causation. Maybe it was the cabbage. Maybe not. Maybe it was the body's own immune system. Maybe the cabbage helped. Maybe chemo would have helped too. Maybe preventative surgery like Angelina had would have helped as well.

What to do when faced with a medical issue is an extremely difficult and personal decision. Mike Adams does not have Angelina Jolie's six children. He was not told he had a ticking cancer bomb in his body. Angelina is a very smart woman who routinely pores over complex case files on war-torn countries and displaced refugees for her work as global humanitarian. Do you think she didn't bother to get several opinions and to do her own research and come to her own conclusions about what was right for her?

Those who opt not to get surgery and choose alternative methods should have their choice respected. Those, like Angelina, who want to remove their breast tissue should have that option respected. If we knew exactly what prevents cancer, we'd all be doing it.

The last thing cancer victims need is blame for their own cancer.

Do you think Angelina made the wrong decision?


Image via Splash News

cancer, celeb moms

10 Comments

To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

PRIMA487 PRIMA487

She made the right decision for her.I think there was also a contestant in a "beauty contest" who was going to have the same surgery after her pageant .

Serab... Serabelle

These are probably the same people that think you shouldn't be an organ donor because doctors won't work as hard to save you if they can give away your organs. It's preposterous! Doctor's first responsibility is to do no harm. All doctors pledge to do everything they can to save every life, and sometimes that means radical measures to assure everyone stays healthy. I'm sure when Angie is 70 and gets to hold her grandchildren she won't care about having had her boobs removed, or her ovaries!

mande... manderspanders

I can't say what the right decision is... BUT I can say that it is an outright LIE to say that a "preventative" double mastectomy will prevent future breast cancer.  The fact of the matter is that they CANNOT remove all the breast tissue/cells. They just can't.  It just isn't possible. The fact of the matter is that even if only a few cells of breast tissue remain, because of the increased genetic risk, breast cancer is still possible... and I would say maybe even more dangerous. If you believe that you have already prevented something, then you don't get the screenings that are recommended...and if a tumor is found, it is likely to be at a more advanced stage with worse outcomes.


So, do what you will with your own body... but the mainstream media seems to help perpetuate the belief that this type of invasive surgery is a sort of panacea for breast cancer - what happens when Angelina still ends up with breast cancer?


Also, this "previvor" bullshit IS a bunch of bullshit and is insulting to those who have and do live with cancer.


It is also a farce for people to believe they can manipulate nature to provide themselves with a more perfect life, free from suffering... this is utter baloney.... as proven by centuries of quackery - treatments which were "cutting edge" of their times, too.  This is no different.

LostS... LostSoul88

There were doctors that wouldnt do her surgery! She had to find one. I think she made the right choice.

Henley16 Henley16

They don't have to get every last cell in order to drastically reduce the occurance of breast cancer because  BRCA1 is a gene that encodes for a tumor suppressor, so it is not an error in a protein that will result in cancer. BRCA1 is a gene that is involved in many activities, but most notably plays a role in the stability of your DNA and in repairing damage to DNA.


One mutation is not enough to cause cancer, cells have to undergo "two hits" because we have two copies of each of our genes (a chromosome from our mother and one from our father). Thousands of times each day our cellular machinery makes mistakes or DNA is broken by UV or free radicals, it's inevitable. However, our cells are programmed to either fix this DNA break by replacing the section with that from our other chromosome, repairing it, or dying. If it does not happen, our immune cells will recognize something is wrong by signals on the cell surface and kill the "cancer" cell. 


 

Henley16 Henley16


However, those with mutations in BRCA1 are born with "one hit" so any mutation in the good copy of that gene (the "second hit"), is far more likely to result in a tumor forming. This is because tumor cells are not regulated like normal cells, they don't die when there is DNA damage and do not need a growth signal to divide, thus they divide uncontrollably.  


If your immune system catches the tumor before it is overwhelmed by too many tumor cells, you will not get cancer. So, yes, removing the tissue drastically lowers your chance of developing cancer. There are less cells there waiting for a "second hit" and your immune system is more likely to catch any tumors earlier. 



Todd Vrancic

She made a decision with information the rest of the public isn't privy to, based on her health history, her family history and what risks she was willing to live with.  People need to stop second-guessing her, she is more than her breasts.

Diane Krstulovich

Very sad about your little niece and others you've known who have suffered from cancer 'despite a healthy diet'. I'm sorry if Mike Adams piece came across as insensitive or unrealistic or (worse), deceptive.

I hope you realize that 'health nut' has no definition whatsoever, despite the fact that we all think we know one.

Along those lines, it's HIGHLY important to draw a distinction between a vegetarian (no meat) and a vegan (no animal foods at all including no eggs and no dairy). Especially since dairy foods are the foods most commonly linked to many forms of cancer, but especially to breast cancer. Vegetarians often choose to replace meat with oodles and oodles of cheese so it would not be a surprise if their diet actually raises the risk of cancer for them.

Is 'healthy lifestyle' just another money-making industry? It certainly can be if you feel it requires you to join a club, get a pool membership, hire a personal trainer or stock up on supplements. But a healthy lifestyle is usually a money-saving option.

Fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains and seeds are often the least expensive choices at the supermarket (especially cabbage!) and it doesn't cost a dime to go for a walk or do some aerobics in your living room.

Thank you for sharing your concerns. You raise important points worthy of consideration by all.

And yes, in the end, it's important to respect Angelina for her choice and her decision.

Autonomy rules!

nonmember avatar Lovecooking

who are we to judge?!

nonmember avatar Koichi Iot

Since Angelina Jolie had BRCA-1 mutation cancer gene, she could not do much. So I think she smoked and drunk like many celebrities. If so she should followed celebrities who never smoked or drunk. In fact only celebrities who never smoked or drunk are Tyra Banks and Jewel Kilcher. So she should not smoked or drunk from start!

1-10 of 10 comments