Archive for May, 2013

Dr.Oz Sleeps with Big Agriculture!

May 26th, 2013 | Uncategorized | 0 Comments

8/10/09 Dr. Oz EPK NYC Photo by Joe Fornabaio 917-769-9088 www.joefornabaio.comJust when I was beginning to get past Dr. Oz promoting dangerous vaccines because no one is all good or all bad. He blatantly disregards everything he has talked about in the past about regarding the benefit of organic foods. Has the almighty dollar tipped the balance of the great and powerful Oz. I am sure after this article I will never get on his show to find out. Read for yourself and decide.

Dr. Oz Viciously Attacks Organic Foods and Farmers Markets
BLOG, CANCER, CONSPIRACY THEORIES, GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS, HEALTH, ILLUMINATI CONSPIRACY, NEWS, PREVENTION OF CANCER DECEMBER 2, 2012 22 COMMENTS
Share This Article

24

Dr. Oz viciously attacks organic foods and farmers markets, pushes feedlot beef, urges clueless consumers to eat more pesticides and GMO.

Dr. Oz has finally done it: He has sold out to Big Ag by declaring organic foods to be “elitist,” “snooty” and no better than conventional foods. The man who once urged Americans to eat organic has sold his soul to the criminally-run food giants in a mind-blowing editorial piece recently published in TIME Magazine.

Look for Dr. Oz to promote GMOs next, as cozying up to Monsanto probably won’t be too far behind. The man is already on the record pushing vaccines, talking about how good they are for “public health” while failing to mention that vaccines admittedly contain mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum and MSG.

He’s also the same guy who was behind the “RealAge” internet scheme that recruited people into a promotional network where they were barraged by drug-pushing ads from Big Pharma. Dr. Oz also owned a huge number of option shares in a vaccine technology company.

In his TIME Magazine editorial piece, Dr. Oz declares organic foods to be “elitist” and appropriate only for “the 1%.” This clever bit of propaganda is designed to try to align conventional foods (i.e. pesticide ridden GMO foods) with the “99%” by making them sound more populist. As if, the “People’s food” is pesticides and GMOs, you see.

Does the man have no shame? Is there any corporate poison he won’t promote to his viewers?

Oz declares organic food is “not democratic”

“Organic food is great, it’s just not very democratic,” Dr. Oz declares, as if choosing organic is somehow an affront to America. “You don’t need to eat like the 1% to eat healthily,” he says. In other words, keep sucking down more GMOs, pesticides, herbicides and chemicals, and you’ll be a good little American food slave. Buying organic is anti-American, you’re being told.

Dr. Oz’s message, of course, has become indistinguishable from that of Monsanto. It’s all the same deception: You don’t need clean, non-GMO food to be healthy. Keep eating all the conventional crap that poisons you with synthetic chemicals, and you’ll be just fine! How about some GMO Corn Flakes for breakfast, even!

Dr. Oz also attacks farmers markets, because he apparently thinks buying local food is a silly waste of time. “Nutritionally speaking, there is little difference between the farmer’s-market bounty and the humble brick from the freezer case,” he somehow says with a straight face. Oh really? There’s no difference between fresh, locally-grown food versus frozen, corporate-produced food trucked in from a thousand miles away? The ignorance of this guy is just flat-out stunning. Does he know nothing about where food comes from and how it is produced?

Dr. Oz: Eat more feedlot beef.

In an even more grotesque sellout to factory foods, Dr. Oz pushes feedlot beef, saying, “Nutritionally, there is not much difference between, say, grass-fed beef and the feedlot variety.”

This is just a flat-out lie, of course. There’s a huge difference nutritionally between free-range beef and feedlot beef. Feedlot beef, for starters, is raised on genetically modified corn containing BT toxin, while free-range beef has been consistently found to be higher in omega-3 fatty acids. And that doesn’t even cover the ethical and environmental differences. In promoting feedlot beef, Dr. Oz positions himself squarely against the environment while also pushing animal cruelty.

Dr Oz has chosen a side, and it’s the side of corporate biotech chemical agriculture

Above all, with this piece Dr. Oz has now clearly chosen a side in the realm of food. Betraying his own viewers and readers, he has chosen to jump in bed with Big Ag, Monsanto, chemical pesticide producers, processed food companies and feedlot cattle factories.

As is now self-evident, Dr. Oz has aligned himself AGAINST everything the organic movement stands for: Honest food, local food, free-range meat, avoidance of GMOs, avoidance of synthetic chemicals and so on. His TIME Magazine piece is an insult to all the good people in America who simply want honest food produced without cruelty or chemicals. Dr. Oz calls those people “snooty” and “elitists.”

And what does that make him? Oh, now he’s the leader of the “populist poison foods movement” that tries to convince the American masses to eat more GMO, more pesticides, more store-bought foods and more feedlot beef, chicken and pork. The food industry must love this guy! (Watch for new sponsorship contracts to fill his pockets with cash right around the corner…)

Dr. Oz makes himself irrelevant to the discussion on food

By joining forces with Monsanto, Bayer and Big Ag, Dr. Oz has now taken a position squarely against organic foods, against farmer’s markets, against free-range animals and against non-GMO.

It begs the question: Why pay any attention to Dr. Oz at all anymore? He’s just parroting the same corporate lies and deceptions we can just as easily get from the New York Times, or the USDA, or Monsanto itself. By attacking organics, Dr. Oz has just made himself irrelevant to thinking people everywhere.

He’s got nothing to say anymore, and more importantly Dr. Oz no longer has any credibility whatsoever. He’s just committed professional suicide. I can’t wait to hear what Ronnie Cummins from the Organic Consumers Association has to say about Dr. Oz’s comments.

Because Oz has sold out to the GMO-producing, chemical-producing, animal cruelty feedlot sectors of the corrupt food industry, watch for the mainstream media to keep propping up Dr. Oz and attempt to make him a puppet of “authority” on all things related to food and health. Heck, why not make the guy Surgeon General and enact a law population control law that mandates the consumption of feedlot Soylent Green?

Dr. Oz’s purported audience is a sham, by the way. Natural News has a far larger audience than Dr. Oz, especially when you count the cumulative IQ points of our respective followers. While the low-IQ zombified consumers may still think Dr. Oz has something resembling credibility, all the in-the-know organic food consumers and activists are fully aware of who is on their side and who isn’t. Dr. Oz clearly isn’t. His audience exists only as a fabrication of persistent corporate promotion.

Without the corporate backing, Dr. Oz is a nobody.

Spread the word, folks: Dr. Oz is a sellout. Share this story and warn your friends.

Story photo by David Berkowitz

Official response from the Cornucopia Institute

Here’s the response from Cornucopia on the TIME Magazine “sellout” piece by Dr. Oz.

The original TIME cover story was published on 12/3/2012 and is entitled “What to Eat Now” by Dr. Mehmet Oz. It’s available at:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2129811,00.html

The full story is available to Time subscribers only. Excerpts from the article, with Cornucopia’s responses:

Dr. Oz: “Nutritionally speaking, there is little difference between the farmer’s-market bounty and the humble brick from the freezer case.”

Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz compares conventional and organic foods throughout the article by focusing exclusively on the differences between a handful of nutrients. This is exactly what the agrochemical and conventional farming industries, and their front group, the Alliance for Food and Farming, would like the American public to focus on. Just two months ago, Dr. Oz told the viewers of his syndicated television show to buy organic vegetables to avoid pesticide residues. Now, in his copywritten Time story, the word “pesticide” or “agricultural chemical” is never mentioned.

Dr. Oz: “Dispelling these myths — that boutique foods are good, supermarket foods are suspect and you have to spend a lot to eat well — is critical to improving our nation’s health. Organic food is great, it’s just not very democratic.”

Cornucopia response: What can be more democratic than consumers voting with their food dollars to support organic farmers who protect our environment and our health by eschewing harmful and polluting agrochemicals?

Even if there were no direct benefit to our families (plenty of published scientific research indicates there is), when we choose organic food we are protecting farmers and farmworkers from exposure to toxic chemicals. Many farmers, farmworkers and their children have elevated levels of certain cancers and chronic diseases.

Dr. Oz: “The rise of foodie culture over the past decade has venerated all things small-batch, local-farm and organic — all with premium price tags. But let’s be clear: you don’t need to eat like the 1% to eat healthily.”

Cornucopia response: Organic foods are not for the “1%.” Organic foods are for everybody, and are accessible and affordable to most families who prioritize their expenses. Many organic consumers forgo other “luxuries,” whether it be iPhones, vacations, new cars — all of which are advertised in the same Time magazine where Dr. Oz’s article appears — in order to be able to afford organic foods to protect their family’s health. These decisions should be applauded, not turned into a character flaw.

Dr. Oz: “After several years of research and experience, I have come to an encouraging conclusion: the American food supply is abundant, nutritionally sound, affordable and, with a few simple considerations, comparable to the most elite organic diets. Save the cash; the 99% diet can be good for you.”

Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz’s research apparently missed the countless studies showing that organic foods are nutritionally superior, lower in pesticide residues, lower in antibiotic-resistant pathogen contamination, etc. In addition to being published in peer-reviewed journals, testing by independent sources such as Consumer Reports (Consumer Union) and government agencies such as the USDA corroborate these findings.

Dr. Oz: “I consider it a public-health service to the consumer who has to feed a family of five or the person who wants to make all the right choices and instead is alienated and dejected because the marketing of healthy foods too often blurs into elitism, with all the expense and culinary affectation that implies.”

Cornucopia response: The added expense of buying organic foods is an investment in health. In the interest of public health, Dr. Oz should have mentioned the pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, synthetic preservatives, artificial dyes and sweeteners, and other harmful inputs used in conventional farming and food production. Comparing nutrients is just one aspect of a cost-benefit analysis. Dr. Oz owes his loyal fans, who respect his judgment, a more thoughtful and nuanced analysis.

Dr. Oz: “There’s no question that free-range chickens and grass-fed, pasture-dwelling cows lead happier — if not appreciably longer — lives than animals raised on factory farms. They are also kept free of hormones and antibiotics and are less likely to carry communicable bacteria like E. coli, which are common on crowded feedlots. If these things are important to you and you have the money to spend, then by all means opt for pricier organic meats.”

Cornucopia response: Yes, Dr. Oz, avoiding hormones and antibiotics is important to us, and it should be to you, too.

However, just because a package says “free range” or “grass-fed” does not mean it is certified organic, and therefore is not certified to be produced without some of the most dangerous and objectionable drugs. Concerned consumers should go out of their way to seek out the organic seal.

Dr. Oz: “But for the most part, it’s O.K. to skip the meat boutiques and the high-end butchers. Nutritionally, there is not much difference between, say, grass-fed beef and the feedlot variety.”

Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz’s statement is not backed by scientific data, which consistently shows lower levels of cholesterol and saturated fat and higher levels of beneficial omega-3 fats and vitamins in grass-fed beef compared with feedlot beef.

Dr. Oz: “Let’s also take a moment to celebrate the tuna-salad sandwich, which is to lunch what the ’57 Chevy is to cars–basic and brilliant.”

Cornucopia response: It is unconscionable that Dr. Oz touts the nutritional benefits of canned tuna, without mentioning the FDA and EPA warnings concerning methylmercury contamination. The FDA and EPA recommend that women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children limit their consumption of canned light tuna to no more than 12 ounces per week, and their consumption of canned albacore tuna to no more than 6 ounces per week.

Dr. Oz: “Preserves and jams without added sugar can be great sources of dietary fiber, vitamin A, vitamin C and potassium.”

Cornucopia response: Preserves and jams without added sugar often contain added artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame, which has been linked in studies to cancer and neurological damage. Aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are banned in organic products.

Dr. Oz: “We know more about the connection between food and health than ever before — down to the molecular level, actually. This has provided us the curious luxury of being fussy, even snooty, about what we eat, considering some foods, well, below our station. That’s silly. Food isn’t about cachet. It’s about nourishment, pleasure and the profound well-being that comes from the way meals draw us together.”

Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz spends the entire article attempting to convince the American public that there are few, if any, differences between conventional and organic foods. Yet in his closing paragraphs he tacitly acknowledges that we “know more about … food and health than ever before – down to the molecular level.” This contradicts his earlier statements that there are no differences.

Most people who buy organic foods do so not because they are “snooty,” as Dr. Oz suggests, but because they seek to protect themselves and their families from the widely recognized harmful effects of pesticides and other agrichemicals.

Source:

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/11/organic-food-justice-for-the-99/

Share This Article

Celebrity Campaign to Patent Genes for Profit

May 19th, 2013 | Health Care, Natural Disease Remedies, Wellness | 0 Comments

When a celebrity gets involved the public perception is dramatically influenced even when your gut tells you something is wrong.  This is a portion of an  article that comes to us from Mike Adams of Naturalnews.com

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.

Read more about how to create a biochemical environment in your body to decrease your risk for many diseases including cancer in my #1 Secret to Burning Stubborn Ugly Belly Fat and Eat Right Forever Based upon your Body Type

Angelina Jolie Was Lied to by Her Doctors

May 17th, 2013 | Exercise, Health Care, Wellness | 0 Comments

I know I am going to pushing all kind of buttons with our readers but here is the truth.  We want to believe in our white coat doctors and what they tell us.  After all, are they not looking after our best interest?   I am sickened by how the medical community has become a profit driven machine and preying on the fear of women to cut off disease free tissue just in case you may develop cancer.  The insane part of this is just because you carry a gene for a certain cancer it doesn’t mean that you can’t live a lifestyle that prevents the expression of that gene.  Genes can be switched on and off.  Based upon my family genetic history I should be dying of heart disease and many forms of cancer.

Dr. Bruce Lipton’s work shows our genetic history does not have to be our future.  Gene expression can be changed through lifestyle modification.  Generations of fat families for example, one mom and dad decide to get in shape get off GMO  and other inflammatory foods and wella they have a lean child that never shows any signs of obesity.  Remember this is not an argument of cancer treatment.  Angelina had no cancer.  I can’t imagine the anguish she must have gone through in this decision; however, she should have been informed of other options.  The 87% risk of breast cancer the doctors stated has no basis in science.  They also stated that now she has only a 5% risk.  Also not based in science.

The alternative is to create a healthy lifestyle where the environment for “high risk” genes is limited.  This article was published by Naturalnews.com decide for yourself.

by Mike Adams, NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) In a New York Times op-ed explaining her decision to have both of her breasts surgically removed even though she doesn’t have breast cancer, Angelina Jolie cited risk numbers as key to her decision. She said that doctors told her she had an “87% risk of breast cancer.” Her solution? Undergo three months of surgical procedures and have her breasts cut out.

Problem solved, right? With her breasts removed, she says her risk of breast cancer is now reduced to a mere 5 percent. The same bizarre logic can also be applied to men who cut off their testicles to “prevent testicular cancer” or people who cut out their colons to “prevent colorectal cancer.” But that would be insane, so nobody does that, because one of the most basic principles of medicine is that you don’t subject patients to the considerable risks and costs of surgery and anesthesia to remove organs that have no disease!

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…

How cancer doctors lie with statistics and use fear to scare women into high-profit procedures
The very idea that breast cancer is a “percent risk” is a complete lie. In reality, everyone has cancer micro-tumors in their bodies, including myself. Cancer is not a disease you just “get” like being randomly struck by lightning. It’s something you must “manage” or “prevent” day by day, meal by meal, through a lifestyle choice that involves vitamin D supplementation, nutrition, superfoods, vegetable juices and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals and radiation.

So when a doctor says you have a “chance” of getting cancer, what he’s implying is that you have no control over cancer, and that’s an outright lie. Cancer quackery, in other words.

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. But you don’t hear cancer doctors telling women to “eat more cabbage” because that doesn’t make the cancer industry any money. You can buy I3C as a potent nutritional supplement from a variety of sources. It’s literally cancer prevention in a capsule.

So the whole “chance” argument is pure quackery. There is no chance involved in whether you get cancer. It’s all cause and effect. You are either living a pro-cancer lifestyle and therefore growing cancer, or you’re living an anti-cancer lifestyle and keeping cancer in check so that it never becomes a problem. Cause and effect is what results in either the growth of cancer tumors or the prevention of cancer tumors. There is no “luck” involved.

It’s fascinating, isn’t it, that medical doctors don’t believe in luck or voodoo on any topic other than cancer. But when it comes to cancer, they want all women to be suckered into the victim mentality that cancer is purely a matter of “luck” and therefore women have no control over their own health outcomes. 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 my related article 10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You’re Not Supposed to Know. Or listen to our upcoming FREE Cancer Solutions Summit broadcasting this coming Monday, May 20th.

Why doesn’t the cancer industry empower women with a sense of control over their own health?

I find it astonishing that the cancer industry doesn’t believe in cause and effect. They would rather scare women with “risk” statistics that imply people have no control over cancer. 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.

It’s far more profitable to scare all women into a state of such irrational panic that they agree to the most insane things imaginable such as chopping off both their healthy breasts even though they have no cancer. Such women are then convinced they’ve literally saved their own lives by agreeing to be mutilated by cancer surgeons.

“My chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from 87 percent to under 5 percent,” says Jolie. “I can tell my children that they don’t need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer.”

Will she also tell her children they should mutilate themselves, too, as a form of medical disease prevention? And what happens if she learns she has a risk of brain cancer? Does she chop off her head and call it a cure?

The scam of making women believe there is only ONE way to reduce your “risk” of breast cancer

The other enormous scam in all this is the idea that there’s only one way to reduce your “risk” of breast cancer. Even if you believe the fictitious number of “87% risk,” why does everyone automatically assume there is one and only one way to lower that risk?

“For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options,” writes Jolie in the NYT. Yet 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 incredible 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. But Jolie and the cancer industry seem to imply no options exist other than chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery. Three options only. Nothing else exists in their world, not nutritional prevention, not vitamin D therapy, not vitamin C potentiated micro-chemotherapy, not ozone therapy, acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine, stress reduction or anything else. You are supposed to believe that none of these things exist!

And why? Because the cancer industry wants to funnel women like cattle into their slash-poison-burn system of quack treatments. And Angelina Jolie is their new 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 than dying from breast cancer if she simply followed an anti-cancer lifestyle.

Don’t be tricked into self-mutilation by cancer industry quacks

In summary:

• The claim that you have a “percent risk” of breast cancer is a big lie which implies you have no control over cancer.

• 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.

-Mike Adams, NaturalNews.com
————————

The bottom line is stay and be present and informed.  I would not cut off my testicles if I did not have cancer and only carried the gene.  News flash many men carry the gene and live and die of old age without developing testicular cancer.

I told you this was a controversial topic like religion and politics.  Please check out our “Turn Back the Clock 10 Years in the Next 45 Days”  for Lifestyle changes to create an optimum wellness environment and a body less likely to become cancerous.

 

 

Website Crafted & executed by e-analysts.com