Was 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