Mike Adams vs. Angelina Jolie

English: Angelina Jolie at the Cannes film fes...

The media has been buzzing about Angelina Jolie’s decision to have both her breasts removed to prevent her from coming down with breast cancer.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/showbiz/angelina-jolie-double-mastectomy/index.html

(CNN) — Actress Angelina Jolie announced in a New York Times op-ed article on Tuesday that she underwent a preventive double mastectomy after learning that she carries a mutation of the BRCA1 gene, which sharply increases her risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

“My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman,” Jolie wrote. “Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy.”

Jolie’s mother, actress and producer Marcheline Bertrand, died of ovarian cancer in 2007 at the age of 56. Jolie is 37 years old.

My first thought about it was, “This could end her movie career, but living a full life to care for your children and future grandchildren must be more important to her. How commendable!”

But not everyone is praising her. The “Health Ranger” Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com has engaged in classic conspiracy screeching about it.

http://www.naturalnews.com/040365_Angelina_Jolie_gene_patents_Supreme_Court_decision.html

(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.

Along the way, Mike Adams attacks Obamacare, the granting of patents for genes and genetic tests, and the very idea of for profit medicine. But he makes three serious mistakes in his attacks.
First:
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.
How would he know such a thing? Did he actually work for People magazine at one time? Does he know people who currently work for it? What about the fact that thanks to the high speed provided by computers connected to the internet, most weekly magazines can  today publish stories about events that happened the previous week? Adams is making a baseless assertion here, nothing more. Indeed, a magazine about celebrity news that took three weeks to publish anything would soon be out of business.
Second:

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.

What did Adams actually link to? THIS:

Three Breast Cancer Gene Alterations in Jewish Community Carry Increased Cancer Risk, But Lower Than in Previous Studies

May 1997  <———————————-note that date!

He wants to criticize Jolie for refering to “old data” yet he himself refers to something from 1997?!

“My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman,” Jolie wrote. (Emphasis mine)

Adams engaged in selective datamining of something he could use to attack Jolie’s claim. OLD DATA! Isn’t it more likely that Jolie’s doctors have access to more recent data that could better support their claims?
Third:

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.

Mike Adams is a damned hypocrite! He himself has engaged in the same sort of doomsday fearmongering regarding defective vaccines, arguing that vaccines should be abandoned completely!

Not to mention that he has made some incredibly hateful and libelous attacks on “skeptics”. It must be noted that Angelina Jolie is an atheist and therefore must be one of those skeptics Adams already despises.

It should also be noted that we Americans live in a capitalist economy and as long as that is the case, medicine would naturally be for profit. To attack that, Adams would have to favor socialized medicine. Does he? Yet he condemns Obamacare.

And I condemn him, even though like him I oppose the granting of patents for genes of any kind. He is simply too inconsistent and dishonest to be taken seriously. He exposed nothing in that article on naturalnews.com but his own arrogance.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s