The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-16-2013, 09:58 PM   #1
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,159

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence

EXPOSED: Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion)
Thursday, May 16, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
Tags: Women, Cancer, Patent


20K
59

(NaturalNews) Angelina Jolie's announcement of undergoing a double mastectomy (surgically removing both breasts) even though she had no breast cancer is not the innocent, spontaneous, "heroic choice" that has been portrayed in the mainstream media. Natural News has learned it all coincides with a well-timed for-profit corporate P.R. campaign that has been planned for months and just happens to coincide with the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on the viability of the BRCA1 patent.

This is the investigation the mainstream media refuses to touch. Here, I explain the corporate financial ties, investors, mergers, human gene patents, lawsuits, medical fear mongering and the trillions of dollars that are at stake here. If you pull back the curtain on this one, you find far more than an innocent looking woman exercising a "choice." This is about protecting trillions in profits through the deployment of carefully-crafted public relations campaigns designed to manipulate the public opinion of women.

The signs were all there from the beginning of the scheme: Angelina Jolie's highly polished and obviously corporate-written op-ed piece at the New York Times, the carefully-crafted talking points invoking "choice" as a politically-charged keyword, and the obvious coaching of even her husband Brad Pitt who carefully describes the entire experience using words like "stronger" and "pride" and "family."

But the smoking gun is the fact that Angelina Jolie's seemingly spontaneous announcement magically appeared on the cover of People Magazine this week -- a magazine that is usually finalized for publication three weeks before it appears on newsstands. That cover, not surprisingly, uses the same language found in the NYT op-ed piece: "HER BRAVE CHOICE" and "This was the right thing to do." The flowery, pro-choice language is not a coincidence.

What this proves is that Angelina's Jolie's announcement was a well-planned corporate P.R. campaign with carefully-crafted messages designed to influence public opinion. But what could Jolie be seeking to influence?

...how about trillions of dollars in corporate profits?

Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule on patent viability for BRCA1 gene

Angelina Jolie's announcement and all its carefully-crafted language had four notable immediate impacts:

1) It caused women everywhere to be terrified of breast cancer through the publishing of false statistics that drove fear into the hearts of anyone with breasts. (See below for explanation.)

2) It caused women to rush out and seek BRCA1 gene testing procedures. These tests just happen to be patented by a for-profit corporation called "Myriad Genetics." Because of this patent, BRCA1 tests can cost $3,000 - $4,000 each. The testing alone is a multi-billion-dollar market, but only if the patent is upheld in an upcoming Supreme Court decision (see below).

3) It caused the stock price of Myriad Genetics (MYGN) to skyrocket to a 52-week high. "Myriad's stock closed up 3% Tuesday, following the publication of the New York Times op-ed," wrote Marketwatch.com.

4) It drove public opinion to influence the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule in favor of corporate ownership of human genes (see more below).

Women all over the world are being duped into supporting Angeline Jolie, having no idea that what she's really doing is selling out women to the for-profit cancer industry. But to fully understand what's happening, you have to dig deeper...

Myriad Genetics sees stock price skyrocket thanks to Jolie, and Obamacare will funnel billions their way

"Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics (MYGN) holds the patent on the test that determined the actress had an 87% chance of developing breast cancer, as well as the genes themselves," wrote MarketWatch.com.

And that's only the beginning. If the U.S. Supreme Court can be influenced to uphold Myriad's patent, it could mean a trillion-dollar industry over just the next few years. Even more, Myriad Genetics is reportedly "ripe for mergers" according to the financial press, because it's part of the super-hot human genome industry.

"The world's largest maker of DNA testing and analysis tools, Life Technologies Corp. said that it is set to be acquired by Thermo Fisher Scientific for a record $13.6 billion," writes MarketWatch.com. "A race that kicked into high gear more than 26 years ago is heating up, with foreign governments and corporations joining the U.S. in funding the quest to map all the human genomes. And even as the recent flurry of mergers and acquisitions in the genomics space has spurred returns, investors still have opportunities to profit from this multibillion-dollar industry."

The higher Myriad's stock price goes, the more profitable a merger becomes for its current owners. So Jolie's P.R. stunt just happened to generate unknown millions of dollars in value for the very people who claim a patent monopoly over the breast cancer genes residing in the bodies of women. Coincidence? Hardly.

Obamacare mandates taxpayers pay for BRCA gene testing: yet another government handout to wealthy corporations

But here's what's even more crooked about all this: You know how Obama likes to talk "free market" but actually engages in so-called "crony capitalism" by handing out money to all his corporate buddies, Wall Street insiders and deep-pocketed campaign donors? Part of Obamacare -- the "Affordable Care Act" -- mandates that taxpayers pay for BRCA1 genetic testing!

Myriad Genetics, in other words, stands to receive a full-scale windfall of profits mandated by government and pushed into mainstream consciousness through a campaign of "medical terror" fronted by Angelina Jolie and the New York Times. Are you starting to see how this all fits together yet?

This is all one big coordinated corporate sellout of women, and it's all being hidden by playing the "women's power" card and using "choice" language to more easily manipulate women. Angelina Jolie, remember, is a key spokesperson for the United Nations, an organization already caught engaged in child sex slavery and drug running. Although Jolie obviously isn't engage in that sort of behavior, her job is to covertly influence American women into supporting a carefully-planned, plotted and executed corporate profit campaign that turns women's bodies into profits.

Here's why the Supreme Court decision puts trillions of dollars at stake...

Details on the upcoming Supreme Court decision

The ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit in 2009, challenging the corporate ownership of human genes. Anyone who believes in women's rights, human rights, civil rights or even the right to eat non-GMO foods should immediately agree that corporations should NOT be able to patent human genes and then use those patents to rake in billions of dollars in profits while stifling scientific research into those genes.

A question to all women reading this: Do you believe a corporation in Utah owns your body? If not, you should be opposed to corporate ownership of human genes. It also means you should oppose Angelina Jolie's P.R. campaign because although she's running a brilliant public relations campaign, behind the scenes her actions are feeding potentially trillions of dollars of profits directly into the for-profit human gene patenting industry that denies human beings ownership over their own genetic code.

The ACLU explains the basics of its lawsuit against Myriad Genetics as follows:

On May 12, 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed a lawsuit charging that patents on two human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are unconstitutional and invalid. On November 30, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear argument on the patentability of human genes. The ACLU argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 15, 2013. We expect a decision this summer.

On behalf of researchers, genetic counselors, women patients, cancer survivors, breast cancer and women's health groups, and scientific associations representing 150,000 geneticists, pathologists, and laboratory professionals, we have argued that human genes cannot be patented because they are classic products of nature. The suit charges that the gene patents violate the First Amendment and stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women's options regarding their medical care.

Got that? If the Supreme Court rules against Myriad Genetics, it will cause a multi-billion-dollar breast cancer genetic testing industry to collapse virtually overnight. This means a huge loss for not just Myriad, but also many other human gene corporations that wish to exploit the human body -- including the bodies of women -- for monopolistic profits. (All patents are government-granted monopolies.) Ultimately, trillions of dollars in corporate gene patents are at stake here.

Patenting human genes is huge business

Today, about 20 percent of your genes are already patented by corporations and universities. As the ACLU explains, "A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents."

This means that when corporations own patents on human genes, it stifles scientific research while granting that corporation a monopoly over the "intellectual property" encoded in your own DNA! (How criminal is that? You decide...)

What this means is that if the Supreme Court rules against Myriad, it would set a precedent that would dismantle the entire human gene patenting industry, affecting trillions of dollars in future profits.

This, I believe, is the real reason behind Angelina Jolie's announcement. It seems designed to invoke women's emotional reactions and create a groundswell of support for corporate-owned genes, thereby handing these corporations a Supreme Court precedent that will ensure trillions in future profits. It's a for-profit PR stunt that tries to trick women into supporting a corporate system of patents and monopolies that claims, right now, to own portions of the bodies of every woman living today.

While most media outlets have no clue about the patent issues at stake here, the Detroit Free Press took notice, saying:

"The Hollywood star's decision to get tested for a breast cancer gene mutation, undergo a double mastectomy and then write about it calls attention to a case now pending before the court. The justices have just weeks to decide if Myriad Genetics' patent on the two genes that can identify an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer is legal. Critics complain that the company's monopoly leaves them as the sole source of the $4,000 tests needed to determine each woman's risk."

Lying with statistics: Jolie's 87% risk exaggeration

There's more to this story than just the patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Angelina Jolie is also using blatantly misleading statistics to terrify women into thinking their breasts might kill them.

In the NYT op-ed piece, Jolie claims her doctor told her she has an "87% risk" of developing breast cancer. But what she didn't tell you is 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.

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 BRCA1 genes are significantly lower than what's being hyped up by Jolie and the mainstream media.

In fact, in a large room of 600 women, only ONE will likely have a BRCA mutation in her genetic code. The actual incidence is 0.125 to 0.25 out of 100 women, or 1 in 400 to 1 in 800. I used 600 as the average of 400 and 800.

And out of that 1 in 600 women who has the mutation, her risk of breast cancer is only 56 percent, not 78 percent as claimed by Jolie. But 13 percent of women without the BRCA mutation get breast cancer anyway, according to this scientific research, so the increased risk is just 43 out of 100 women.

So what we're really talking about here is 1 in 600 women having a BRCA gene mutation, then less than half of those getting cancer because of it. In other words, only about 1 in 1200 women will be affected by this.

Yet thanks to people like Jolie 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!

This, my friends, is the essence of doomsday fear mongering. This issue affects less than one-tenth of one percent of women but is being riled up into a nationwide fear campaign that just happens to feed profits into the for-profit cancer diagnosis and treatment industry, not to mention the monopolistic human gene patenting cartels.

That's the real story of what's happening here. Don't expect to read this in the New York Times.

Corporate media refuses to mention real prevention and treatment options

As part of the breast cancer fear mongering and treatment scam now being run across the mainstream media, nearly all media sources are prohibiting any mention of holistic or natural options for treatment or prevention.

Sure, the media talks about "options," but all those options just happen to lead back to the for-profit cancer industry. As an example, read this story by ABC News, part of the lying mainstream media that misinforms women and pushes a corporate agenda:

If you do test positive for BRCA, you have options, and you don't necessarily have to go the Jolie route. Some women choose not to have surgery. Instead, they increase cancer surveillance with imaging tests. These include regular mammograms to test for breast cancer, and regular pelvic sonograms and blood-tests to watch for ovarian cancer.

Nowhere in this article does ABC News mention ways to suppress the BRCA1 gene by, for example, eating raw cruciferous vegetables containing Indole-3-Carbinol (I3C), a potent anti-cancer nutrient that halts breast cancer in its tracks. Nowhere does ABC News mention vitamin D which prevents nearly 4 out of 5 cancers of all types, including breast cancer.

Nope, the "options" being pushed by mainstream media are nothing more than mammograms, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy -- all owned and run by the for-profit cancer industry that feeds on women and exploits their bodies for profit.

Nor is their any discussion of the total scam of the "pink ribbons" cancer cure industry which is primarily focused on giving women cancer through "free mammograms." As any scientist or physicist already knows, mammograms cause cancer because they emit ionizing radiation directly into the breast and heart tissues. Get enough mammograms done and sooner or later they will detect breast cancer because they caused it! To date, 1.3 million women have been harmed by mammography.

Thanks, Angelina, for keeping the wool pulled over the eyes of women everywhere while selling out to for-profit, monopolistic, corporate interests that incessantly seek to exploit women for profit.

Photo credit: PEOPLE Magazine cover, used under Fair Use for public commentary and education.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040365_An...#ixzz2TWThiaQJ
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-16-2013, 10:24 PM   #2
bpc
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
 
bpc's Avatar
 
1 sword keeps another in the sheath

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 14,059

Adopt-a-Bronco:
TJ Ward
Default

Yeah this is a bs op-ed piece. My wife works for Myriad. Great company. They've been developing the technology to test for mutations in your DNA for a long time, along with all the investments in R&D that comes with it. That process is patented and should be protected as it didn't fall out of the sky, it has matured over time.

At the end of the day these tests give women options. It doesn't mean you go have breast surgery but provides risk analysis for patients. If you want to give holistics a try too, so be it. As with Angelina, her mother died from cancer and she is determined to not succumb to the same fate. Knowledge is power and well, if that is her choice, more power to her. Whether its $300 or $3k, the test is compelling to a person's well being and a worthwhile investment in one's self. The impact I've seen has been amazing.
bpc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2013, 11:41 PM   #3
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,057

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

A woman does an incredibly brave thing, and you pull this kind of this: despicable
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:47 AM   #4
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,159

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
A woman does an incredibly brave thing, and you pull this kind of this: despicable
So what did I do besides pull your chain?

Did I write it? No.

Did I defend it? No.

Do I think it is true? I have no idea.

Do I think it is an insane choice to remove perfectly healthy breasts? Yes I do.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:59 AM   #5
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,432

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
So what did I do besides pull your chain?

Did I write it? No.

Did I defend it? No.

Do I think it is true? I have no idea.

Do I think it is an insane choice to remove perfectly healthy breasts? Yes I do.
Her mother died from it and with that gene, she had an 87% chance of getting it. Insane?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 10:15 AM   #6
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,159

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Her mother died from it and with that gene, she had an 87% chance of getting it. Insane?

I know that. I think there are other strategies she could have taken as a preventive measure. Such as a green living food diet. I know what you think of that but your lack of knowledge on diet and disease does not change it's effectiveness.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 10:20 AM   #7
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,057

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
So what did I do besides pull your chain?

Did I write it? No.

Did I defend it? No.

Do I think it is true? I have no idea.
You fully endorse the bull**** that Mike Adams is trying to promote by exploiting this story. Don't ****ing try to bull**** your way out by claiming you don't lap up everything that idiot has to say.

Quote:
Do I think it is an insane choice to remove perfectly healthy breasts? Yes I do.
If you faced a 90% chance of getting a deadly disease would you not sacrifice a completely expendable mass of tissue to reduce that risk to 5%?

This is the actual situation being faced here -- a choice between almost certain disease and almost certain continued lack of that disease.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 10:48 AM   #8
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,159

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
You fully endorse the bull**** that Mike Adams is trying to promote by exploiting this story. Don't ****ing try to bull**** your way out by claiming you don't lap up everything that idiot has to say.



If you faced a 90% chance of getting a deadly disease would you not sacrifice a completely expendable mass of tissue to reduce that risk to 5%?

This is the actual situation being faced here -- a choice between almost certain disease and almost certain continued lack of that disease.
Oh OK Thanks for setting me straight on what i believe. You sure are one smart dude.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 12:20 PM   #9
bpc
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
 
bpc's Avatar
 
1 sword keeps another in the sheath

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 14,059

Adopt-a-Bronco:
TJ Ward
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
So what did I do besides pull your chain?

Did I write it? No.

Did I defend it? No.

Do I think it is true? I have no idea.

Do I think it is an insane choice to remove perfectly healthy breasts? Yes I do.
You're eliminating risk. Can you see cancer in most regards? Nope. This becomes greater when considering ovarian cancer which isn't as easily detected by physical examination as breast cancer. Eliminate the culprit or wait around long enough to leave it open to opportunity.
bpc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 12:35 PM   #10
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,159

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpc View Post
You're eliminating risk. Can you see cancer in most regards? Nope. This becomes greater when considering ovarian cancer which isn't as easily detected by physical examination as breast cancer. Eliminate the culprit or wait around long enough to leave it open to opportunity.

By that logic one should consider killing themselves now because we know there is a 100% chance of dying some day so why not chose a painless method of death now rather than wait of the unknown and possibly painful death that the future is sure to bring.

She is healthy now and there are diet strategies that are know to turn off cancer causing genes. If she is prone to cancer isn't it likely the cancer will find a home in another part of her body?
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:52 PM   #11
BowlenBall
Hurry Hurry
 
BowlenBall's Avatar
 
2014 -- This one's for Pat.

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 5,296

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Matt Paradis
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpc View Post
Yeah this is a bs op-ed piece. My wife works for Myriad. Great company. They've been developing the technology to test for mutations in your DNA for a long time, along with all the investments in R&D that comes with it. That process is patented and should be protected as it didn't fall out of the sky, it has matured over time.

At the end of the day these tests give women options. It doesn't mean you go have breast surgery but provides risk analysis for patients. If you want to give holistics a try too, so be it. As with Angelina, her mother died from cancer and she is determined to not succumb to the same fate. Knowledge is power and well, if that is her choice, more power to her. Whether its $300 or $3k, the test is compelling to a person's well being and a worthwhile investment in one's self. The impact I've seen has been amazing.
I'm sure Myriad is a great company to work for, and that they do lots of good things, but the part of your post that I've highlighted in red is the real issue here.

If these types of tests can be patented, and a monopoly on life-saving procedures can be obtained by corporations, then all kinds of issues can arise. What if the real cost of the procedure is $30, but the company charges $30,000? If it's your wife or your daughter's life at stake, you've got no choice but to pony up the cash, regardless of what they charge.

I know that the counter-argument is that "these companies need to recoup their development costs", but do I also need to subsidize their massive CEO salaries and the millions of lobbying dollars they spend every year? I say no.
BowlenBall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 10:27 AM   #12
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,057

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BowlenBall View Post
I'm sure Myriad is a great company to work for, and that they do lots of good things, but the part of your post that I've highlighted in red is the real issue here.

If these types of tests can be patented, and a monopoly on life-saving procedures can be obtained by corporations, then all kinds of issues can arise. What if the real cost of the procedure is $30, but the company charges $30,000? If it's your wife or your daughter's life at stake, you've got no choice but to pony up the cash, regardless of what they charge.

I know that the counter-argument is that "these companies need to recoup their development costs", but do I also need to subsidize their massive CEO salaries and the millions of lobbying dollars they spend every year? I say no.
No doubt there is disgusting profiteering going on in the medical industry, especially in big pharma.

But of all the swindling going on in that industry doesn't hold a candle to the alt-med industry. Big Pharma are nothing but a group of total amateurs compared to alt-med.

Take a look for yourself. Go to your nearest "alternative medicine" retailer (it's pretty much everywhere now). Go take a look at the homeopathic "remedies" and see how much they are charging.

Then look at the "ingredients" list. You'll see: water (except in the case where the homeopaths are getting a dose of their own "medicine" (ha!) and the "homeopathic" label is misplaced. See Zircam which actually contains an active ingredient -- which along with sometimes helping with your cold also renders you unable to smell)

That's right, that box of pills you just bought for $20 -- it's an ounce of water put in a couple dozen little caplets pretending to be real medicine.

Makes bottled water look like an amazing damn bargain!

Last edited by Fedaykin; 05-20-2013 at 10:30 AM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 10:30 AM   #13
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
No doubt there is disgusting profiteering going on in the medical industry, especially in big pharma.

But of all the swindling going on in that industry doesn't hold a candle to the alt-med industry. Big Pharma are nothing but a group of total amateurs compared to alt-med.

Take a look for yourself. Go to your nearest "alternative medicine" retailer (it's pretty much everywhere now). Go take a look at the homeopathic "remedies" and see how much they are charging.

Then look at the "ingredients" list. You'll see: water.

That's right, that box of pills you just bought for $20 -- it's an ounce of water put in a couple dozen little caplets pretending to be real medicine.

Makes bottled water look like an amazing damn bargain!
Yeah but doesn't Super Beta Prostate have the same amount of beta-sitosterol as 100 saw palmetto caplets? Joe Theismann told me so.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 01:01 AM   #14
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,750

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Wow.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 05:44 AM   #15
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,084
Default

Figures. baja is one of the most odious ****-spewers on the OM.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 07:36 AM   #16
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,432

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 08:03 AM   #17
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,570

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Nowhere in this article does ABC News mention ways to suppress the BRCA1 gene by, for example, eating raw cruciferous vegetables containing Indole-3-Carbinol (I3C), a potent anti-cancer nutrient that halts breast cancer in its tracks. Nowhere does ABC News mention vitamin D which prevents nearly 4 out of 5 cancers of all types, including breast cancer.
Damn, why didn't she think of this?

What a godawful piece of crap of an article.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 08:47 AM   #18
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

It all makes perfect sense. Mega-hot, Mega-loaded Hollywood superstar cuts off her famous breasts for a little extra walking-around money.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:33 AM   #19
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,665

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

I'm not sure on this and maybe Doc B can fill in the blanks but I got a feeling Angelina's "fun bags" will probably look better after the plastic surgery with the different choices of implants available to her.

The question is, will the average woman carrying the BRCA1 gene that chooses to have healthy breast tissue removed under Obama Care get a top notch breast reconstruction on the tax payer’s dime?
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:58 AM   #20
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,432

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
I'm not sure on this and maybe Doc B can fill in the blanks but I got a feeling Angelina's "fun bags" will probably look better after the plastic surgery with the different choices of implants available to her.

The question is, will the average woman carrying the BRCA1 gene that chooses to have healthy breast tissue removed under Obama Care get a top notch breast reconstruction on the tax payer’s dime?
Man! You just never give it a rest, do you?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 10:28 AM   #21
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,057

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Also, the characterization of the breasts of someone with this gene as being 'perfectly healthy' is idiotic.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 11:41 AM   #22
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,665

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Also, the characterization of the breasts of someone with this gene as being 'perfectly healthy' is idiotic.
I'm pretty sure her breasts were perfectly healthy, so please explain what part of the removed tissue was different or unhealthy?
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 12:11 PM   #23
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,057

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
I'm pretty sure her breasts were perfectly healthy, so please explain what part of the removed tissue was different or unhealthy?
The defective gene gave her a 90% chance of developing breast cancer and a greatly elevated risk of ovarian cancer. That's not "completely healthy".

Last edited by Fedaykin; 05-17-2013 at 12:32 PM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:05 PM   #24
chadta
Atomic Meatball Keeper
 
chadta's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Mc Rib
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The defective gene gave her a 90% chance of developing breast cancer and a greatly elevated risk of ovarian cancer. That's not "completely healthy".
so when is she getting her ovaries removed ?

seems kind of silly to take such a drastic step, and only go halfway with it
chadta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:09 PM   #25
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,057

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
so when is she getting her ovaries removed ?

seems kind of silly to take such a drastic step, and only go halfway with it
Breasts serve no biological function other than feeding babies. Removing them has no known health consequences (other than the risks of the operation itself).

Ovaries do serve a biological function (many, and not limited to reproduction).
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 AM.


Denver Broncos