Angelina Jolie Undergoes Preventive Double Mastectomy

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0

By Matt Stone

News erupted this morning about Angelina Jolie’s preventive double mastectomy.  I rarely see any news stories, which is why I so rarely “report” on something in this fashion, but this happened to catch my eye.  A response was in order.

I first came across the growing trend of getting your breasts removed – you know, just in case you get breast cancer, right at the very beginning of my health research in late 2004.  I willed myself to read something from a mainstream health authority as part of my comprehensive education.  It was Isadore Rosenfeld, “America’s most trusted doctor,” who I first heard advocating this.  I couldn’t believe my eyes, for two reasons.

  1. It is shocking that this is the best the medical industry can do
  2. It is shocking that this is the best the medical industry can do

Nearly a decade of comprehensive research later, and I find this even more outrageous, and understand more fully why the medical industry is so inept at preventing and treating disease.  Well, unless you consider removing your breasts to prevent breast cancer “prevention.”  I don’t.  It’s a silly concept to just remove something so that a disease does not develop.  That’s like getting laser hair removal treatment on your scalp to prevent hair loss.

Anyway, Angelina’s docs supposedly told her, with her mutated BRCA1 gene, that her risk of getting breast cancer was 87%.  Okay, so they can’t prevent or cure cancer, but they know enough about it to provide an exact statistical projection of its likelihood?

BRCA1 functions a lot like progesterone in breast tissue because it prevents proliferation of cells and opposes the destructive, cancer-promoting actions of estrogen.  Mutations in the gene basically create what functions like estrogen dominance in the breast tissue and elsewhere (the greater the ratio between estrogen and progesterone, the greater the cancer promotion amongst countless other negatives).  In the distant future, when medicine is finally decoupled from commercial conflicts of interest, it will be better understood that maintaining a high metabolic rate and thus high levels of anti-estrogenic hormones of youth such as the powerfully anti-cancer hormone progesterone, is where the battle against cancer of the breast and most other degenerative diseases will be won.  Until then ladies, keep getting your breasts removed and popping your estrogen and “progestin.”

If this is the best the medical industry can do for one of the world’s top female icons and celebrities, you’re in trouble if you don’t seek out your own prevention and solutions to your health problems – big and small.

Angelina’s Double Mastectomy

Cancer, Estrogen, and Progesterone

Progesterone inhibits growth and induces apoptosis in breast cancer cells

Progesterone Inhibits breast cancer cell growth

Estrogens, BRCA1 and Breast cancer

197 Comments

  1. I guess it also doesn’t help when she’s breathing in Brad Pitt’s secondhand smoke.

    Reply
    • There is no known link between between pot smoking and cancer . . if there was even a remote link, we would have heard about it non-stop from the War on Drugs folks for the last years.

      Reply
        • oh come on..

          Reply
      • There is a connection, a high one with pot and cancer. It is for teenager boys and adolescents who smoke pot run a 75% increased risk of testicular cancer. Check it out. Amazes me it’s not out there… I think any guy may respond with concern to this.
        And there are studies about removing ovaries instead of breasts to reduce the risk of ovarian and breast cancer, a much better alternative, however no surgery and prevention in other ways much better!

        Reply
  2. Are they going to start recommending prostatectomies so that guys don’t get prostate cancer?

    Reply
  3. Evidently Brad’s testes have already been removed.

    Reply
  4. I guess everyone is speechless.

    Reply
  5. I wouldn’t hesitate to do what she did if I had the BRCA1 gene, but, well, I’ve always wanted bigger boobs…

    Reply
  6. This is ridiculous. I can’t fathom getting any part of my body removed without massive amounts of research or a catastrophic injury. But don’t bring this up to a group of women. They really do think that the only way to prevent breast cancer is to get them removed. I think that this will make her more popular with women but less with men.

    Reply
  7. This is extremely disturbing news. What year do we live in? With all the knowledge and resources available today why would a doctor chose a double mastectomy as the first (and unfortunately the last) option? He should have put her on a reasonable daily dose of Lugol’s iodine and tested her again in a year. The research is there. Instead he’s a well-paid, highly respected “professional” who’s often deemed as a God-like figure in society. What a joke.

    Reply
    • First thing I thought of was also Iodine…
      But I don’t know enough about the pros and cons. There’s the theory that the breast cancer rate in Japanese women is so low, not because of the phytoestrogens from soy consumption but because of balancing it with the iodine from all the seafood in their diet. But didn’t Ray Peat advise against Iodine supplementing?

      Reply
      • True, but his recommendation was against “high dose” iodine. All things in there right proportions is the key. Too much of any nutrient, regardless of how beneficial it is, will cause problems. Personally, I avoided supplementing with iodine for years. But the further I got down the rabbit hole (11 years now) the more intrigued I became. So I finally bit the bullet and did it. I started with one drop of lugol’s 2% in some water with each meal for the first week. I went slow to avoid too many halides (fluoride, bromide, chloride) being released and die off. Even at that I still got the occasional eye lid twitch and lethargy. I’ve had to take some days off to let my body catch up. Now I’m up to nine drops a day and reaping the benefits. No more die off, good clean energy, and excellent sleep. As we all know, pursuing health is a very personal choice. Researching and going slow is paramount.

        Reply
  8. One of my friends has the gene and has cancer right now in her 30s and I’m sure wished she had this procedure done. I probably would do it, too, if I were her. In the world as it is, what else can you do? BUT I agree researchers should be looking into more humane ways of prevention. And stop pushing fake hormones known to cause breast cancer on all of us.

    Reply
  9. As a breast cancer survivor, I totally understand where she’s coming from. I chose a double mastectomy also. Mine was after being diagnosed. The problem at this time is that cancer has many causes. You can do everything right to prevent it, and something outside your control can cause it anyway. I think that just as much money should be put into finding and eliminating the environmental causes, as is put into curing cancer. I’d like to see things like atrazine made illegal in this country. I live in the middle of farm country. Since my diagnoses, I’ve done a lot of research and there are things out of our control that are causing all this cancer, not just diet and a sedentary lifestyle. I’m the 3rd person in my immediate family to get cancer. My sister died from ovarian cancer many years ago. My dad has prostate cancer. All of these are hormone driven cancers. All three of us have been very health conscious.
    I know it’s shocking to hear about what Angelina did, but I so understand her.

    Reply
    • Suzanne Somersault beat breast cancer with a natural treatment. There is a movie “Natural Cancer Cures” which covers numerous cures and none of them require cutting things off! There’s more money in surgery than in natural remedies. So sad.

      Reply
      • Ha! I hate auto correct!!! Somers, not Somersault!!!

        Reply
  10. Respectively, uhm, NO. Not me. No doctors. No knives.
    My husband just read a book that I can’t remember the name of….the author (sorta tongue in cheek…sorta) states that an effective way to kill someone, if you’re so inclined, is to get them regular appointments with a Dr. (medical, that is). See how quickly their health goes downhill.

    Reply
  11. A doctor in Brooklyn wanted to do the same thing on me and I didn’t even have the gene. My sister and mother had breast cancer, but not the gene, and he wanted me to do it anyway. Surgeons like to cut.

    I respect other women’s choices, I just couldn’t do it. Especially without them having the gene. I was just shocked that this guy wanted me to do it.

    Reply
  12. Could use a nsfw warning…

    Reply
  13. I thought you were joking like one of your pro-paleo or “metabolism raising strategies” posts. This is in-flippin-sane.

    Reply
    • I thought it had to be a fake news story this morning. And since it was all over the news, it probably is. She probably just told the press she had the mastectomy in exchange for a few million bucks from the medical profession. The news is one big commercial.

      Reply
      • We figured she just wanted augmentation– she’s twice the cup size now. And probably much richer for her spokesperson work for this!

        Reply
  14. 60% of the U.S will be obese by 2030, should everyone get preventative liposuction?

    Reply
    • How about tongue removal for the babies of obese women? Just snip that right off along with the umbilical cord and foreskin.

      Reply
      • I knew you could take it to a new level! ha

        Reply
        • You can’t bait me like that Nick. I can’t resist a big hanging curve ball like that. You are one hell of a Master Baiter my friend.

          Reply
  15. I have been fuming about this all morning. Are we really to believe that Ms. Jolie is doing everything right when it comes to preventing cancer and now has to cut off a body part to prevent an insidious gene? From what I can gather she avoids the sun, wears sunscreen, keeps her body fat unnaturally low, eats a ‘healthy’ diet and has otherwise bought into the mainstream kool-aid which is fantastic at destroying the metabolism and triggering latent genetic tendencies.

    Reply
    • Thank you Nira. Incredibly well put.

      Reply
      • And when people like her get sick, well then that’s just more evidence that disease is a big, bad, scary thing looming and ready to pounce on anyone. By golly, even the people doing the right thing can’t avoid it, how can the rest of us peons?

        Reply
  16. Well, yes, sometimes we have a lot of details about disease, etiology, pathogenesis etc. yet we can’t prevent it without using these massive interventions. But there is no other way, really. No amount of sunlight, good will, blog reading and great diet will help…actually those patients who are in denial and try to find another way – alternative medicine, shamanism etc. – return with metastases and massively ulcerated breasts…I actually admire Angelina Jolie she didn’t let anyone bullshit her and took action. In many areas of cancer treatment there is a huge progress. What would mean leg amputation is today a pretty neat removal of sarcoma, a patient who would die in 3 months lives for 3 years etc.

    Reply
    • If you are going to go the standard medical route, and drink the mainstream kool-aid on what is and is not healthy, and live a stressful life under constant media scrutiny – then yes, getting a double mastectomy may very well extend her life. Odds are she will just get ovarian cancer or some other cancer though, if she is truly that genetically cancer-prone.

      Reply
      • Wait, kool aid causes cancer???

        Reply
    • You are just flat out wrong. There are plenty of people who beat Breast cancer without surgery or chemo. I have read about many medically documented cases. One is that of Loraine Day who is a doctor no less. She knew that oncology is a joke and went another way. A great book to read is Should I Be Tested For Cancer? Maybe Not And Here’s Why, by Gilbert Welch. Dr. Welch is a professor at Dartmouth if I remember correctly. In the book he explains how screening does not lengthen life or decrease mortality rate and how it results in unnecessary treatment and the damage that causes. He of course is a mainstream doctor and I have no idea what he thinks about his opinion of non pharmaceutical, surgical treatment, but his opinion and the opinion of numerous others in medicine is that the screenings are near useless.

      Reply
  17. My best friend and her two sisters had full hysterecomies (uterus and ovaries) as a preventative measure because their mom died of ovarian cancer and their doctor told them they were guaranteed to get it roo. They were all in their 30s.

    Reply
    • My ex had an ovary removed because they found cancer. Turned out later she didn’t, nor had she, had cancer. I don’t know if she got a refund, but fortunately she was still able to mother a child.

      Reply
    • Yes, about the only thing more insane than this “preventative” double mastectomy is the “preventative” hysterectomy. We’re laboring under some serious midieval shit here with this so-called medical system.

      How about these people get to work on a way to fix that gene? Or balance the hormones properly?

      Reply
      • It is one thing to do this in connection with the gene since there is such a great risk associated, but my greater concern is women without the gene resorting to the procedure for “prevention.” Already, I saw a friend of mine on Facebook today whose mother died of breast cancer recommending that all women be aware of the risks and think about the benefits of the procedure.

        Reply
        • Another factor here is that people feel like they are doomed by their genes. The body activates, deactivates or mutates gene expression based largely on epigenetic factors such as stress, diet, activity levels, environmental toxins and even the thoughts/emotions of the individual.

          Preventative measures that encourage good gene expression are where it’s at: Meditation, a good diet, good sleep, balanced exercise, mastering one’s emotions and taking something like zeolite to ameliorate the effects of environmental toxins are the real keys to health and longevity, IMO. I’m still young (38) but I’ll let you know in 40-50 years if I’m right. :-)

          Reply
        • I have to think that your friend who is recommending the prophylactic breast removal is under the impression that reconstructive breast surgery is safe and will provide an aesthetically appealing result without any major downsides. Getting a boob job is not a one time operation, it is essentially a commitment to having an operation every 5 to 10 years to maintain appearance and deal with complications. It is a very big deal.

          Reply
          • Yeah, I thought of that, too. If all women did this, the overall risk of death would probably rise, because going under anesthetic and having an operation carries real risks. Not something you want to do unless the risk of breast cancer really outweighs those odds, which they probably don’t for the majority of women.

          • Not to mention putting plastics and other synthetics INSIDE your body. Jolie is NOT a role model at all…

    • That is a horrendous surgery to undertake. Its got so many terrible side effects: immediate menopause, eliminates all sex drive, and terrible vaginal dryness. I have a family member that had it done due to tremendous endometriosis, but I won’t unless I have full blown cancer. Not doing it.

      Reply
  18. *too*

    Reply
  19. Real life story: One librarian collapsed in a library. They wanted to resuscitate her, took of her bra and found..well, google “ulcerated breast carcinoma” for yourself. She actually had metastases in brain which caused the collapse, and insisted that she only had cancer for 3 weeks…which obviously was a lie due to the stage. The smell must have been really strong and her relatives siply must have noticed.
    But to the case: BRCA1 is a tumor supressor. Its autosomal dominant hereditary mutation means the risk of breast carcinoma and high grade ovary carcinoma(!) is increased…well, let’s say by 87 percent for breast carcinoma in this case…would you wait? Or read blogs? No way.

    Reply
    • Natural news reported that the risk was actually much lower than 87%!

      Reply
  20. Well…lifestyle change doesn’t help. Or maybe we should tell the kids who developed retinoblastoma at the age of 5 due to simillar RB1 mutation…bad luck…eat less move more enjoy sunshine…? Not really.

    Reply
    • Really, the medical profession has studied every permutation of dietary and lifestyle change, every permutation of hormone therapy, and all other interventions? Wow, they are thorough. Guess there’s nothing to be done here.

      Reply
      • Well, I made a mistake in my previous post. The familiar retinoblastoma due to mutation of RB1..tumor-surpressor gene…develops in most kids at the age of 1 or 2…5 is the upper limit, rarely seen. The RB1 protein is normally there to prevent the development of retinoblastoma and they lack both alelles. What do you offer? The bilateral retinoblastoma will develop. . In the future, there are certainly some possibilities in therapy, and progress is made every day, they live longer etc. But dietary/lifestyle change is not likely to be the way… And unfortunately, those kids will later on develop sarcoma etc.

        Reply
        • That I would definitely agree with – that by the time you are just a few years old many of your health tendencies are already well set into motion, and that dietary/lifestyle/metabolic interventions are going to have their most major effect in the offspring of those improving their function. Prevention is most effective when it starts pre-conception.

          Reply
          • So what are we doing here trying to raise our metabolism?

          • Excellent question, maybe its for the future generation?

          • I do it for how I feel on a day to day basis. The relationship is rather direct. How my low metabolism expresses itself is a result of the ingrained tendencies that I have had for many years, possibly since birth.

    • Yes, or my sister who has 9 brain tumours and 30 tumours on her spinal cord due to a mutation in a different rumour suppressor. I guess she should just have eaten more healthily, then she wouldn’t have gone deaf at the age of 14…

      It’s nice to think we can control all this, whether through drugs, lifestyle change, or whatever. But the fact is, for now at least, we can’t.

      I have a genetic defect in how I manufacture collagen. No amount of bone broth can change the fact that my body makes collagen wrongly, my connective tissues will always be weak. I can change my lifestyle so that I am as strong and healthy as I can be, but that fact will not change. This is the same.

      Reply
  21. Getting your beast removed it’s the latest style. Why put on expensive bras? Just cut them off and never have to wear them again.

    Reply
  22. very well written and funny matt. good job. the angels wept.

    Reply
  23. Matt Stone do you know anyone battling breast cancer? Do you know what cancer patients who have to fight the cancer have to endure to MAYBE get rid of cancer? I think most of those women who struggle with torturing procedures such as chemotherapy would have much rather have had the option of knowing beforehand rather than finding out too late. Angelina had whitenessed the struggles with breast cancer and obviously knew what she would have to endure and made a brave decision. You think taking out tissue that’s possibly cancerous is shocking? Whats shocking is that they make someone who has cancerous cells sit in a room and expose their whole body to radiation among other torturous procedures. We can land on the moon but cant find a cure for the cold they’re are for more shocking things than this. I’m glad Angelina went public with this hopefully it will educate women on the risks of breast cancer.

    Reply
    • Yes. My mom had it, ex-gf’s mom, close friend that lives nearby has it that has chosen not to take the standard route, etc. (and that’s been a tough journey for her I assure you). There are definitely greater absurdities out there Nicole. For sure. Thanks for your comment.

      Reply
    • One of the problems is that the prevailing theory of cancer is that the first tumor is like a mothership that sends out little spaceships once it is comfortably established. But many aggressive cancers have a very small primary tumor and there are plenty of women who had a stage one tumor removed only to discover 10 years later that they have metastatic cancer– as if mothership tumor had called from the pathology lab to rise up and destroy. Some tumors may grow as big as a grapefruit and not metastasize or ever be life-threatening. My grandmother died of metastatic cancer of unknown primary. They could never find an original tumor. The hormonal, metabolic, genetic events that would have set the disease in motion do so regardless of a primary site and thus the preventative surgery may not matter. There may be embryonic cancer already ‘seeded’ in the body. I certainly hope that’s not the case and if this buys her peace of mind, that may be worth a lot. Best of luck regardless because I know about living under the specter of cancer.

      I have a lot of cancer in my family and since my mother passed, I’ve earned a doctorate of google cancer university. In fact, I’ve conducted a minor study of Stage IV cancer blogs, just to look for common themes. Because most people blogging about their cancer are younger than should be getting it. The blogs are fascinating, inspiring, and, of course, sad. To read about the ‘ringer’ of debilitating treatments, tumors shrinking, 10 new tumors, waiting for test results… then the entries trail off. I know it sounds morbid, but I’m really hoping to learn something, find some common threads, but also so many of them are just witty, fascinating writers.
      The reason I bring this up is that you would be surprised at the number of young, non-smoking (though anyone who reads alternative stuff knows smoking is an ambiguous carcinogen ;-)) women with lung cancer. Well, lung cancer– at least some types– are estrogen positive. So here is yet another cancer that may be determined or influenced by excessive estrogen.

      Reply
      • Susan, sorry you are going through all of this, and condolences on your mother. My friend with breast cancer has experienced a lot of what you’re talking about. Had a primary tumor in the breast, had a double mastectomy, as well as having her ovaries removed, went through chemo. Was told her prognosis was excellent. A year later, cancer pops up everywhere all over her body. Possibly it spread from the primary tumor already, but there is the other possibility that it was all over already. It’s a sad thing.

        Reply
      • Susan,

        Have you read “Dying To Be Me” by Anita Moorjani? She had a near death experience due to cancer. She died and came back with the knowledge of why she had the cancer in the first place. From what she learned, it was not from food, or chemicals like the hormone disrupter BPA ect. She says it was fear and not being her true self that drove her cancer. It’s been the most life changing book for me. I would recommend it to anyone, not just those fighting disease, but for those living in a world that is unforgiving of them being who they truly are.

        Love and Blessings!

        Reply
  24. What about thermotherapy for treating cancer ?

    Reply
  25. I’ve been in the medical profession for 20 years. A guy I knew has a sister who went into hospice with kidney failure. She stopped all her medication. She LIVED FOR 4 YEARS!!!! Being in hospice and stopping all her medication cured her kidney failure. She’s in poor health again now due to other stuff, but I get so angry at all the harm that is done at the hands of the medical profession. I’m no longer working in it and I’m glad. I am opposed to so much of it now that I don’t think I could ever go back.

    Reply
    • Liz, just curious, were you a nurse? I am and it’s so hard to take care of patients that are dealing with issues that I don’t think are being treated effectively. I think modern medicine does do some things right- emergency and trauma care, and many, not all aspects of OB (you can’t argue with the fact that many women used to die in childbirth). Cancer is a tough one, and I agree that prevention is crucial.
      I have the hardest time caring for my bariatric patients that had gastric bypass. It makes me so sad. They want to be thin, not realizing how many problems these surgeries (especially roux-en-y) cause in the future. My cardiac patients also crave salt, which their doctors don’t allow them to have.

      Reply
      • Stephanie, yes I’m an RN for 21 years. I think our emergency and trauma care is spot on. One time my son had a virus and he couldn’t breathe… the ER made everything all better. But for long term stuff, we stink. It’s ineffective, expensive, and often does more harm than good in the long run. Don’t get me started on OB. We still have a horrifyingly high maternal death rate for a developed country. Race to the bottom. :(

        Reply
        • No, it’s not perfect. But after visiting a few third world countries I’d much rather have my baby in a hospital with resuscitation equipment available than unassisted in a hut.

          Reply
          • Well, there is certainly a middle ground in regards to childbirth. Check out the documentary “Pregnant in America” — There are other developed countries taking a much better approach to childbirth.

            I’m glad to see you both addressing the fact that the western medicine model is GREAT with trauma care, but lousy with prevention and bulding health.

            I will choose Chinese herbs every day over any pharma drugs for general health and well-being.

          • There is definitely a middle ground between a medical birth for all and a mud hut. A HUGE middle ground.

            I’ve had “fibromyalgia” for years, and only after RRARFing since about the end of February, I am finally noticing that I am not in much pain anymore. I don’t need to take any NSAIDS to be comfortable enough to sleep. Disorder with no cure? I’ve been given the wrong information all this time. I’ll take the extra weight if it means I have energy, much less pain and stable moods.

            We do suck at prevention. Because prevention seems to only mean testing, many of which are invasive and risky. I’m going to be a total asshole to my doctor as I get older, I will be refusing a lot of things. I’m not convinced that any of this stuff helps much – sure if you are the 1 out of 100 people who actually have a problem but what of the other 99 of us? I was a data abstractor for a breastfeeding research grant a few years back. It was amazing how LITTLE cancer was found in the 2000 patients we studied at my clinic, I was totally shocked. It was a huge eye opener. SO many women went in to find nothing. I’m starting to think less testing might be better for most of us… knock yourself out if you want to be poked and prodded and anesthetized and x-rayed within inches of your life – I don’t and I’ll live with less stress that way. NOW I’m off on a tangent!

          • Sorry, not a breastfeeding research grant – a BREAST HEALTH research grant. Breastfeeding was NEVER discussed, which I find completely sad.

      • I have an aunty that had the gastric bypass, she wishes that she never had it, she had terrible side effects, nearly died, and has lost the ability to synthesize certain vitamins. She has been my inspiration to not have surgeries. I might have otherwise, but when I learned that Kaiser calls it a 2 year solution and that most patients gain the weight back, I didn’t see the point.

        Reply
        • The nurses I work with and I all agree that we would never let anyone we cared about have bariatric surgery. But you can’t say that to people who are fresh post op from having their entire GI system re-routed. I understand the desperation and depression weight gain can bring, but if these people knew what they were in for I don’t think they would go through with it. The sad thing is is that the mainstream thinks these surgeries are wonderful. I also wonder about the babies of moms who get pregnant after these surgeries…what will their future health be like?

          Reply
          • Stephanie, I know a lady who had gastric bypass surgery. All three of her children have autism. And her health is completely shot. So sad.

          • Another RN here. Last week I had to recover a 16 year old boy who had had a laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. He weighed 300lbs and his parents were bigger. Don’t tell me that a 16 year old has tried everything. Surgery like that should be an absolute last resort, I don’t believe it should ever be performed on children!

          • It would be one thing if the surgery actually improved long-term health outcomes for patients. But, from what I’ve read, it does not. Which begs the question of why we would pay for such an expensive surgery with such risks.

          • Most patients I’ve seen after these types of surgeries have one of two outcomes: the weight loss stalls or begins creeping back up and they are frustrated, or they are constantly readmitted for dehydration, nausea, vomiting, etc and end up with G-tubes. Many end up extremely emaciated, are prone to infection, and need IV nutrition. It’s scary, and their doctors are often at a loss over how to help them. No one will admit out loud that its the surgery, even though they are warned about the risks beforehand.

          • 16? That is so young. Especially a boy, they aren’t done developing til they’re in their 20s.

  26. My husband’s mother had breast cancer about 10 years ago and treated it with radiation, which was a very painful and difficult experience for her. When it came back around 5 years later she went the alternative route and is cancer-free now and looks and feels 10 years younger. By no means does the have the perfect diet or lifestyle but the few things that she was able to implement did work for her.

    I know this is just a single anecdote and relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but after watching her experience as well as my 48 year old brother-in-law who died from bone cancer getting chemo I think I’d have to at least give the “natural” methods a shot and hope for the best.

    One thing that struck me was a comment that my brother-in-law’s hospice nurse made. I asked if she had any idea how much time he had left and she said that she was afraid that it wasn’t very much. She said that if he was a frail 80 year old woman he might hang on for another 6 months, but that the younger and stronger folk usually succumbed to severe cancer faster. She said it was because of their stronger metabolism. She was right and he died two days later.

    Also I remember reading a comment by Natasha Campbell McBride saying that the reason that vegan raw veg juice fasts worked well for cancer was because they were NOT nourishing.
    That unlike many diseases where you want to feed and build up the body, with cancer starving and “cleansing” seem to work quite well. Does this explain the success that a lot of people have with cancer protocols such as the Gerson diet?

    My mother-in-law did not do any fasting, although she did incorporate fresh vegetable juices as an addition to her diet. Mainly she had chelation therapy with high doses of vitamins intravenously alternating with hydrogen peroxide or a combination of laetrile/DMSO. She also took a bunch of supplements including D3 and cod liver oil.

    I also had a friend with ovarian cancer who went on a raw vegetable diet and I think also did the Breuss flax oil protocol and she tragically passed away.

    I wouldn’t get a mastectomy as a preventative. If I developed breast cancer I would probably go with “alternative” methods rather than chemo or radiation, but I would be scared either way.

    Reply
    • I think the strength of the Gerson therapy is inducing an “essential” fatty acid deficiency. Flax protocols are one way of addressing the issue but removal of all PUFA from the diet is probably the most aggressive anti-cancer type of protocol one could attempt. Vitamin D, aspring, progesterone, and other substances work in a similar way in limiting cell proliferation, inflammation, excitation, etc.

      Reply
      • So, Matt, does “essential” mean you don’t think they are essential? I’ve been watching all your videos and following on FB but I haven’t come across this yet. Or just not getting them from oils? And are Omega 6 fats the same as PUFA’s? So the Omega 6 in grass-fed beef is ok? I’m a little confused now. I guess I need to read more & farther back on the blog.

        Thanks for all your research, by the way. It’s really filling in some pieces of the puzzle for me.

        Reply
        • You basically want as little PUFA as you can get. Getting it occasionally in natural food is k, but it is different when you’re eating food fried in PUFA or baked with PUFA and so on.

          Food sources such as chicken, egg, and pork tend also to have more PUFA in their own tissues if raised on a PUFA rich diet. This then goes up the dietary chain into us.

          Reply
        • A little fat primer:

          First, just the tiniest bit of chemistry. I promise it will be fast and quick. Omega-3, 6, 9, etc. are all PUFA, Polyunsaturated fatty acids, which means that two or more of its carbon-carbon bonds is double bonded (it looks like C=C rather than C-C). The 3/6/9/etc. denotes where on the chain of carbons that the first double bond occurs. So yes, Omega-3 oils/fats are PUFA.

          What’s interesting is that most people are getting the message that PUFAs are not as healthy as the U.S. Gov’t has made them out to be, but at the same time are hearing loud and clear that Omega-3’s are great for health. So which is it? Well, then you might have heard that the ratio of Omega-3 to Omega-6 is important. Okay, the story is a little clearer, but still foggy. Chris Masterjohn has done a lot of study on this and found that the absolute amount of Omega-3/6 counts even more. Essentially (ha!), they both compete for the same enzymes in the body, so if you eat 20 grams of Omega-6 and 5 grams of Omega-3, you would still be within the 4-1 Omega-6 to Omega-3 “ratio” that is supposed to be healthy (or find whatever ratio you want), however, your body’s enzymes would’ve been depleted before you got to your 3’s. So all you’re doing is eating a bunch of PUFA and not getting the benefits of the Omega-3’s.

          This is a confusing topic and Chris Kresser (although not usually admired on this blog) has a good breakdown that says about the same thing. If you’re science minded, just go straight to Chris Masterjohn’s blog (http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/PUFA-Special-Report.html).

          http://chriskresser.com/essential-fatty-acids-not-so-essential-after-all

          http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/precious-yet-perilous

          P.s. I know, I know, its WAPF, but still.

          Reply
      • Matt,

        Judging by your comment, it would now appear reasonable to argue that Peat’s “dietary” protocol can be considered more of an anti-cancer protocol than a weight loss diet? There are lots of people on the Ray Peat Fan FB page b*tching about their weight gain since eating Peaty style, I wonder if they should change their focus to embracing it as an anti-cancer way of eating. Any thoughts?

        Reply
        • I’ve been moving a bit into Peat territory the last 2 weeks and I have to say I feel much better. Less bloating and even slight weight loss(nothing to brag about though.

          I had weight gain at first but it was mostly muscle growth. I was also eating too much fat in general and when I removed a lot of fat I actually started to lose.

          The problem with the Peat diet is that there is no set path of success. You have to self-experiment and find out what works for you. For me that meant eating way less meat than I usually eat and go extremely low fat(I am basically a fruitarian now that allows herself dark chocolate, skim milk, and occasional cheese).

          Only time will tell if this is sustainable for me. So far it is rather simple and nice. Don’t have to worry about cooking as much and I remain very satiated despite being on a very liquid diet.

          Reply
      • Matt, I’d love to see an article from you on this (if you don’t already have one). Seems like every time I ask you something, you pop up with an article you had written that I didn’t know about.

        You say progesterone, is that just for women?

        Reply
        • Just go read some Ray Peat. Men produce progesterone as well. But generally testosterone is sort of our “progesterone.”

          Reply
  27. I recently had an ovarian tumor (and ovary) removed and in my final checkup with my doctor, he actually asked me if I wanted to consider birth control (because apparently studies show that women who take birth control are less likely to develop ovarian cancer). Granted, I know that’s his job, but I told him that I’d educated myself a bit and was trying to now boost my progesterone production with a better diet (one with things like cholesterol, sugar, salt and calories – oh no!) I proceeded to explain to my own gynecologist how I’d been reading about progesterone vs. estrogen and that I was no longer inclined to put any more estrogen into my body. Perhaps doctors should spend more time explaining to women preventative measures – like don’t go on crash diets, for one – they might understand what they can do hormonally to protect their own bodies.

    Reply
    • Most doctors advocate crash dieting, and think that it is helpful.

      Reply
      • I have an overweight friend (obese, really) and her Dr put her on a 600 calorie/day diet. Yes, SIX HUNDRED. Of course it was all supposed to be shakes and bars that the Dr sold. And I guess lettuce was “free.”

        After she spent hundreds of $$ for all the shakes and bars, she quit after 4 days, I mean who wouldn’t?

        Reply
    • The current problem with the medical community in regards to progesterone is that they more or less view progestin as the equivalent of progesterone. So when they read a disastrous study on progestin and how it fucks you up, they will go and talk about how progesterone will fuck you up(since it is a progestin).

      Basically there is a huge gap in their understanding of basic chemistry.

      Reply
  28. Matt, I do not get your claim about the protective effect of progesterone, this is against the evidence provided by the WHI and other evidences of less popularity. It is a routine advice now for postmenopausal women is that combined HRT with regimens containing progesterone increase the breast cancer risk , this did not happen if the the patient got estrogen alone

    Reply
    • Read Ray Peat’s article on that topic. I think it’s the 2nd one I link to at the bottom of the post.

      Reply
    • What is in HRT is not progesterone. It’s progestin. Not the same thing.

      Reply
    • You are referring to synthetic progestins not progesterone. Even though progesterone is considered a progestin it has very little in common with progestins.

      Reply
  29. p.s. that’s a hot picture of Jolie – it’s kind of sad she will no longer have those breasts!

    Reply
    • She has had babies, its probably not the same anyway.

      Reply
      • They would just be less perky right? That’s what happens after pregnancy I think. Either way boobs are boobs and I love em… small, big, perky, saggy or fake even (though I haven’t really felt saggy or fake boobs yet). Boobies are wonderful

        Reply
  30. What about epigenetics? Aren’t a lot of cancers also caused by environmental factors (pollution, what you put in your body) versus genes? Epigenetics states that you might have a gene that makes it possible for a disease or mutation to develop, but we have some control over that, too.

    Reply
    • There are endocrine disruptors that were used by the medical community that have shown to have an epigenetic effect on several generations in a row. One of them being DES or Diethylstilbestrol.

      It’s kinda scary that the medical community used this and literally doomed several generations of people.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol

      Reply
      • Still going on. Women take all kinds of meds during pregnancy now without any knowledge of what it’s doing to their baby’s “germ” (eggs and sperm that will become their own children one day). There have been questions raised on whether the risk of autism is greater for children whose grandmothers took anti-anxiety meds and antidepressants during pregnancy, especially, or who were on the pill. Doctors greenlight all sorts of meds during pregnancy these days, but no one knows the safety to the 2nd generation, and no studies are being done.

        Reply
        • Tell me about it. I am a transwoman and my mom is a retired nurse. Sometimes I fear that I am who I am(transgender) because my mom was subjected to a lot of things(stress, drugs, and so on) before I was born. I was also born with cryptorchidism which apparently is a side effect of DES.

          I can almost say I am the child of the Synthetic Hormone Revolution.

          Reply
  31. I have been critical of breast cancer research for a few years now. In large part because the overwhelming focus is on treatment and meaningful prevention (not based on cultural biases) is an afterthought. The growing celebrity trend for preventative mastectomy is just a new industry that spreads the idea that good health must be bought.

    I also question some of the ethical decisions in the breast cancer awareness industry. My concern was peaked after I took note of the major corporate labels that sponsor pink ribbon events. Many of the companies that donate and sponsor groups to generate good will also pilfer products with chemicals not rigorously tested for human safety. Any questioning of the pink ribbon industry, or the development of the disease beyond falling back onto genetic factors is widely dismissed. I am reminded of Noam Chomsky’s writings about censorship and corporate culture.

    Reply
    • I worked in a Breast Cancer lab at Stanford. We didn’t study the BRCA’s but a third gene called ATM. I definitely believe genetics plays a huge role, but the foundations that support the research are BS. We were funded by Komen, a total SCAM. They are NOT interested in research on prevention.

      Plus I can’t STAND it that they convinced football players to wear pink. I cringe whenever I see that.

      Reply
  32. Weston Price’s tribes didn’t get cancer. No malignancies, he said. Does that mean they didn’t have any of these tumor-causing genes? Or, is there more to the story – epigenetics, for example?

    I don’t think medical industry track record with breast cancer is anything to brag about. Maybe if they convince more women to prophylactically amputate their breasts, that will improve their statistics. (And you’re right, Matt, whose to say Angelina will really truly get her double mastectomy, or if she’s just saying she is. Create more fear, and more over-treatment from the rest of us. Fear is so lucrative.)

    I like Nicholas Gonzalez’ protocol – with raw beef liver and raw pork pancreas for cancer treatment. Avoiding processed foods and vegetable oils. Loading up on enzyme rich raw animal fats and proteins (Dr. Edward Howell said was very healing of cancers). And of course getting lots of beneficial organisms in raw milk, fermented foods. Native Americans used to eat raw animal intestines – full of pre-digested goodies. Maybe all those enzymes help catalyze and breakdown tumors, or proteins that cause tumors. Not holding my breath for any NSF or NIH funded study on whether traditional diets reduce cancer mortality. Too much industry $$$ at stake.

    Reply
    • This is true, but the first known description of cancer goes back to Hippocrates, at about 400 B.C., who identified several types of cancer and gave its name. So it’s nothing new, although the environment is a big factor.

      Reply
  33. The real kicker is that everyone is applauding her for it. Really? But in a society with planned C-sections and “preventative” hysterectomies, I suppose this is the next logical step. Does anyone notice that all of these surgeries are overwhelmingly geared towards women changing their bodies, or controlling the natural rhythms of their bodies? “Cut first, think later.” What’s wrong with us the way we are?

    Reply
    • Women are the primary consumers of health care services and pharmaceutical drugs. Healthy women and women who don’t fear disease are not good for business. The medical industry uses fear tactics to get women to consume their services.

      Ask a typical guy when he last went to the doctor for a general checkup. Chances are, it has been quite a while. Men don’t usually go to the doctor unless they are very sick. Women on the other hand, tend to visit the doctor (and take their children) regularly, for minor complaints often. Many women are programmed to get their regular mammograms and pap smears yearly, in addition to tests for blood sugar, cholesterol, etc. It is all about the money and women are very willing use health care services that don’t benefit them.

      Notice that no one is recommending prophylactic removal of the prostate for men.
      That is because men place a high value on their sexuality. Try convincing a typical man that a fulfilling sex life is not important to his existence.

      Reply
  34. I found Angelina’s explanation of her thought process, including her children asking if they could lose her to cancer like she had lost her mother, short sighted. If you really think about it, she will be lost one day whether they can cope with that or not. We all will die. Can’t excape it. One way or the other, we’re all going to kick the bucket.

    A doctor I visited once pressed me a bit to have the BRCA testing becuase my mother had breast cancer (still alive and kicking almost 20 years later). I about laughed myself (internally) out of my chair with incredulity as he was talking to me about removing my breasts and ovaries if I was indeed positive. It was all so surreal as he was talking to me in all seriousness, thinking he was doing me a favor.

    I refused the testing after thinking about it for a couple of days. His question to me was, “Wouldn’t you like to know in advance if you’re going to be hit by a truck tonight at 6 so you can do something to prevent it?” My answer in my brain was, “No, frankly!” I really don’t want to know. Sometimes knowlege is curse, and ignorance is bliss. I’d rather live a healthy and prevantative lifestyle and be okay with going when it’s my time than live constantly with the knowlege of a “death sentence.” Talk about living with anxiety. Forget it.

    If I had several family female blood relatives that all developed cancer, I might think again. But there is such a randomness in the cancers in my family. Furthermore, my mom’s cancer might not even be considered truly cancer nowadays (ductal and lobular carcinoma insitu) since it was in the earliest earliest stage possible when it was discovered.

    Reply
    • Eighty percent of the women who get breast cancer do not have a breast cancer gene or family history of breast cancer. So I guess ALL women and girls should have their breasts and ovaries removed to prevent MOST female cancers. And most women with a breast cancer gene will not get cancer.

      I think the problem is the fear of death that is pervasive in Western societies. We are so obsessed doing everything to prolong life, that we can’t enjoy living. We also believe that we are entitled to live to 90 or 100 years. We do a lot of things that will supposedly extend out lives while decreasing the quality of our lives (avoiding the sun, exercising excessively, veganism etc)

      Angelina may escape a female cancer, but still end up getting pancreatic cancer, for example, which has a higher mortality rate than breast or ovarian cancer. And what about colon cancer, stomach cancer, bone cancer, thyroid cancer, esophageal cancer, etc etc. Farah Fawcett died from anal cancer.

      Doesn’t Angelina realize that she could die any day in a car accident or choking on her food or falling down the stairs? I think her real problem is an unnatural fear of death. She needs counseling to learn to accept death as a natural part of the life cycle and focus on loving her children and being happy in the present. Her children will miss her when she dies not matter the cause of death.

      Reply
      • There is so much wisdom in Ann’s comment!

        Reply
  35. I can see how a mastectomy lowers the chance of getting breast cancer, but it doesn’t eliminate it. Not all breast tissue is located in the breasts.It migrates, which is quite normal as you age and worsened by wearing ill-fitted bras (which most women do). A well fitted bra can reverse some of that, but probably not all. I mean, it can migrate pretty far, like to the back, slightly under the band area. Good look getting that back in your boobs…
    So yeah, having your breasts removed doesn’t guarantee a breast cancer free future. I totally get why some women with the gene get it done, but I personally would not.

    Reply
    • All native american/mexican/native Hawaiian women have mammaries that come under the arm pit and extend around her back. We are built a little differently, its not a product of age, just ethnicity. Bras that are available are really built for caucasian women.

      Reply
  36. I stopped donating to cancer research charities years ago… has anyone seen the documentary Think Before You Pink?
    It asks people to think critically about pink ribbons and other feel-good marketing
    about cancer awareness, and about cancer charities.
    http://www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org

    Reply
    • haha that sounds like “think before you pee” in Swedish :)

      Reply
  37. There is a strong link between diabetes and breast cancer. Maybe the answer is that there are multiple factors. Yet few have probably tried to get rid of the gorilla in the room, uncontrolled blood sugars. New research shows a link between hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, and cancer (see e.g., Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories) Perhaps Jolie could have avoided painful surgery and the possibility of death under the knife, just by going on a low-carb or a paleo diet. But then she could have saved tens of thousands of dollars on expensive dangerous surgery, and we can’t have that. I mean, doctors have a right to a decent living too, don’t they?

    Reply
    • Petros, you won’t find too much low carb love here. Lots of us have been through that wringer. High blood sugars are a problem, but long term avoidance of carbs exacerbates rather than eliminates that tendency. Rather than running from the problem, around here we try to help people resolve it so they can robustly handle all macronutrients in any quantity. Healthy people can, and we should aim for no less.

      Reply
    • Do any of us really believe that Angie suffers from poor blood sugar?

      Reply
  38. Hmmm, this reminds me. When my dog was a pup, I took him to the veterinarian for a standard check-up. The Vet recommended I have my dog castrated. I asked him why. “He’ll live longer.” My response to the Vet was to ask him, if that was the case, then why didn’t he (the Vet) get himself castrated. That shut him up.

    Reply
    • Love it!!!

      Reply
  39. Main stream medicine is finally studying epigenetics and how yes, we can change our genes, even in our own life times. It is only partly the hand you are dealt, and fully how you play that hand. Just because you have “bad” genes doesn’t mean you will get cancer or whatnot, but you have to do the work to be preventative.

    I’m reading Pottenger’s Prophecy right now which is such a fascinating book on genes and diet. There is one study in that book where a man with prostate cancer was “cured” through diet changes AND lifestyle changes like attending support groups. Why not for breast cancer?

    Reply
  40. I remember reading about how people from sudan had low rates of skin cancer, but when moved to America that number increased by 8 times. There are so many variables that we don’t know much about. The air we breathe, chemicals in shampoos gels and soaps, water quality, stress, additives in food… The list goes on.

    Reply
    • Also, there is not much medical assistance available for most residents in Africa. This means that natrual selection is still active there. If you have cancer, your chances for survival are minimal, and you will not pass on your cancer-prone genes to your children (because you won’t get a chance to beget children).

      Reply
      • But most cancers occur after puberty and people in African countries tend to have children earlier than here in the West. Like in their teens and early twenties. They can certainly pass on the genes before they die of cancer.

        I think the difference is in Africa there are fewer environmental triggers for the genes which can cause cancer.

        Reply
  41. This is kinda like my friend: She had her uterus removed last year because her doctor told her she was the “right age to do it since she didn’t need it anymore.” Ummm, what? Or should I say, WTF???

    She wasn’t having any problems. Her periods were normal, everything fine. But because she was 48, he told her it was “time.” Her life has been hell since. She instantly gained 20 pounds, has had to have her bladder “netted” and has suffered the worst depression. She’s like an empty shell now.

    Why did he take a perfectly good organ out of her? Did her have to make his Mercedes payment?

    I even sent her this short video before the surgery and she still went through with it. Ladies, if you have 12 minutes this video will explain why you should hold on to you uterus at all costs. (unless there is cancer, of course). Its done in a dry, monotone voice, but the info is so good.
    http://www.hersfoundation.org/anatomy/

    Reply
    • This is exactly why people should not blindly trust their doctors. I hope she’s suing him for malpractice.

      Reply
    • I would encourage your friend to see if her metabolism has recovered since surgery. Every time I have had an operation my metabolism took a nasty hit, and it wasn’t until I found this site that I realized my caloric needs had increased, but I didn’t eat more to compensate so I sent my body into a downward spiral.

      Reply
    • ” Did her have to make his Mercedes payment?”

      Yes

      Reply
  42. I am impressed with your knowledge of progesterone.
    I do not know you, but you know more than most doctors as far as I can tell.
    JT

    Reply
  43. Could this estrogen/progesterone theory be why breastfeeding reduces the chance of breast cancer? Doesn’t breastfeeding inhibit estrogen production?

    Reply
  44. Since we’re talking about progesterone, does anyone know about sudden progesterone “intolerance”? I took low doses of topical progesterone cream for a couple years, which worked great for some PCOS symptoms. But almost overnight, even the lowest possible dose began to exacerbate the problems instead of reverse them. I’d like to try taking it again, mostly for PMS acne and weight gain, but I just have no idea why it’s making it worse. Anyone?

    Reply
    • Well, I’m not an expert here but I’ve been lurking on thyroid message boards a long time ( I’m hypo, and no, overeating did not reverse the situation, thank you) I see people on these boards report repeatedly that progesterone supplementation raises their cortisol levels often astronomically and they have the before after tests to prove it, sadly pregnenelone can do the same thing (personal experience). I also tried two weeks of progesterone cream once on the advice of a Dr. and it made me feel friken insane, turns out progesterone can activate the amygdala, aka stress response so yeah, I’m not surprised by what your experiencing. Sorry to say this but you probably do have a minor thyroid abnormality that would be worth investigating, and while in some regards I respect what Matt’s doing hear on this site, I’m pretty cynical about the average non-dieting non-compulsive exerciser being able to gain much more than additional weight with his suggestions, rrrfing actually made my stress hormone and thyroid profiles significantly worse (but my temps normalized). With that said I can also say that both the main-stream and Ray Peat approach to thyroid disorders are absolutely bat-shit crazy and in many cases are flat-out dangerous, so tread carefully and before trying to get thyroid treatment you should read “The functional approach to hypothyroidism” by Kenneth Blanchard as well as http://tiredthyroid.com/ so that you know what your getting into. Actually Matt should really read this stuff as well so that we can put aside some of the more dangerous and flat out wrong assumptions that Peat makes.

      Reply
      • I have saliva tests from last fall (and all the symptoms) showing I have virtually no cortisol.

        Last month, I did a blood test on day 6 of very modest progesterone cream supplementation. My cortisol reading is through the roof. I stopped the cream a couple weeks later (before my results were in) when I was so dead tired and realized i was pumping the prego hormone into me – no wonder. I felt much better the very next day.

        Having said that, I did/do need the building blocks for cortisol (I’m on isocort in the morning.) I don’t know if my problem is too much progesterone or that I have so much stress, so that once/as soon as my body is able to manufacture cortisol it may well go right back to too much cortisol.

        Reply
        • Cortisol is made from progesterone. When your body is stressed, it needs more cortisol than progesterone to keep you alive and functioning. So it will convert the progesterone to cortisol. The key is to get your body out of a stressed state before using progesterone.

          When I first started following Ray Peat, I was very stressed and having lots of night sweats and hot flashes. I used the Progest-E and it made things worse. I kept increasing the dosage because I read that Progesterone can increase estrogen dominance symptoms in the short run and the way to get past it is to use much more progesterone. But it just made things worse, so i stopped.

          I started focusing on my diet (and emotions) and added lots of sugar and salt to my food; my hot flashes and night sweats went away. Several weeks ago I stopped adding salt and sugar to my food and now my hot flashes and night sweats have returned.

          Reply
          • Thanks ann, that makes a lot of sense. The doctor who prescribed the progesterone took routine blood and saliva tests and it always appeared as if my high cortisol would never go away, despite every other imbalance improving. VLC definitely didn’t help.

            I wish I had someone as good as her where I live now, but sadly I don’t. I can’t find anyone who will test my hormone levels properly. Do you happen to know of any definite signs of a naturally improving progesterone level?

  45. one word that seems to not be uttered here yet is radiation. radiation has always been, but lately we humans have been playing with it, detonating bombs and letting nukes leak like at fukashima. every year more radiation, every year more cancer. if she sucks in a plutonium molecule, well, maybe her body won’t be able to store it in her breast anymore. it’ll just store it some place else. she’ll be just as dead.

    Reply
  46. Angelina’s breasts have always captivated the world…so it continues!

    Every interview I have seen with Angelina she is very dedicated to being a mother. She is a fierce woman I can see her not wanting to risk her own mother’s fate and die of breast cancer and leave behind her children …

    But why did her mom die of cancer? Angelina choosing to remove her breast is a clear sign of how OUT OF TOUCH the medical profession is with the Human Body – Health and understanding why the body creates symptoms. If you only study the body from a physical perspective – it is very difficult to find the cause. Hence their obsession with genes.

    I am curious what was going on in Angelina Jolie’s mother’s life to cause her to get breast cancer. What stress was going on in her life?

    For those interested here are the biological responses to stress from a META-Health Perspective on Breast Cancer:

    1. Mammary Glands

    Mental/Emotional Stress Conflict: Worry-Fight

    Emotions Associated: Worry-argument or fight conflicts mostly with mate, child, mother, home, nest

    Stress Phase:

    In the conflict phase we find a proliferation of the mammary glands cells which can be diagnosed as a benign fibro adenoma or as a lobular breast cancer. In most cases compact nodes are perceptible.

    Regeneration Phase:

    In the regeneration phase we see a loss of the mammary glands cells with an encapsulation of the nodes or a caseating tuberculous degradation of the nodes by micro bacteria. Typical symptom of the healing phase are an edema a painful scaring atrophy and a necrotic stinking degradation of the tumor (open breast with elimination of a stinking secretion) through the outlet of the tumor.

    Breast Ducts – Intraductal

    Stress-Trigger: Separation-fear

    Emotions: Fear of separation from mate, child, mother, home or nest.

    Stress Phase:

    In the conflict phase we detect a cell loss in the mammary ducts (an ulcerative dilatation) with a sensory paralysis (Numbness) in most cases felt as a slight dragging pain in the mamma.

    Regeneration Phase:

    In the regeneration phase the cell growth may be diagnosed as a benign growth in the mammary ducts as a carcinoma in situ or as a malignant carcinoma of the mammary ducts. Due to the swelling of the squamous epithelium mucosa the secretion cannot run off through the occluded mammary duct. This can cause a more or less intense swelling behind the nipple (a typical finding for a carcinoma of the mammary ducts). The mamma may be inflamed, swollen and enlarged. In most cases accompanied by a hypersensitivity, absence or short term memory loss.

    Reply
    • According to wiki, Angelina Jolie ‘s mom died at age 56 of ovarian cancer, not breast cancer. Angelina was an adult with children of her own when her mother died.

      Angelina will be 56 in another 19 years. If she suffers her mother’s fate, by then her children will be adults. No one is entitled to be around long enough to have great grand children or even grand children. She is not doing this because of her children. She has an abnormal fear of death and is extreme about many things in her life. She is a control freak who cannot accept that one day she MUST die…of something.

      Reply
  47. She is planning to have ovaries removed next, which as someone before me wrote
    will lead to immediate menopause. An insane uttermost self mutilation. It scare the fuck out me..
    Like in a SF Dark Age of medicine where people sacriface their organs on the oltar of majorly
    sadistic/pervert God.
    But how dump a human can be? Breast get hit by cancer couse its an easy target. Ovaries too.
    If they are absent of the equation, but the causes are present
    wouldnt just hit somewhere else?

    Reply
  48. Immediate self provoked menopause at 37 is like cutting your leg to participate at
    the Paraolympiques ( or the Boston marathon..).

    Reply
    • Removing an organ for a 50/50 chance of disease at some point in your life, when it still performs a vital regulatory function is bizarre. I am finding the narrative in the press about this story to be equally disturbing. Angelina has transitioned from carefree wild child to doting mother; a journey punctuated by her courageous decision to self-mutilate in an epic battle against an illness she does not have. This is not progress.

      Reply
    • It is worse than natural menopause. Because after menopause, the ovaries still produces some hormones, just not as much as before. With no ovaries, she will most likely need hormone replacement therapy, especially since she is so slender. Also, she will likely no longer have a sex drive. But maybe she does not care about that.

      Reply
      • I don’t think she has a clue what she is getting herself into health-wise. I would be shocked if she ever had the misfortune of having to replicate or regulate an unconscious function of the body and therefore does not realize how ineffective and dangerous modern medicine is.

        Reply
  49. I know that Angelina Jolie will be hailed as “courageous” and some type of “role model” for women for this action. I don’t agree. This is one of the most cowardly and anti-life actions that I can think of. It also points to a problem of the Information age, albeit one that “God” has been eternally aware of. Let me explain.

    According to many traditions, right before re-birth something happens to make us forget our past lives and what happened to us in the spiritual realm. Now it doesn’t matter if you’re an atheist, agnostic, skeptic or, for whatever reasons, don’t believe in reincarnation. Think about this in mythological terms…what is trying to be expressed.

    What if this didn’t happen? What if you remembered all of the horror of your past lives? That time you were burned to death? That time you fell from a cliff to your death? That time your beloved literally stabbed you in the back? You would be so frozen in your tracks that you couldn’t get on with this life?

    Now take the past-life scenario (again, doesn’t matter if you believe in such a thing) and change it to a future scenario. You are so worried about that cancer you MIGHT get, that plane that MIGHT crash, that diabetes that MIGHT ruin your life that you are FROZEN IN YOUR TRACKS. Look, I am not saying not to take precautions, but this can get out of hand. It has with Angelina Jolie.

    This is completely related to the turn that this website has taken. Do you see it? It’s one thing to be careful about your health. It’s quite another thing to spend all your waking hours worrying about it, searching those pristine ingredients for your diet. This eliminates life.

    It comes down to this. YOU ARE GOING TO DIE. And you know what? I am going down with the ship. I *MIGHT* get testicular cancer one day, but I am holding on to my balls….and live…and one day, die. So let’s hope that Angelina Jolie does not start a trend.

    Reply
    • I think the line of what is “out of hand” is subjective and varies based on conditions.

      You could apply your argument to life saving medications. Or say, when I was seventeen I snapped my femur in half. Without modern interventions, there is no healing from that kind of injury. No splint or cast can do it, you need traction for months or a titanium rod surgically drilled through your bone, which is what I had done to me. You can say it’s different and that I’m not doing something as drastic as lobbing off a part of my body, but really, who’s to say where the line is? I’m a bionic woman! Perhaps everyone removing their bosoms past a certain age is a bit much, but if I had a risk like that, I’d consider doing it too. I would rather live without tits than die. And yes, I know that I will die someday. But every single day we are trying to outrun death, we do it by eating, sleeping, wearing our seatbelts, reading this blog, taking our vitamins, not engaging in particularly risky behavior. I think there is nothing cowardly about seeing an 87% risk of developing a virulent breed of cancer in a body part that is, more than any other body part, not necessary to survival and making a choice to cut your losses so that you can continue to live. Not forever. But for longer, and hopefully, without a painful illness taking you out. We can modify the elements. We’re humans, that’s what we do. We can’t outrun death forever, but we can do a hell of a job of stretching out the chase.

      Oh and guys, I only bring this up as a counterpoint to Thomas’s argument in particular. I’m not saying anything for or against Jolie’s surgery as the best or worst means of dealing with her particular case. I’ll leave that up to y’all to discuss.

      Reply
      • I’ll just add though, that I do get what you’re saying. I’m not even an organ donor because I always thought it was too much.

        Reply
    • One trend among centenarians, I’ve noticed, is they generally don’t do this! They just live life and do what they want. In the end, that probably gives them a longer life than if they worried more about what might happen.

      I doubt almost any man would be willing to cut his balls off to *maybe* not get testicular cancer. What kind of life would that be? It’s always the women’s bodies that get controlled. Birth control pills that take away libido and cause health issues, removal of reproductive organs.

      I think women should be wary of doing this procedure until a long-term study is done showing the effects on all-cause mortality. Doctors love jumping to conclusions too early. It’s like the call for low-sodium diets – the thinking goes that cutting salt can lower blood pressure, and high blood pressure is associated with heart attacks, therefore eating a low-sodium diet will lead to fewer heart attacks. Sounds great, except studies have now shown that low-sodium diets are actually associated with more heart problems and higher overall death, across populations.

      Here doctors make an assumption that because women with BRCA have a high risk of breast and ovarian cancer, by removing those organs the chance of those cancers will be significantly diminished, and therefore they will live long lives. Maybe that will prove true, but what if removal of those organs leads to other cancers, or greater risk of heart disease, etc. We just don’t know.

      Reply
      • ” doubt almost any man would be willing to cut his balls off to *maybe* not get testicular cancer. What kind of life would that be? It’s always the women’s bodies that get controlled. Birth control pills that take away libido and cause health issues, removal of reproductive organs.”

        Exactly. I made a similar comment above.

        Why is it that sexuality is seen as something optional for women. Losing her ovaries and breasts will definitely negatively affect her sex life. If she does not care about that, then fine. But she should not parade her decision in the media as if it is a good choice for most women. She could have done this quietly. No one needed to know about it. But I really think she wants to influence other women to make the same decision.

        Maybe she wants to be defeminized. Maybe she is feeling guilty for stealing Brad from Jennifer and wants to become asexual.

        Reply
        • I used to really admire Angelina, because she blurred the boundary of the old virgin/whore dichotomy that dominates our depiction of powerful women. She embraced a real life where she did things of meaning, while living as a visceral human being with passionate relationships. Her story is turning into a matronly tale of abandoning childish foolishness to live life of caution. The fact that she will gain respect in the media for this, is a sign of our negative association with the female libido.

          Reply
    • I noticed it too, Thomas. I think the site has always been like this though. It’s you and I who have changed. We all tell each other to eat the food without fear, but then in the next breath someone says…”did you know that PUFA is bad because it messes up your hormones and that can lead to disease?” How is this any different than the fear that the diet camps like raw vegan or Paleo try to sell us on? We look for validation on what to do because we are afraid, but we won’t find reassurance if we keep looking to others to help calm our fears. That’s only something we can do for ourselves. As scary as that may sound, I find it freeing. I’m the one who gets to decide if I’m going to be in fear of something or not. So maybe the all milk diet or the Ray Peat diet or the raw vegan diet or the Paleo diet or RBTI or whatever diet of the month draws some interest, has some curative affect. We could spend all our energy looking for a needle in a haystack only to find out that the answer was as simple as passing by that mound of straw to go do what we really love to do. The haystack is tempting, but it doesn’t beat the green pastures that await us when we let go of the desperation and fear.

      Reply
  50. Liz- you mentioned progesterone cream. For some reason Jon Gabriel warns against it (he’s been mentioned here more than once). His book cites anecdotal evidence of women who gained weight while on it. It’s confusing to me b/c Broda Barnes etc. all say it’s good for the thyroid. All I can think is that somehow the topical progesterone may ‘build up’ in the tissues over time.

    Reply
    • SusieQ,

      I was about to bring up the same thing. My friend who is a chemist/naturopath warned me about any topical hormone therapy. According to her, it does, in fact, build up in adipose tissue, and she says that you have no control over when or how much your body has to deal with at any given time. She has treated people who, after years of topical therapy, lost weight and were suddenly extremely ill due to enormous amounts of hormone becoming available.

      Reply
      • Dr Mercola mentioned the same thing about progesterone cream. After a while it builds up in the fat tissues, so the person is now getting a constant supply of progesterone instead of the cyclical dose that the body produces.

        Ray Peat presents progesterone as completely harmless, but I don’t agree with him. He seems to believe that every woman is progesterone deficient.

        Reply
  51. Having had breast cancer myself and being positive for the brac2 gene i have to say I wish my Dr would of told me to do the mastectomy. Having something like this make me paranoid that I will not find it earlier enough next time.
    I agree with Angelina 100 percent with her choice. I truly dont think anyone can understand this until they have been told they have the gene or that they had breast cancer. Its a fear like no other that I live with. I worry everyday. I was only 26 when I found my lump and every dr told me it was a cycst, I pushed for more testing and thank god that i did because if I had not I would not be here today.

    Reply
    • That is very possibly not true. You may have just found the person who would tell you what you believed. People think that testing is fool proof and accurate. They think that pathology is too. I have read several books written by doctors that clear away the delusions. They said that it happens all the time that pathologists aren’t really sure whether something is cancerous and so they just make a guess. He said that making that call is very often not clear cut at all. He said that the problem with screening is that the more you look the more you’re gonna find. He said that with full body scans for instance almost everyone is going to have something show up. He said that people are unaware of the fact that a high percentage of people have some cancerous tissue somewhere but never know about it and it never becomes a problem. People think that if you have cancer it is always aggressive and a killer and that just isn’t true. 90 percent of breast cancer is in situ which is not aggressive and would resolve on its own. In Europe I don’t remember the country the approach of wait and see has been adopted for these and what they are experiencing is that indeed they just aren’t aggressive and don’t progress. In the US no distinction is made between these and aggressive types so massive numbers of people are being traumatized and toxified for nothing. TOO MUCH MISUNDERSTANDING AND FEAR HAS BEEN PROMOTED BY BIG PHARMA. It is to their advantage so you will do what they say and line their pockets. Honestly I don’t believe anything I hear from that industry. I think it is all crap. I think the cholesterol guidelines are crap, the cancer screenings are crap, you name it’s crap. If I was having symptoms I might get the diagnosis confirmed as I probably would already figured out what it was myself. But I wouldn’t use their treatment.

      Reply
  52. But what do we really know about breast cancer? Even if you have “tumors”, whose to say they will mestasticize and cause death? The latest word on mammograms is that they detect tumors that may never have become life-threatening – leading to over-aggressive treatments which in themselves are traumatizing and toxic. Some of these tumors may be caused by the immune system encapsulating problematic cells protecting the body from further harm. Squashing the breasts with mammography, or removing them surgically may release dangerous cells – and interfere with the suppressive function of the original tumor. Apparently there some hormone signaling by larger tumors preventing satellite tumors from growing.

    My husband – much as I love him – is a geneticist. Quite frankly, geneticists talk a good story but don’t have any idea of how the body regulates genes, how hormones interact, how food, nutrients, minerals, stress, anger, fear, happiness, laughter, etc. play a role…..lots of moving parts to all this. Silly to over-emphasize one component.

    Reply
  53. Matt, i got few questions concerning esterogen dominance buisness.
    Is obesity closely related to it? Male obesity is typical for one thing with “feminization”
    of the body, growing breast, loss of body hair and such. The simply “big guys” usually sport a belly of
    serious size , but their legs, arms and upper chest stays mainly unchanged.
    Getting fatter( which some of us did) mean getting more esterogen in their systems, which on a way slows the metabolism, which leads to getting fatter , more esterogen and so on.
    How to deal with that?
    Is the quantity of esterogen important or the ratio to progesterone that matter?
    How to get more progesterone? Ray peat style raw carots or there are some less
    rabit ways of getting the job done.

    Reply
    • When you become obese by following Matt’s advice to overeat, you are increasing estrogen production. You have traded one problem for another which may be worse.

      The way to deal with excess estrogen is not necessarily extra progesterone. Get rid of the excess fat, eat to decrease inflammation, improve thyroid function and also reduce stress in your life. The carrot salad can remove endotoxins but it is not a cure for excess estrogen caused by obesity. Both the amount of estrogen and the estrogen to progesterone ratio are important.

      I agree that people should not starve themselves, but I don’t understand eating to obesity as a solution to health problems.

      Reply
      • Ann, i am far from being obese at 1,80 and 67 kg.
        Getting fatter does not mean getting obese.
        Easy does it.. Slow down with judgment.

        Reply
  54. How about a series of articles and/or a book on women’s hormonal issues. How can we naturally increase our progesterone and improve the type of estrogen. As I understand it estriol is less toxic. What about DIM or I3P ( is that right?) for high risk people assuming that the bad gene bit is really true and not some propaganda to increase business for surgeons.

    I am taking a dr christophers herbal that has lengthened my cycle and eliminated breast tenderness and cramps etc prementrually. I am 45 and perimeno. and started having these issues again as when I was a teen. My periods were shortening which I read is due to diminishing progesterone. Since progesterone is not peaking where it should in the second half of my cycle my period starts early. This has corrected on the herbal which is a hormone balancing formula. So I assume it is improving my progesterone level.

    What is the deal about carrots for progesterone? What exactly does ray peat say abot this?

    Reply
    • Ray Peat says that progesterone should not be used until thyroid function is healthy. He recommends eating lots of simple sugars and adequate protein to increase thyroid function and to raise cholesterol levels; when the thyroid is functioning properly, cholesterol is converted to progesterone. Ray Peat also recommends thyroid hormone in some cases. If thyroid function is healthy but progesterone is still low, then consider progesterone supplementation.

      Reply
  55. How much progesterone should a man or post menopausal woman have anyway?

    Reply
    • In one of his books, Peat recommends about 10mg of oral Progest-e daily for slender post menopausal women.

      Reply
  56. This is completely off topic, so please forgive me. I’ve been doing the Diet Recovery II for a little less than a week, and my basal temps are already way up. YAY! One thing I have noticed is that my temperature can really vary between the left and right armpit, by almost a full degree. Has anyone else noticed that?

    Reply
    • Yes, oral or rectal temps seem to be more consistent. Matt recommends them over axillary temps these days.

      Reply
      • Good to know. Thank you!

        Reply
      • oral temps though can be artificially elevated in people that have inflammation in the gums for instance, causing a higher temp reading. thats something to be aware of too. i think that was from broda barnes…but not 100% certain. makes sense anyway though.

        Reply
  57. hey, i just had a question for matt or anyone else who wants to chime in if you guys have any
    recomendations for a book or books to give to an adolescent girl for
    her to understand her endocrine system and hormones and how they all interrelate, also with info that goes into common symptoms that females have that arnt normal but just common, what to expect upcoming into the 20’s, 30’s and so on and action steps to balance things out.

    i know, a tall order for a book, but i’m really looking for an encompassing silver bullet book or 2 because its for someone who doesnt like to read too much…
    thank you!

    Reply
    • J, I would recommend Claudia Welch’s Balance Your Hormones Balance Your Life by Claudia Welch. She’s an ayurvedic practitioner so it comes with that tilt, but essentially it’s all about how your body’s hormones and systems inter-relate, and is all about healthy lifestyle modifications that keep the hormone systems running well (stress reduction, healthy diet, moderate exercise, yoga, etc.). She says don’t even take supplements until trying lifestyle changes.Some of her diet advice may not be totally 180-degree-health-approved, but I think it’s overall really good (and I agree with her on most things).

      Reply
      • thanks a lot!

        Reply
  58. Matt!

    This may be the most SHOCKING comment ever to be left on your
    blog. But it is the truth. Buckle up.
    I suggest everyone reads this twice. It will take a while to sink in.
    Here goes;

    ***ANGELINA JOLIE does not exist. ***
    She has not had her breasts removed.
    She will never have her ovaries removed.
    Why? Because Angelina Jolie does not exist.

    Let me explain. Angelina Jolie is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER,
    being played by an actress. When “ANGELINA” is not “in character”,
    she lives her normal life under her real name. Lets pretend her real name
    is Jane Jones in real life. Well, Jane Jones puts on prostetics and a wig and
    an accent, and plays ANGELINA JOLIE. Many celebrities do this. The are owned
    by an movie production company. Their goal is to manipulate the public with outrageous behaviour and promote certain products etc. I challenge “Angelina” to show us unaltered
    topless pictures of her new man breasts. Wont happen. Trust me.

    The agenda with this fake story is to make the idiot public think that even
    celebrities are getting mutilated in the name of prevention. Its a covert
    CIA public manipulation/propaganda story that people think are real.

    Everythnig you see on TV is not real.

    So go on “Angelina” , get them out for the boys. Prove me wrong.

    Reply
    • Yep. That’s pretty much what I was hinting at in an earlier comment on this thread. You can never know fiction from reality in today’s extremely commercial world.

      Reply
      • Chomsky suggests that if you want slightly more truth in your news, you read the business pages as business people really do need to know what’s going on, as opposed to the rest of us suckers. Not the whole truth, mind – just a bit more of what’s really going on behind stories like these. Ties in with the story of the patented genes and all the profits to be made.

        Reply
        • Hey Sue,
          Chomsky has been exposed as a CIA actor.
          Most celebrities and politicians are.
          Think “Mrs Doubtfire” only more advanced prostetics and
          happening in the real world.
          If you check out ed chiarini ‘s facebook page,
          or his website at wellaware1.com you will see.
          I know i sound like i’m trying to promote this site,
          but i’m not connected to it. The website is a non
          profit, no ads or anything.

          Reply
      • While I see your point, I think you and Shock are giving Angelina Jolie too much credit. One thing that is clear about Hollywood and celebrity culture is a fervent belief in genetics and healthy habits. It allows for a smooth continuum between self-aggrandizement and humility without internal conflict. Brad Pitt has attributed his good looks to genetics on a number of occasions, because he believes himself to be humble; I think this is a naive and damaging idea. I don’t see why one would assume that the belief system and thus behaviors of these celebrities is more sophisticated. I genuinely believe that they are being damaged by the same modern ideas on health that the rest of society has bought into.

        Reply
        • Yeah. That website looks a bit like paranoid musings. I can think of several hollywood actors that you could put me next to and say we’re the same person – lots of people look similar! Hollywood people have lots of issues and oftentimes don’t age very well, which suggests they fall victim to the same things we do.

          That said, do I think Angelina was paid for this? Very probable. The whole thing smacks of a planned PR campaign. And that takes money, which I doubt she would front herself. It’s way too coincidentally timed, too. For comparison, look at Christina Applegate who had a preventive mastectomy a few years ago. Other than some stuff in US Weekly-type publications, there was no brouhaha. You need a PR team with connections and a plan for all of this.

          Either way, I will not be making any health or lifestyle or any other decisions based on what a celebrity does anytime soon!

          Reply
          • Christina Applegate has already been EXPOSED as Christine Milne.
            I have been looking into ed’s work for about 2 years now. I believe it
            all to be true. However, it will take a long time for the average person
            to accept what he is saying, as it seems so outlandish.
            We don’t have a govt. Just a bunch of actors playing out a script.
            Other faked news events include 911. (Fake video footage of planes hitting buildings. See septemberclues.info and their forum). The twin towers were largely empty and no planes hit the buildings.
            (look at the twin towers image on this page http://truedemocracyparty.net/2012/09/911-the-greatest-illusion-the-real-truth-hollow-gutted-buildings-power-down-on-911-fake-passengers-fake-occupants-fake-jumpers-complete-paradigm-shift-enjoy/)

            Also the Boston marathon- no one died. All those images you saw on TV were pre recorded on a set. A smoke bomb goes off and they seal off the area. Their actors are all in the surrounding area at the time.
            Also the school shooting before christmas, totally faked. No dead kids.
            News media 100% involved in the scam.

            Also. No woman of Angelina Jolie’s beauty would get her chest removed as a precaution. Some woman would rather be dead than lose those. And her ovaries too? If the story was true, i should
            expect she will now be awaiting penis attachment surgery, to complete her transformation. Any story concerning AJ is fake as she is a fictional character.

          • Yep- paranoid musings. Fun times.

          • OMG. Seriously fun times there.

        • Brad pitt is an actor too.
          Looks are largely based upon health. Your parents health, nutritional
          status, your health/diet throughout your life.
          If your parents are in excellent health, and you follow an
          excellent diet, you will most likely look attractive, up to a point.

          Reply
  59. Sorry. I missed that comment!

    Wellaware1.com has lots of videos and info on this type of thing.
    Including that many if not all politicians are actors wearing prostetics.
    (Using fake names etc.)
    Thats why they happily pass bs laws without fear of public backlash.
    Because they are actors. They go home and remove the prostetics.
    1 such example is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is played by the same person that
    plays sir ian mckellen.
    Check out ron pauls eye brow (ie disguise) falling off…
    http://www.google.com/search?q=ron%20paul%20eyebrow%20fake&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46751780,d.ZGU&biw=1366&bih=569&wrapid=tlif136884909117310&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=E_uWUaS3AYSGhQf1tYGoDA#imgrc=_

    Reply
  60. Matt,

    You should be ashamed of yourself for writing such drivel. Nasty drivel. You know nothing about genes, cancer, or the prevention thereof. Jolie has a particularly bad mutation; she has a family history. This was a sad, rational decision.

    Shame, shame, shame on you.

    Reply
      • Yeah, I say so.

        And further: if any one of your ‘bots here forgoes conventional therapy (of which this surgery is one) due to your quackery, you’ll have that on your conscience, if you have a conscience.

        Reply
        • This was not a sad rational decision, she was paid millions to do it and go public . Another AJ PR campaign… And you all believe it. It is common trading knowledge that the big pharma company who owns the test made a deal with her, and boy did their stocks go up. Also, the number of women asking about mastectomies quadrupled since her story. And there is only this one one company that sells the gene test so they ara already banking from the campaign with Jolie. She has always been a fake. Sad my ass. Nothing sad about getting breast augmentation and saying its preventative.

          Reply
  61. Jolie’s maternal aunt has just died of breast cancer. She carried the faulty BRCA1 mutation but didn’t know it until after her cancer was diagnosed in 2004.

    Feel better about your stupid post, and about passing judgement on Jolie’s chances of getting cancer?

    Reply
  62. further on down the line, (maybe– if the research is done) the statistics will show whether these operations actually lengthened the lives of these women. i don’t know how any doctor can really feel confident about this.

    i hate being a guinea pig.

    Reply
  63. Misogyny!!! Stop the attack on women. She is supposed to be considered a role model. Wait until she has her ovaries out and can’t figure out where her brain function disappeared to. You can’t go back and put thing back in to fix this. Fear mongering is what it boils down to. My advice, is to stop worrying about the “what if” and trust that your body knows exactly how to be healthy on its own. What a weak and senseless decision, yet she’s being called “courageous” !
    WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  64. Totally agree! We’ve got to do better! We’ve got to figure out something that can actually help protect masses of people.

    Reply
  65. I think it is very wrong to judge her or anyone in her position. One of the things I think about when I think about her is her devotion to her children – in comparison, breasts are just tissue and for her, expendable. I think it is misogynistic for anyone to judge what a woman chooses to do to her body. Judge the medical community and society for the information and context in which she made her decision, but give the woman some compassion.

    Reply
  66. That 87% figure is such a crock of crap. Cancer is not a genetic disease. Nor does it exist within the context of a natural world. It is a phenomena of modern man, and has only begun to proliferate in the past century or so. Yet most people talk about it likes it’s always been such an epidemic. Therefore, it’s very clear to me that our ever increasing cancer rates, and cancer itself, stems predominately, or perhaps exclusively, from environmental factors, not genetic ones. These environmental factors are largely due to modern living and society, like the typical modern diet rich in PUFA, phytoestrogens, and lacking in key nutrients. Further estrogen from industrial compounds are ubiquitous and nearly unavoidable in any populated area, not to mention the threat of radiation. Then there’s the lack of good light, not just for vitamin D, but for the highly stimulating and therapeutic spectrum of red-orange light that our organism craves. These components are the reasons for out-of-control cancer rates, and the fact that some simpleton is arrogant enough to undermine these and claim that there is precisely an 87% chance someone will develop cancer, based on his/her DNA is astoundingly idiotic. The genetic component plays an infantesimely minute role, if one at all. A more pertinent number would based on a thorough analysis of diet, lifestyle and location.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>