Home
Newsletter
Events
Blogs
Reports
Graphics
RSS
About Us
Contact Us
Write for Us
Media Info
Advertising Info
Breast cancer

One-fifth of women would consider double mastectomy as breast cancer prevention strategy

Sunday, August 21, 2005
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
Tags: breast cancer, double mastectomy, womens' health


Most Viewed Articles
https://www.naturalnews.com/011116.html
Delicious
diaspora
Print
Email
Share

You're not going to believe this one: A recent poll of 1500 women in Britain and five other countries found that 22 percent of them would consider having both breasts removed if they were at high risk for breast cancer. We're not talking about the removal of breasts that have cancer; we're talking about the removal of both breasts, a double mastectomy, as a prevention strategy -- even without a diagnosis of cancer. Amazingly, one out of five women said yes.

Now, wait a minute. Let's get a hold of our senses for a second here. If you went to a group of women and said, "Your mother died of breast cancer. Therefore, we are going to take a scalpel and physically slice off both of your breasts just on the off-chance that we might be able to prevent breast cancer in you" -- are you telling me that 22 percent of those women would say yes? How insane is that?

This is a case in which you can't just blame the medical community. Of course, they're evidently practicing medical insanity in suggesting such a drastic "preventative" measure, but you can't really blame the surgeons here -- you have to blame the 22 percent who said yes. What is wrong with these women that they would blindly say, "Yeah, sure, cut them off. I might have cancer some day, so just remove all the parts that could become cancerous." What do you do if you're a guy and you have a history of prostate cancer? What if you have a family history of colon cancer, lung cancer or liver cancer? Do you just take those organs out? Is this what conventional medicine has come down to? Let's remove the parts that might become diseased! Is this how far off the deep end modern medicine has gone?

What happened to true prevention? What happened to helping patients heal? What happened to conserving and supporting the health of one's organs? What happened to keeping one's breasts healthy so that you don't have to cut anything out for the sake of preventing cancer down the road? What happened to that kind of thinking? I mean, isn't medicine based on, "First, do no harm"? Isn't that the opening line of the Hippocratic Oath? Aren't doctors supposed to be helping patients, not slicing them up? "Doctor, my arm hurts." "Don't worry, we can remove it." Is that what medicine has come to?

Women in the UK were even more likely to say yes

Here's another interesting fact to all of this -- this will be especially disconcerting to those of you in the UK. Thirty-one percent of women from the UK said yes in this survey, compared to 22 percent overall. Now, I know that in the UK you like to think of Americans as being mad, and you're 51% right. But in this case, it's the British who are crazy to the tune of one-third of their female population saying yes to this. "Sure, doc. Cut them off. I don't need these. I'm preventing breast cancer."

Now, does all of this remind anybody else of Bush's war on Iraq and its so-called "preemptive defense?" Maybe medicine could call this "offensive prevention." They'll prevent a disease before it happens by removing the organs that it might affect. God forbid if you have a history of brain tumors in your family -- off with your head! That's their plan; that's where they're taking medicine. That's the level of insanity that seems to be pervading the thinking of medical authorities out there. Give a doctor a scalpel and he wants to cut off everything in sight.

Let's get real about breast cancer

Despite the insanity of conventional medicine, you nonetheless can deal with breast cancer in a rational way. You can treat it and overcome it. You can even reverse it with natural medicine. It's not that difficult to do, really. In all truthfulness, cancer is one of the easiest diseases to reverse with natural medicine. I'm talking about medicinal herbs, reishi mushrooms, shiitake mushrooms, outstanding nutrition and avoidance of certain food ingredients and environmental toxins such as plastic cookware -- measures like that. It's not overly difficult to reverse this disease or even prevent it from happening in the first place, but what modern medicine wants to do is take away your organs.

When they're not removing your organs, they're irradiating them: "Let's smash your breasts between this machine like a pancake and irradiate them to see if we can find some tumors in there." That's what they call a mammogram. They refer to it as prevention -- preventing cancer by irradiating your breast, which makes about as much sense as treating diabetes by giving you sugar. How is that prevention? How can that even be classified as medicine?

A mammogram is not a preventative technique; it is a diagnostic technique for detection, and it's not even very effective. Even worse, it causes cancer. That's right: the radiation emitted by these mammogram machines is, all by itself, a significant cause of breast cancer. (And many of these machines are not properly calibrated to begin with, so even the radiologist may not know how much radiation you're actually getting...) See the Mammograms cause breast cancer article to learn more.

So mammograms are touted as "prevention", and we now have all these celebrities running around urging everyone, "Go get screened for cancer! Come on, rush on in there! Put yourself in the machine, get irradiated and find out if you have a cancerous tumor in there."

So, let me pose a question: If the double mastectomy becomes an accepted prevention procedure, would celebrities recommend that women go in and have their breasts removed? Imagine this public service announcement: "Hi, I'm a famous actress. I have my breasts, but I don't think it's safe for you to have yours. Go in and get them removed. It's good medicine; it will prevent breast cancer." Is that what we're heading toward?

I'm not making this up

I sometimes receive emails from people who think that I'm making this stuff up. They say, "Mike, you've lost it this time. You're just making this up. Modern medicine couldn't be that crazy." Unfortunately, I can assure you I'm not making this up. You can verify for yourself: Go to Google News or any search engine you want and search for the keywords "double mastectomy breast cancer prevention." The Times of London did this report, so you can check it out yourself.

I am not making this stuff up, folks. In fact, I couldn't possibly make this type of stuff up; it is much too bizarre to pop into my head. I'm busy thinking about other things, like "How are those tomato plants doing today in the back yard? I wonder if the soil is acidic enough to support the growth of this blueberry plant? I would sure like to have some fresh blueberries this year." Those are the thoughts that occur to me in the normal course of things. I certainly don't think, "Hmm, maybe we could prevent cancer in the world by removing all the organs that could be afflicted by cancer. Yes!" It's a mad scientist kind of thought: "Take the breasts off. Take the organs out of everybody." But that's what is going through the heads of the doctors, scientists and medical authorities who are suggesting this kind of thing. It's truly scary and downright insane; yet, it passes as organized medicine. Pretty soon, they'll start making women feel guilty for keeping their breasts. You know, in the same way they make parents feel guilty if they don't put their kids on Ritalin.

Defend your natural-born breasts

I know that most of the readers here are women and I just have some advice that I'd like to pass on to you. You can accept or refuse it, but my advice is that you should not remove your breasts. Keep them right where they are; don't let any surgeon near them. Who knows what they want to do?

Keep your breasts, and adopt a healthy lifestyle instead -- a lifestyle that supports womens' health. For example, implement a lifestyle of eating fermented soy products and avoiding red meat, especially processed meats. Avoid hydrogenated oils and consume healthy oils instead -- olive oil, macadamia nut oil, salmon oil and flax oil, for example. Eat lots of nuts and seeds in their raw, unprocessed state. Avoid milk and dairy products, food additives, added sugars, artificial food coloring and artificial sweeteners. You know the drill. You know how to be healthy. You know how to prevent breast cancer. It's not that difficult to prevent.

Live your life in a healthy, happy way and stay away from these insane surgeons with scalpels and mad ideas about removing organs that might someday have cancer. I mean, think about it: They want to take a perfectly healthy piece of tissue off of your body. There's not even any disease in it, but they'd still like to take it.

That's insane! It's like saying, "You might have foot disease someday -- let's take the foot off." Wouldn't you normally wait for something to actually be diseased before you chop it off? There are a lot of amputations in this country for diabetics. They get gangrene because they have diabetic neuropathy and eventually they don't have active nerve endings in their limbs any more. In fact, the majority of amputations in this country are due to diabetes, but at least there's a point beyond which they can justify it. They can say, "This leg isn't going to make it. You can't feel it, you can't move it, and it's getting infected." In such a case, an amputation is medically justified. But let's say that they said, "You're diabetic? Hmm, I think we should take your legs now before they get infected as a preventative measure" -- that's what they're saying about breast cancer. "Take them off now to prevent breast cancer."

They're going to use fear, of course, saying, "We'll be saving your life by taking these off! You could very well save your life down the road. You want to save your life, don't you?" Then they say, "Don't listen to those internet people. They don't know what they're talking about; they don't have a medical degree. What do they know about breast cancer? We have to remove these now. You cannot wait! If you remove your breasts now, you might live six to twelve months; otherwise, you'll only live one to three months." They'll use that kind of language on you to scare you into submitting to their surgical procedures.

This is strange medicine. These are strange days, folks. And this, it appears, is just one of many strange (but true) stories I'll be bringing to your attention. So stay tuned for more.


Receive Our Free Email Newsletter

Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.




About the author:Mike Adams (aka the "Health Ranger") is a best selling author (#1 best selling science book on Amazon.com) and a globally recognized scientific researcher in clean foods. He serves as the founding editor of NaturalNews.com and the lab science director of an internationally accredited (ISO 17025) analytical laboratory known as CWC Labs. There, he was awarded a Certificate of Excellence for achieving extremely high accuracy in the analysis of toxic elements in unknown water samples using ICP-MS instrumentation. Adams is also highly proficient in running liquid chromatography, ion chromatography and mass spectrometry time-of-flight analytical instrumentation.

Adams is a person of color whose ancestors include Africans and Native American Indians. He's also of Native American heritage, which he credits as inspiring his "Health Ranger" passion for protecting life and nature against the destruction caused by chemicals, heavy metals and other forms of pollution.

Adams is the founder and publisher of the open source science journal Natural Science Journal, the author of numerous peer-reviewed science papers published by the journal, and the author of the world's first book that published ICP-MS heavy metals analysis results for foods, dietary supplements, pet food, spices and fast food. The book is entitled Food Forensics and is published by BenBella Books.

In his laboratory research, Adams has made numerous food safety breakthroughs such as revealing rice protein products imported from Asia to be contaminated with toxic heavy metals like lead, cadmium and tungsten. Adams was the first food science researcher to document high levels of tungsten in superfoods. He also discovered over 11 ppm lead in imported mangosteen powder, and led an industry-wide voluntary agreement to limit heavy metals in rice protein products.

In addition to his lab work, Adams is also the (non-paid) executive director of the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (CWC), an organization that redirects 100% of its donations receipts to grant programs that teach children and women how to grow their own food or vastly improve their nutrition. Through the non-profit CWC, Adams also launched Nutrition Rescue, a program that donates essential vitamins to people in need. Click here to see some of the CWC success stories.

With a background in science and software technology, Adams is the original founder of the email newsletter technology company known as Arial Software. Using his technical experience combined with his love for natural health, Adams developed and deployed the content management system currently driving NaturalNews.com. He also engineered the high-level statistical algorithms that power SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, a massive research resource featuring over 10 million scientific studies.

Adams is well known for his incredibly popular consumer activism video blowing the lid on fake blueberries used throughout the food supply. He has also exposed "strange fibers" found in Chicken McNuggets, fake academic credentials of so-called health "gurus," dangerous "detox" products imported as battery acid and sold for oral consumption, fake acai berry scams, the California raw milk raids, the vaccine research fraud revealed by industry whistleblowers and many other topics.

Adams has also helped defend the rights of home gardeners and protect the medical freedom rights of parents. Adams is widely recognized to have made a remarkable global impact on issues like GMOs, vaccines, nutrition therapies, human consciousness.

In addition to his activism, Adams is an accomplished musician who has released over a dozen popular songs covering a variety of activism topics.

Click here to read a more detailed bio on Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, at HealthRanger.com.

comments powered by Disqus


Natural News Wire (Sponsored Content)

Science.News
Science News & Studies
Medicine.News
Medicine News and Information
Food.News
Food News & Studies
Health.News
Health News & Studies
Herbs.News
Herbs News & Information
Pollution.News
Pollution News & Studies
Cancer.News
Cancer News & Studies
Climate.News
Climate News & Studies
Survival.News
Survival News & Information
Gear.News
Gear News & Information
Glitch.News
News covering technology, stocks, hackers, and more