By Katherine Smith

Before her Mastectomy

After Mastectomy

&nbsp

Mastotemanophilia - from the Greek mastia [breast], tomein [to cut] and philein [to love] is a paraphilia in which individuals express a strong (sexual) desire for the amputation of a healthy breast or breasts.

Anyone care to guess why Angelina Jolie misrepresented her risk of getting breast cancer?

You can forget about Mike Adam’s (Natural News) conspiracy theory that Angelina Jolie is really a corporate sellout who corrals women into the for-profit cancer industry that claims ownership over the genetic code of all women.

Mike’s Mastectomy Conspiracy is unmitigated mutilation nonsense and his smoking gun is that Jolie's seemingly spontaneous announcement, "HER BRAVE CHOICE" and "This was the right thing to do," were part of a well-timed for-profit corporate P.R. campaign that has been planned for months intended to influence a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the viability of the BRCA1 patent.

If you can figure out a Supreme Court connection to a celebrity cutting off her boobs let me know.

Angelina told the NY Times she had genetic testing that indicated a high likelihood that she would develop breast cancer.

"My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman. Only a fraction of breast cancers result from an inherited gene mutation. Those with a defect in BRCA1 have a 65 percent risk of getting it, on average."

When she is quoted as saying “Only a fraction of breast cancers result from an inherited gene mutation,” she knows that this number doesn't apply to the entire population: it's actually old data derived almost exclusively from families that were previously documented to have very high risks of breast cancer to begin with, and even then, it only applied to women who expressed the BRCA1 gene.

A study published on the National Human Genome Research Institute website and conducted by scientists from the National Institutes of Health reveals that breast cancer risks associated with the BRCA1 gene are significantly lower than what's being hyped up by Angelina and the mainstream media.

In fact, the actual incidence of a woman likely to have the BRCA1 mutation in her genetic code is 1 in 400 to 1 in 800. Let’s use the average of the two and call it 1 in 600.

Therefore, the risk of breast cancer for that 1 woman out of 600 (or, 0.167%) who has the gene mutation, is only 56 %, not the 87% claimed by Jolie. Jolie failed to mention that scientific research shows that 13 % of women without the BRCA1 mutation get breast cancer anyway, so the increased risk is just 43 out of 100 for women who have the BRCA1 mutation.

So what we're really talking about here is, in that cohort of women having a BRCA1 gene mutation (1 in 600), less than half of them will develop cancer. In other words, only about 1 in 1200 women that have the breast cancer gene will be affected by its expression.

But thanks to people like Angelina and the fear-mongering mainstream media, women all across the nation have been terrified into believing their breasts might kill them and the best way to handle the problem is to cut them off!

Inexplicably when she tells the media that she cut off her boobs because she wanted to live long enough to “meet the first of her grandchildren and to hold them in her arms [and give them the chance to get to know her and experience how loving and gracious she is], she failed to mention that last March she wasn’t worried about lung cancer.

Report: Angelina Jolie Is Chain-Smoking, Drinking, And Bursting Into Tears
By Yellow J on March 17, 2012 | 0 Comments and 0 Reactions

It seems that recent criticism of Angelina Jolie has sent the insecure celeb on crying jags and has her smoking cigarettes and drinking to the point of drunkenness. Apparently producers of her new movie, Maleficent, are concerned that Angelina’s gaunt appearance and new chain-smoking habit do not auger well. A Hollywood source told In Touch Print Edition, March 26, that what set Angelina off was the negative reaction to now infamous leg-thrust pose on Oscar night.

Does she plan to remove her lungs to avoid lung cancer?

Scary stuff, right? The chance of developing breast cancer would send most women to the surgeon, right? Not so fast.

Cutting off your tits because you are worried that sometime in the future you might get breast cancer makes no economic, ethical, or even plain old common medical sense. Not to mention the risks of the implants, allographs and nipple delay surgery.

Will Angelina tell her daughters they should mutilate themselves as a form of medical disease prevention? Angelina’s bizarre logic can also be applied to men. Should they off their testicles to "prevent testicular cancer" or cut out their colons to "prevent colorectal cancer." Wait I get it. If I have brain cancer the answer will be to chop off my head and call it a cure.

That would be insane because it violates one of the most basic principles of medicine embodied in the Hippocratic Oath, “primum non nocere;” that is, “first, do no harm.” Even a child knows that subjecting patients to the considerable risks of surgery and anesthesia to remove organs that have no disease constitutes “harm.”

[From Mike Adams non-conspiracy article at Natural News, Angelina Jolie inspires women to maim themselves by celebrating medically perverted double mastectomies]

But the really sad part about all this is that Angelina Jolie was lied to. She didn't have an 87% risk of breast cancer in the first place. All the women reading her NYT op-ed piece are also being lied to. Here's why...

Cancer doctors lie with statistics and use fear to scare women into high-profit procedures. [No, Mike is wrong, money is NOT the reason she misrepresented her risk of getting breast cancer.]

Even Jolie with her BRCA1 gene that's linked to breast cancer can quite easily follow a dietary and lifestyle plan that suppresses BRCA1 gene expression. It's not rocket science. It's not even difficult. It can be done with simple foods that cost a few dollars a day.

Those foods include raw citrus, resveratrol (red grapes or red wine), raw cruciferous vegetables, omega-3 oils and much more. Those same foods also help prevent heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's and other chronic diseases.

Indole-3-carbinol (I3C), by the way, a natural chemical found in cruciferous vegetables like broccoli and cabbage, offers powerful prevention against BRCA1 gene expression.

How dis-empowering! How sick! How incredibly exploitive of women!

If you really want to be informed about breast cancer and the corrupt, dishonest cancer industry, read Mike Adams (Natural News) article “10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You're Not Supposed to Know.”

Empowering women with a sense of control over their own health is the last thing the cancer industry wants to do, because that would cause them to lose customers and lose money. [No, Mike is wrong, money is NOT the reason she misrepresented her risk of getting breast cancer.]

When she tells the NY Times "For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options," she utterly fails to offer women any options other than the one she took: check in to a cancer center and let them play "cut-poison-burn" on your body. Jolie's op-ed piece, which reads as if it were written by the public relations department of the Pink Lotus Breast Center, offers nothing in the way of nutrition advice, lifestyle choices, holistic therapies, wellness, alternative medicine... nothing!

What an incredibly dishonest disservice to all the women of America...

In the world of health, nutrition and cancer, there are thousands of ways to prevent cancer and suppress the expression of BRCA1 genes. Jolie and the cancer industry seem to imply no options exist other than chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery. Three options only.

Angelina Jolie is the new cancer industry cheerleader. Scarred and no doubt experiencing the chest and armpit numbness that almost always accompanies mastectomy surgery, she now seeks to "inspire" other women to exercise their own sick "choice" and have their breasts removed, too!

It is the sickest invocation of women's power that I've ever witnessed. This is not empowering women, it's marching them into self-mutilation. And the "risk" is a complete fraud.

In truth, Angelina Jolie had a higher risk of dying on the operating table, or from complications of any of her surgeries, than dying from breast cancer if she simply followed an anti-cancer lifestyle.

Mike’s summary:

• BRCA1 genes can be kept quiet (suppressed) through proper foods and lifestyle choices. A gene is not a death sentence.

• The implication that there is only ONE way to reduce breast cancer risk is a complete lie. There are thousands of options and strategies for preventing cancer. Never be cornered into surgery by a group of surgeons pushing irrational fear.

• Cancer micro-tumors exist in everyone. Cancer must be "managed" in everyone to keep it in check and avoid the growth of tumors.

• The cancer industry tricks women using unethical fear tactics to scare women with false statistics into high-profit cancer procedures that only cause them harm.

• The claim that cutting off healthy breasts somehow "empowers" women is sick and demented. Women are far more empowered by honest information on nutrition and healthy living that allows them to keep their bodies intact rather than being sliced up by dishonest cancer surgeons.

[End of excerpt from Mike Adams non-conspiracy article at Natural News, Angelina Jolie inspires women to maim themselves by celebrating medically perverted double mastectomies]

And that bit about the surgery from Angelina’s oped at the NY Times, “But days after surgery you can be back to a normal life,”

"Two weeks later I had the major surgery, where the breast tissue is removed and temporary fillers are put in place. The operation can take eight hours. You wake up with drain tubes and expanders in your breasts. It does feel like a scene out of a science-fiction film. But days after surgery you can be back to a normal life. Nine weeks later, the final surgery is completed with the reconstruction of the breasts with an implant. There have been many advances in this procedure in the last few years, and the results can be beautiful."

Huh? Even a moron knows there's nothing sexy about the brutal reality of a double mastectomy. There is no way “you return to your normal life in a few days.” A woman who was diagnosed with Breast Cancer in 6/2012 at the age of 35 and had a double mastectomy in 10/2012 and final reconstruction in 1/2013 was quoted as saying there is nothing normal about having four drains hanging out of your body, not being able to lift your arms to wash your hair or put on a shirt or not being able to sleep comfortably.

I look forward to hearing your ideas/theories of why cut off her breasts instead of getting an expensive scan [which she can obviously afford] every 6 months to see if the cancer has developed. [mandrell2010@gmail.com]

Want a laugh?

Look at the two pictures below and notice the hairline, eyes, eye brows, nose, lines on side of mouth and shape of the jaw.

"Dr. Kristi Funk," on the right is the doctor who posted a detailed description of the Jolie’s mastectomy on the Pink Lotus Breast Center website. On the left is another "doctor" named "Jennifer Ashton."

"Kristi Funk" is a very odd name so I did a background check on this "doctor" and found she has the EXACT SAME FACE as the "doctor" named "Jennifer Ashton," who was interviewed by ABC News 2 days ago about Jolie's allegedly mastectomy.

By going public with her prophylactic double mastectomy, actress Angelina Jolie has again shone the spotlight on breast cancer and the genetic mutation known to increase the risk of getting it by 60 percent. Jennifer Ashton

Jennifer Ashton ... Aniston, could she be married to a Brag Pit?