Mike Adams on Jolie’s decision: “Why aren’t male cancer doctors cutting off their own testicles?”

Angelina_Jolie_Double_MastectomyAs soon as I saw the news — and of course it was splashed all over the MSM — that “brave” Angelina Jolie had lopped off both her breasts, in a “pre-vivor” (as opposed to sur-vivor) tactic to avoid breast cancer because of a supposedly aberrant gene, my heart sunk to the floor. Not just because whatever violence Angelina does to her own body, other (rich) women will do it too, further bloating and enriching the medico/surgico/pharmaceutico industrial complex while cementing the centuries-old denigration of the feminine expression of the divine, but that she did it “because” of this one gene. As if that settles it. Unless she erases the offending substance, she’s done for. Huh?

Notice how the religion of scientism always needs a bottom-line, an immutable truth that holds up the rest of the edifice, that makes the whole thing go.

“Genes” as the new “atoms,” eternal, immutable, the “building blocks” of life. Oh? Google “genes change,” and see what comes up.

“Health Ranger” Mike Adams, in an excoriating review of Jolie’s decision to mutilate the female expression of her body, put this “reason” for her decision front and center:

Angelina Jolie inspires women to maim themselves by celebrating medically perverted double mastectomies

May 15, 2013

by Mike Adams


(NaturalNews) Angelina Jolie announced yesterday that she had both of her breasts surgically removedeven though she had no breast cancer. She carries the BRCA1 gene, and she has been tricked into believing that genetic code is some sort of absolute blueprint to disease expression — which it most certainly is not. Countless millions of women carry the BRCA1 gene and never express breast cancer because they lead healthy, anti-cancer lifestyles based on smart nutrition, exercise, sensible sunlight exposure and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals.

Jolie, like many other women who have been deluded by cancer quackery, decided the best way to prevent the risk of breast cancer was not to lead a healthy, anti-cancer lifestyle, but rather to surgically remove her breasts in what she describes as “three months of medical procedures.”

…just in case, you know. Because you can never be too careful these days, with the cancer industry scaring women half to death at every opportunity. “My breasts might murder me!” seems to be the slogan of many women these days, all of whom are victims of outrageous cancer industry propaganda and fear mongering.

Let me set the record straight: Your breasts are not your enemy! The cancer industry is far more likely to kill you than your breasts. (But more on that later…)

Women’s liberation crusade: Off with your breasts!

Worse than merely maiming herself in an act of outright medical quackery, Angelina Jolie has positioned her decision as some sort of women’s liberation crusade, acting and talking as if her “choice” to remove her breasts somehow blazes a new path of female power for all women. (How sick is this, really?)

Oh, what a mess Jolie has made of herself. She has maimed her own body with no medical justification whatsoever, then celebrated this horrible disfiguration through some sort of twisted perception of what womanhood really is. Being an empowered woman doesn’t mean cutting off your breasts and aborting live babies — even though both of these things are often celebrated by delusional women’s groups. Being an empowered woman means protecting your health, your body and your womanhood by honoring and respecting your body, not maiming it.

A vivacious, confident, healthy woman who protects her fertility and nourishes her unborn child is far more heroic and empowering than someone who maims her own body as some sort of sick sacrifice to the cancer industry. Angelina Jolie, as much as she is often viewed as a symbol of female power, seems to have completely lost touch with the core truths of honoring the “temple” of your own female body.

Cancer is never limited to just the breast

Cancer, by the way, is a systemic problem when it emerges, not a local problem limited to just the breasts or other organs. It may be diagnosed in breast tissues, but that’s not the only place it’s growing. The idea that someone can prevent cancer by just removing their breasts is absurd. If the conditions of cancer are present in the body — due to nutritional deficiencies, exposure to chemicals, radiation, etc. — cancer will develop in many different places, not just breast tissues. Removing an organ that might possibly someday be one of the many locations in which cancer is diagnosed is completely irrational and medically abhorrent. Logically, it’s a lot like arguing that you can avoid flat tires on your car by removing all the tires!

If you really want to learn the truth about cancer — and SAVE your breasts! — get our “New Cancer Solutions” CD set. The third CD is absolutely amazing, offering astounding information that can literally help save your life. You can also hear the entire collection for free during our New Cancer Solutions Healing Summit launching next Monday, May 20th.

If Angelina Jolie had heard the information on these CDs, she would have said, “NO!” to the cancer fear mongers and learned that there are far more effective and empowering ways to protect yourself from cancer. Women everywhere need to hear truly empowering, honoring, holistic information about cancer and stop listening to the insanity of the cancer industry and its delusional, victimized spokespeople like Angelina Jolie.

Celebrating the medical abuse of women

The mainstream media is heralding Jolie’s decision to cut off both her perfectly healthy breasts, announcing Jolie is “admired for bravery.” In a NYT op-ed, Jolie wrote, “I hope that other women can benefit from my experience.” (No, I’m not making this up. She literally wants other healthy women to cut off their breasts, too…)

The medical industry, never known to back down from an opportunity to physically abuse women for profit, is jumping on the double mastectomy bandwagon. In a Businessweek article, a genetic counselor named Rebecca Nagy declares, “Having this conversation empowers us all. It’s wonderful what she’s done.”

Wonderful? To cut off parts of your body that have NO disease? With this logic, abortions are cancer prevention, too, because those babies might one day grow up and develop tumors. Better to kill them early and “prevent cancer,” right?

The irrationality of Jolie’s decision is truly sickening. Even worse is that idea that she may inspire other women to have their healthy bodies maimed, too. If Jolie cut off both legs and called it a “choice” to prevent leg cancer, I have little doubt many women would follow her lead and cut off their legs, too. Jolie herself says she may have her ovaries cut out in the future because they, too, might someday get cancer.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see where this medical insanity ultimately leads. Got a risk of kidney cancer? Remove your kidneys. Risk of colon cancer? Take out your colon. Lung cancer, perhaps? Remove your lungs, just in case! That’s the logic of Angelina Jolie who has been completely deceived by the cancer industry into maiming her own body based on nothing for medical fear mongering and cancer quackery.

Never doubt the fact that fear can be an effective marketing tool when it comes to breast cancer, by the way. The cancer industry rakes in billions of dollars a year based on irrational fears spread by misinformed women.

Medical maiming going viral across the population of sheeple

There’s nothing quite as exciting and heroic as having your body parts chopped off by surgeons and then declaring yourself to be a “pre-vivor” of cancer. Yep, that’s the new term. You’re not really a “survivor” of cancer, since you never had it. You’re a “pre-vivor” because you preempted the cancer.

Or, just as likely, you got suckered into the most delusional decision of your life and had a bunch of quacks slice off pieces of your body that were perfectly healthy to begin with. This is medical insanity at its worst… especially given that a woman’s risk of breast cancer can be reduced by 78% using nothing but vitamin D. Yeah, take some vitamin D and keep your breasts! What a deal, eh?

Why aren’t male cancer doctors cutting off their own testicles?

You’ll note, by the way, that men never have their testicles removed to lower the risk of testicular cancer. Not even the male cancer doctors, oncologists and surgeons who are slicing off women’s breasts all day long. Sure, they think cutting off breasts is a great idea, but ask one of them to part with their own testicles to “prevent” cancer, and they’ll look at you like you’ve gone, well, nuts.

Because cutting off your testicles to prevent testicular cancer that you don’t even have would be stupid, of course. Pure quackery. Suggest it to a man you know and you’ll either be laughed at or punched in the mouth. No ethical doctor would ever remove a perfectly healthy set of testicles from a man who has no symptoms of testicular cancer. The very idea is absurd and possibly even risking a medical malpractice lawsuit.

So why is it somehow acceptable to cut off the breasts of “empowered women” who think they are making some sort of social statement by maiming their own perfectly healthy bodies?

This entry was posted in 2013, dark doo-doo, Uranus square Pluto, visions of the future, waking up. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Mike Adams on Jolie’s decision: “Why aren’t male cancer doctors cutting off their own testicles?”

  1. Kathy says:

    According to most traditional gynos, a woman’s body is one big disease waiting
    to happen. That’s pretty sick./ Get your mammograms and pap smears or you’re doomed!

    • Yeah, I’ve never had a mammogram in my life, and don’t plan to, either. To me, they’ve always seemed more likely to cause cancer than to diagnose it, and even where they do locate some kind of tiny otherwise unnoticed lump, and even if that lump turns out to be cancer, who says we can’t dissolve it through natural methods, including food and herbs. I know plenty of women who have done this.

  2. grandpatom says:

    OMG, I find Angelina’s action almost unbelievable—is this really true? Yet here I am, living without a prostate gland and minus one of my own two testicles—thanks to my own impulsive gullibility to fears about cancer. At the age of 56, in 2006, a routine medical checkup included a blood test which showed a dramatic rise in my body’s PSA count. Frightened about prostate cancer, I consulted a urologist who recommended a biopsy be taken from my gland. Sure enough the biopsy analysis showed a malignant cancerous tumor growing there, and the urologist recommended surgical removal of the gland asap (to be performed by himself)—which I agreed to without doing any further research or other medical recommendation. Fear is indeed a powerful motivation in making drastic decisions.
    But what’s done is done… I now live with the consequences of not having a prostate gland, which do include drastic effects upon sexual function.
    What seems to be a highly ironic paradox to me is that the monstrous reality of fear-mongering is not at all limited to the much-maligned “mainstream” modern culture, be it the medical arena or politics or economics—whatever!—there is something to be alarmed about and to fear. The so-called “natural” based alternatives to mainstream culture in our society foster fear of the mainstream too! I find this amusingly ironic to put it mildly.
    “Be afraid of everything ‘artificial’ !!” LOL…where the hell does fear-mongering come to an end?
    Forgive me but I’ve decided to subscribe to the old idea that the worst thing to fear is fear itself, hahaha—how’s that for putting fear in it’s proper place?

    • Good for you, Tom! That’s exactly the attitude we all need to adopt. Be both aware (of all the minefields that seduce us into fearfulness, no matter what our perspective) and couple awareness with fearlessness.

      • grandpatom says:

        Thank you Ann… I want to add that I do feel generally awake and aware—and that yes, being so leads any truly sentient being into recognition of humanity’s amazing negativities. Awareness of these negatives about ourselves is indeed necessary in order to be aware of the opposites: the positives. Knowing of one is how we are able to know of the other.
        Fear, hate, greed, violence, ignorance, arrogance, abuse of power and all the other many destructive negatives we manifest do seem to far outweigh or outrace trust, love, giving and sharing, nurturance, intelligence, humility, careful use of power and all the other constructive positives we manifest in our global civilization.
        But is this really so? Is there any way to accurately measure such qualitative variables? Or is this simply a subjectively biased perspective?
        I agree that It does indeed feel desirable to achieve a state of civilization in which this apparently dismal (to many of us) situation is reversed. It would be pleasant to live in a world in which the positives seemed to far outweigh and outrace the negatives that we collectively manifest… but is this only because we who feel this way are idealistically biased?
        How far out of a healthy balance can existence ever really get before self-correcting? And just how does the interaction between positive and negative forces really play out?
        We know so little! But it’s fun to play at it anyway, lol… and oh so dramatic!

  3. Pamela says:

    If the tale is true, we can acknowledge that we do not know the story in its entirety. Hidden agendas could just as easily be at work. For example, having children and breast-feeding may leave some women with less than their desired breast appearance. Out with the old and in with the new could be the strategy. The decision could not be based in fear but vanity. Who knows…If this is out in the media, however, it could lead many women to follow suit-women who do not have the knowledge or finances to create something they find more lovely….May we all just love ourselves…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *