Print Friendly and PDF

Angelina Jolie Surgically Removes Breasts to ‘Prevent Cancer’

Anthony Gucciardi
by
May 15th, 2013
Updated 05/08/2014 at 10:52 am
Pin It

angelina jolie breast removal 263x164 Angelina Jolie Surgically Removes Breasts to Prevent CancerActress Angelina Jolie is the latest to surgically remove her breasts and partake in a concerning new trend that encourages healthy women to remove their body parts in order to ‘prevent cancer’.

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

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

How Nutrition Impacts Your Genetic Expression

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

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

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

“This affects not only the genes that cause inflammation in the body, which was what we originally wanted to study, but also genes associated with development of cardiovascular disease, some cancers, dementia, and type 2 diabetes — all the major lifestyle-related diseases.”

And we find similar things with antioxidants, which are important to annihilate free radicals in the body that are wreaking havoc on your health from the inside. We find that antioxidants perform a very powerful function in fighting disease at the genetic level, which many people simply don’t even realize.

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

 “Now we have genetic proof that mitochondrial oxidative stress is important for driving tumor growth,” said lead researcher Michael P. Lisanti, M.D., Ph.D.

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

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

 

About Anthony Gucciardi:
1.thumbnail Angelina Jolie Surgically Removes Breasts to Prevent CancerGoogle Plus ProfileAnthony is the Editor of NaturalSociety whose work has been read by millions worldwide and is routinely featured on major alternative and mainstream news website alike, including the powerful Drudge Report, NaturalNews, Daily Mail, and many others. Anthony has appeared on programs like Russia Today (RT), Savage Nation, The Alex Jones Show, Coast to Coast AM, and many others. Anthony is also dedicated to aiding various non-profit organizations focused around health and rehabilitation as well as the creator of the independent political website Storyleak

From around the web:

  • James L Farmer

    Getting healthy breast surgically removed to prevent cancer is like , killing yourself before the thunderstorm gets to your house , so you don’t die from a tornado .

  • Joe

    You clearly have no education in biology or medicine. The studies you cite are talking about transcriptional changes that can be influenced by nutrition. Undoubtedly this is truer than people had realized in the past. Nutrition plays a much larger role in maintaining healthy gene expression patterns than was previously recognized.
    However, the issue with germline mutations (the ones that are inherited and found in every cell from the moment of birth) is completely separate from the issues the cited studies address. It is not an issue of transcriptional levels, since the protein is non-functional. Angelina Jolie had one of these in a gene called BRCA1, and it's that gene's job to prevent mutation in the germline. People that have mutations like these are playing with a weak hand to begin with, and so they are predisposed to develop mutations that give rise to tumors. Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, largely because it is a hormone responsive tissue that is easily thrown out of homeostasis. Could proper nutrition slow the rate of mutation? Probably, but it's not going to stop it, and when you draw the short straw for a gene like BRCA1, sometimes safe is better than sorry.

  • Carolyn Duckering

    Hollywood has influenced people ever since movies have been made. First in fashions, style,actions and lifestyles.
    We were warned by our parents and leaders not to allow Hollywood to influence our lives. I GUESS THEY WERE RIGHT, HUH?

  • anonymous

    Tommy Chong has just come out lately – Cannabis, pure diet, alternative therapies cured him from cancer.
    Don’t listen to the advice of any programmed “celebrities.” Or you’ll end up dead or disfigured.

    BRAC1 = Big Pharma propaganda. And even if they removed the breasts,
    the cancer still would not be gone. It moves into other parts of the body and organs.
    And,Cancer IS curable.

    Breast removal is ARCHAIC. It will go the way of a lobotomy.

    Tommy Chong Beats Prostate Cancer with Hemp Oil and Proper Diet http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/05/15/tommy-chong

    • http://www.mrbobswellness.com Bob Bryan

      Tommy Chong does have a point and is based on facts. I guess you could say the rest is "Up in Smoke" right.

  • Myster Hommo

    This is the same girl that had a Billy Bob tattoo…Can somebody say psycho???

  • Myster Hommo

    I say amputate my rectum so then the Country and or Western doctors can kiss it!!!

  • http://www.amazingrawfood.com Amazing Raw Food

    The dumbest & most extreme anticancer measure anyone can take.
    I wonder what's next?

  • RC

    Note that this preventative mutilation is only being done to WOMEN. Nobody’s telling men to have their prostate removed as prophylaxis for prostate cancer, are they? First Guardasil to prevent HPV in girls too young to be having sex, then this?

    I double checked & some of the stories say Marcheline died of uterine cancer, some say ovarian cancer — but NONE say breast cancer. Yet Holie chose to slice off her breasts rather than remove her uterus & ovaries…? And I think Carol’s spot-on that her fear of losing her looks to early menopause was the reason behind her choice. I’m not a fan, so I have no sympathy her for letting a doctor talk her into removing non-cancerous body parts as a preventative measure. I just hope Brad tried his best to dissuade her.

    But c’mon, don’t they teach biology in h.s. anymore? Don’t kids learn that every gene in your body is NOT going to click on & express itself during your lifetime?

    What strikes me as odd is that they still haven’t married despite claiming their kids were begging them to. But now that she’s let herself be mutilated, married or not, Brad can NEVER dump her without takign a huge PR hit.

    I’m literally sick to my stomach that the press is holding her out as a hero & promoting this prophylactic mastectomy madness. Isn’t there a single doctor in America willing to speak out against this?

  • mglamb

    i guess only comments that drink to the koolaid on this site are allowed. What a shame.

    • http://www.mrbobswellness.com Bob Bryan

      Is that sugar free koolaid?

  • Leonie McLoughlin

    i understand why she did it ,but it does seem a rather extreme measure. This does not get rid of cancer all together, we need to look at nutrient deficiceies in the body and toxins.

  • Carol

    I find it interesting that Angelina Jolie didn't also remove her uterus, her mom died of uterine cancer not breast cancer. So if Angelina has a 87 % chance of breast cancer and a 50% chance of uterine cancer and she is foolish enough to have her breasts removed, she should of had the uterus removed also to "ensure" she has no cancer in the future. But as we know having your uterus removed is a "biggie" as that turns a woman old and fast, hormone treatment not withstanding. Further Angelina was a self mutilator ie a cutter when she was in her teens and early twenties as well as involved in the act of shooting heroin, which she has all discussed at length and added that she also has had an eating disorder ( anorexia) on and off since she was a teen. So the big picture is that she has been a self mutilator from an early age and continues to do so. Further she likes the sympathy and attention involved in being a self mutilator but only if she can still be young and beautiful while she mutilates. Having her uterus removed would change all that, so she continues on her marry way mutilating herself in one way or another, as a somewhat tragic "young star." I am very alarmed that people look up to such a person, further that young girls think that Angelina
    knows what she is doing and can "lead" them in their decisions. Lastly she is a hypocrite as she has a daughter named Georgia May Jagger who she has not acknowledged as she was married to Johnny Lee Miller when she and Mick Jagger (who was married to Jerry Hall at the time) had an affair and produced one if not two children with him who Jerry Hall raised as her own. Is Angelina going to tell this innocent girl who is now becoming a big modeling star that she potentially has the cancer gene? I doubt it as she has never acknowledged that she even exists. As a said it's all about attention and sympathy for Angelina.
    Lastly would a man have his prostate removed because he may get cancer, most men would say no way as it stops them from having erections!

    • Guest

      Maybe she should have her brain removed, too, to avoid getting a malignant brain tumour.

  • Robert Park

    An intelligent woman but lacking seriously in perception.

  • Ronald Smith

    Talk about going Full Retard. Perhaps this is her way of slowly helping Brad to “come out”?

  • hazel

    Last night a news report said that the 'Affordable Care Act' (Obamacare) will pay for this type of Mastectomy in high cancer risk women and pay for the reconstructive surgery too.

    Jolie works with the cancer society promoting this, for profit of course.

  • Cannabis_Heals

    Too Bad Bradgelina never heard of Rick Simpson

  • jumama888

    I saw this announced as if it was a miracle the last 2 days and logic told me that there was something not adding up. I was waiting for something to come up such as this article. Thanks !

  • John Coelho

    Birth control pills are supposed to be bad news also.

    • Robert Park

      Hardly, if they control the relentless expansion of the global population.

      • http://www.mrbobswellness.com Bob Bryan

        They're working on that but it has nothing to do with birth control pills. Gotta get your money first – then kill ya!

  • Ethyl

    What they're not seeing is that if they are going to get cancer, they will get it. If they don't see one body part, they'll just go to another body part. If your body is being poisoned to the point it's going to develop cancer, it will just be somewhere else. But of course, she won't get breast cancer! She'll just get like colon cancer. Of course, she could always preremove her colon. Which of course would just mean it would go to her stomach. So let's go ahead and take out the stomach too! What are these people THINKING??? And it's true! Nothing at all is done about the poisons we get and eat that cause the cancer in the first place. This is all truly mindboggling! (Of course, so is trying to figure out all the poisons we need to avoid, in this day and age that encourages poisons if they make someone a buck or two!)

    • http://www.mrbobswellness.com Bob Bryan

      The safest approach is to avoid anything that has a label… or any connection to the government, FDA, Medical industry, Pharmaceutical industry, plastics, water, IRS, Federal reserve, etc, etc…I know this quiet little place in Greenland…

  • drketedc

    This approach is not new. Circumcision is sold as a way to prevent AIDS, for one example.

  • yankee phil

    Soon your genes will lead to prejudgement of your life,if you have a suspected criminal gene,they'll lock you up when your a child,if your have a gene they believe is predisposing you to be a nazi, they'll put you in political office or on the monsanto board of directors. You can see where this is going and now they have people pre-judgeing their own future from information you cannot check yourself,taking someones word for the fact of your genome type,something you can't see for yourself unless your a research lab technician. Hey my family has had a lot of brain cancer,now I know how to prevent it.

    • http://www.mrbobswellness.com Bob Bryan

      Awesome comment! I like the way you think…or eh! used to.

  • chrissyB

    If twenty years ago, someone had told me that people would be easily persuaded to chop off parts of their body, I'd have laughed myself stupid. It's beyond belief that any woman (or man) would voluntarily mutilate themselves, to avoid the possibility of a disease….and yet here we have celebrities doing precisely that. Presumably thousands, maybe millions, of equally brainless people will copy their heroes and heroines and chop off various bits of themselves, despite those bits still being healthy. Any doctor who permits and endorses this kind of self-mutilation must be retarded.
    There are many cases where the removal of limbs and other parts is unavoidable because they are already diseased and threaten the life of the person…..but destroying healthy tissue? The PTB really are holding full sway over people's dozy little minds, aren't they?

    • Robert Park

      Don't forget the ancient and religious puerility of circumcision?

      • terri

        omg…although I believe that circumcision was itself a misunderstood concept construed by sick males on this planet at the behest of their lesser god, I can't believe you're actually comparing removing body parts to circumcision!

    • jycfrnkl

      It's complete insanity. By the way turns out there is a company claiming they have a patent on the BRACA -1 gene (which is even more insane). So if you want to be tested to see if you have this gene or not, a test that would normally cast about $100.00, costs over 3,000 dollars instead becasue you have to pay a fee to the company!!! I forget thier name, but apparently the Surpreme Court will be ruling on this in the next couple of weeks. This is worse than Monsanto-iIf the Surpreme Court decides it's lawful for cooperations to patten& own the genes we were born. You can see how dangerous this is. If they can patten and own our genes, then they can patten a woman's eggs, or an eye color. PAY THE FEE!