Angelina Jolie really blew it

amazing how when you have money you can get people to do anything, and then cause she came out about it and it was not leaked to the media she is supposedly a hero, I dont think so.

Putting my personal opinions aside, I can't help but wonder who or what is behind this massive trend to remove breasts and ovaries. It's been known since the 70's at least that women who carry a specific gene may be highly susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer. So why was this practice not encouraged then? I'm thinking that once again insurance is attempting to protect its profits after obamacare kicks in by eliminating as much of the cost of treating cancer as possible. I noticed that the American Cancer Society has been screening small pockets of the population for cancers and a month or so ago there was a big push ( tv ads) for everyone to get lung xrays to screen for cancer. Also, insurance companies have been slashing a lot of cancer coverage in recent months and one woman in my area was unable to get lung cancer treatment ( and she was NOT even a smoker) at all because her insurance no longer covers that. Until a year or two ago, mammograms were pushed on women despite the fact that mammograms were linked to causing breast cancer. Now they tell us that we don't need them until much later in life. hmmmmm It just seems a bit fishy to me and sounds like there is some other hidden motivation for encouraging women to do this now.

Here's an interesting article about it by Natural News: http://www.naturalnews.com/040349_Angelina_Jolie_breast_cancer_surgery.html

Dr. Mercola on Breast Cancer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0ivT0rFNoA

Dear Sylvia and JoeFrogalicious,
There will be many,many comments and opinions about Angelina's decision. Who are we to say what we would do in her place. She watched her mother die a painful death at a young age.
I believe we have a right to our own opinions. We have a right to make our own decisions. This forum has always been a place where a woman can express herself and not be judged for her decisions past or future.
I feel the topic is a relevant one. It should be open for much discussion. However, we should not be discussing the merits of Angelina's decision. She,as far as I know is not part of this forum and I do not feel we should be discussing her at all.
Whole Woman PA

Hypothetically speaking, I do not know which way I would jump if I had the breast cancer gene or high risk factors for ovarian cancer. I have a feeling that I would monitor very carefully, rather than opt for the big cut. However, worry wart doctors tend to prey on people's fears, and without good, objective support for my decision making I think I would probably cave in to medical advice and have the op. What this tells me is that I would want several opinions and would want to be treated by a doctor who is genuinely scientific in assessing the risks and guiding me through monitoring it. I would need to develop a high degree of trust, which is not easy for me with doctors. We are talking boobs and ovaries here!

After all, an organ removed is an organ that neither the doctor, nor the doctor's insurer, nor the patient has to worry about any more. Unfortunately, the woman concerned still has to live the rest of her years with absence of that organ, and the effects of its absence on the rest of her body and on her life. I doubt that we will read in the magazines anything of any suffering that she does as a result of these surgeries. She will look a Photoshopped10, no matter what state of health she is in.

What celebrities do does get in the faces of the average woman. It makes women think. I don't think we should be either supporting her or knocking her. It was her decision, which she may or may not regret. Or she might get run over by a bus next week, in which case she will no longer be in the media (after her funeral). That would be very sad but life would go on, and another celeb would be on the front cover.

Yes, it is emotive. Yes, it is about women caving in to surgery. Yes, it is about celebrity, and will probably end up being about celebrities professionally endorsing surgical procedures, but it really doesn't matter until we are the ones with the difficult decisions to make.

ps I also know that I wouldn't recognise AJ if I sat next to her on a bus, or on a magazine cover. I do recognise that for many women these celebrities are like members of their families, and they have a genuine interest in their wellbeing, as if they were a relative or close friend. That's where it is difficult to criticise someone for having an exaggerated interest in the lives of celebrities. We have not walked their path. We do not live Angelina's life. We do not really know what it is like to be Angelina Jolie.

Is this subject relevant? Maybe, but it is not really the core business of these Forums.

any woman chooses as long as she has made a well-informed choice about her options. I'm not comfortable with the drama rave that the media is creating over Jolie's surgery and it causes me to believe that Jolie is being used by the industry to promote this surgery in an effort to protect profit. Women will flock to their doctors for genetic screening and if it's positive they will feel ' cool' about removing their organs or they will do so out of fear of being accused of not caring about their children as much as Jolie. The insurance companies will have significantly reduced their liability by 2014 and will be toasting in the board rooms. Keep in mind that President Obama's mother died from ovarian cancer because the insurance companies would not treat her and one of the new law states clearly that insurance will not be able to deny anyone any coverage after 2014 with their pre-existing condition loophole.

America has a history of controlling certain populations with hysterectomies. Do some research and you will discover that this is nothing new. Ever read the book, ' The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks'? It tells the story of how Johns Hopkins used this woman's cancers cells and her body without her approval or knowledge. It's a true story. But, there are other cases around the country where doctors took it upon themselves to reduce ethnic and poverty populations using hysterectomies.

My godmother chose a double mastectomy after having breast cancer twice and I don't blame her. Her daughter also had one as a preventive measure. All the women, several generations past had died from breast cancer so, in their case, I think it was probably a good idea. Why spend your life constantly worried about the ' C' .

My ex mother in law had a hysterectomy 3 years after her daughter died from uterine cancer at age 47. I didn't think she needed the hysterectomy for physical reasons but it became clear to me and her doctor that it was really about making her mentally comfortable with her life. She was a young 70 years old. She had begun spotting due to her fibroid and panicked and was terrified it would become cancer.

Every situation is different and noone of us knows what we would do.

By the time my doctor discovered my ovarian tumor, I was prepared for the worst and chose no chemo or radiation and went on a more spiritual route but I don't have children or other dependents and I was fine with letting life go on as usual and I wanted to spend my last days on this earth as well as possible and not sickened by drugs or surgery. But, if I had young children...oh gosh, I don't think I would have chosen that same path. I just don't know...too many factors to consider.

But in any event, this is something that every woman should at least think about ( think..NOT worry) every so often and get in touch with her values and current lifestyle, parenting etc.. and discuss these issues with her family. Men should too. Dealing with cancer at the last minute is just too stressful and emotional for anyone to just instantly know what to do and hence, the family ends up blindly trusting their doctors.

This is such a lovely, if intense, thread. So many thoughtful responses and I appreciate everyone's point of view. We are all vulnerable in these ways now, as super-exposure is everyone's fate, I'm afraid. Set me out in the sun and feed me lemon water, but I respect other's choices too. I know a woman treating her own breast cancer naturally and she has ended up with a huge, weeping, malignant wound - ugh. A dear friend, who is "Ms. Natural", has chosen to go the conventional route. You just never know. I do believe, as Gillian has pointed out, that our illnesses are exploited in a mammoth way by those industries claiming to have our best interests at heart. Orthopedics takes the cake! God bless everyone. This is the time, as Gillian mentioned, to be working on "Whatever Is Next". LOVE!! C.

Anything that is done as a service for money is wide open to evil. "Healers" can range from sincere and competent to well-intentioned but mistaken to incompetent and uncaring to gaining a medical license to carry out the murder that is in their hearts under legal cover. Evil kills. That's what it does. The world is full of evil.

Who among us hasn't heard or doesn't have a story to tell of misdiagnosis, maltreatment, and horrible death? My mother was misdiagnosed with hiatal hernia for three years before her cancerous tumor was discovered. By then it was too late. She died at 57. My father, being treated with prescription meds after TIA's, developed diabetes as a side effect of the meds and then diabetic ulcers on one foot. From the day I discovered them and contacted his doctor to the day of his death was four months. During that time he had three amputations, major surgeries with the debilitating effects of general anesthesia. He was 79, but it took them four months to weaken him to death. It will be judged as murder in the end.

Sylvia, there are things on this forum that are disallowed that do have to do with being whole. It's a gentle glacier-like censorship that people passionate for truth encounter daily. I have opted to continue participating in spite of that for the sake of information that is useful to me and for the opportunity provided by posts like yours. To get a word in.

I thought about the celebrity news and considered that the lady had lost her mother and was surely affected by that loss. If I were to judge her by her public persona (and it's the price of celebrity to be so judged), I would say she's passionate and empathetic and feels some responsibility for her life....and that she's misguided and insecure. She is gathering experience and I truly hope she learns from it what she needs to know.

The core business of this forum is natural prolapse management based upon the works of Christine Kent. Those who participate in that give-and-take of information are the true members here. Some of those, like Bebe, will share strong opinions on a variety of topics. That is fine for those who wish to take up the discussion; not everyone will.

Bebe, I’m surprised and sorry to hear that you feel censored here, and somewhat disappointed in your stated reasons for sticking around, because honestly, it appeared to be so much more than that; you have made a genuine contribution.

Sylvia, you don’t seem to be part of the exchange of information for managing prolapse, but rather, surfing the net for places to vent. That’s OK too, up to a point of course. You might want to tone down your rhetoric a bit, though. We get the point. You’ve found all the answers. Just don’t miss the shades of grey….it’s not all black and white in this world. - Surviving

I thought that was a pretty heavy charge to level as well, and hope Bebe can tell us more. I feel we can talk about anything here, however we will never all agree and that's great.

While my response was about breast cancer in particular, I didn't mention how unfortunate it is to act pre-emtively against cancer, when cancer is a multi-step process requiring promoters, initiators, etc. Sad Angelina didn't have better preventative advice! C.

While recognizing that the core aim of this group is natural prolapse management based on Christine's work, and without judging Jolie, I would just like to share the following observation in the interest of women's health generally:

Cancer is a big fear for everyone today, including women. However, just because you cut out one of your organs, does not mean you can reduce your risk of cancer in that organ entirely. Sound weird, right? I don't know if this is true for all organs, but it is true with ovaries: even if your ovaries are removed, you CAN still get ovarian cancer. I am in a cancer forum online and one of the women wrote in and said this happened to her. I just did a quick google search and here's a blurb from the Mayo clinic attesting to this reality:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/ovarian-cancer/AN01018

Our bodies are much more complicated than we realize. It is very important to make decisions from an informed place and not just out of fear. If you are religiously minded, please pray over major health decisions as well.

Mamp

I am bothered much more by the removal of the ovaries than by the double mastectomy. I know other people who have done the latter, and IF the breast cancer risk is as high as they say, well, it certainly gives one pause. But removal of the ovaries, considering the long-term implications, is in my opinion a lot more questionable. I hope she is getting all the information she can. I find it a little scarey how people are making such a close correlation between 1) her decision and 2) how good of a mother she is. Will those who now get identified as being in a similar risk category, and choose not to follow her path, be called inferior mothers? - Surviving

this thread is almost enough to make me leave this forum.

It seems there is a narrow window being put forth about what one should or should not do and a good deal of judgment. I am new here and it makes me hesitant to express myself about my own experiences if they are not in line with what others consider "right."

Sylvia – many people with a perfectly good message to deliver, have no idea how to deliver it. Some very interesting points are being buried behind a wall of rudeness and bullying. This thread is only doing harm to our mission at this stage of the game……Sadie, I hope it is obvious that Sylvia isn’t part of this endeavor. I’m hoping she will learn some people skills that will translate into her writings, then maybe stop back when she has something more helpful to offer. - Surviving

I think Angela may have been looking at the risk assessment. She had an 87% chance of definitely developing breast cancer and a 50% risk of developing ovarian cancer. She is a BRCA1 carrier.

“Everyone has two copies of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes; they are critical for patching up damaged DNA. The problem arises in people who have a variant form of BRCA1 or BRCA2 that doesn’t do its normal job properly. These mutant “alleles” may differ just in one of the base pairs that make up the gene. It is these base differences that are detected by genetic testing.”

Her choices are: close monitoring which includes MRI scans and mammograms, breast cancer prevention drugs such as Tamoxifen, and mastectomy with breast reconstruction. There are new drugs called PARP inhibitors that are being developed tested for BRCA-associated cancers.

The mastectomy reduces her chance of cancer to 5%. The side effects of mastectomy are said to be generally minimal. In the short term, there can be surgical risks of infection and bleeding and, of course, cosmetic results (breast reconstruction) may differ. As to subsequent depression and low self esteem we can only guess at; estimates say 20% of women having mastectomies do suffer these things. Preserving her life at this stage would be her main concern, I should think.

Angela had this surgery in the absence of cancer. She was spared the triple shock of cancer diagnosis and then having the surgery and then anti-cancer treatment. And hopefully she has also been spared the anxiety of worrying the cancer will return.

Angela is to have her fallopian tubes and ovaries removed. If this is carried out at age 40, it can halve cancer risk. So it seems there are definite time limits on this. Angela is 37. Her mother developed the cancer at 47. It is known to be safe to give women hormone replacement therapy in most cases, so that they don’t experience menopausal symptoms.

This is the medical thinking. I don’t know any better, but life is sweet.

Thanks Fab,
I really do think genetics plays a big part in cancer risks, and many other conditions as well. Any ailments my family suffered were all self induced from bad eating and poor life style. Even the smokers keep truckin along.
I remember wondering while working in the nursing homes how these people could have lived into there nineties and even well into their 100s! Ya, they had a few knocks on the way: scars from hip surgeries and mastectomies, etc., but all I could account for it was clean living on the farm (I live in Wisconsin, so the majority of people I cared for were farmers). And, good genes!
When I worked in the hospice, I was seeing more and more people coming in with cancer, andd they were just getting younger too! There were the typical lifestyle induced cancers that seem to be on the rise, but there were also people who were really healthy and took really good care of themselves. I remember one husband saying that his wife did everything right, and how unfair it was that she ended up with cancer anyway. That broke my heart!
Having watched so many people die these horrible painful deaths from cancer, I would never judge another's choices in how they want to prevent it.

Watch Christine's interview with Dr. Christine Horner (Under Resources - video). I have the book and can't recommend it enough. You can't change your genes but there are lots of well-documented things you CAN do. - Surviving

I am not arguing that there aren't plenty of things you can do out there as preventative measures to prevent cancer; but, I think each person should weigh that for themselves when making that kind of decision about their health, and should not be judged for it. How are we to know what resources Angelina had in making her decision?
I remember in the 80s watching talk shows where groups of sisters had preventative mastectomies, because the cancer gene was so strong in their families. I wonder where they are now, and if they still feel they made the right decision. It would be an interesting study to see.

Adding to the prevention of illnesses and such I just wanted to share an experience I had as I was talking with my dear husband about my prolapse. I felt I had done everything right, and still got prolapse. I seriously had a picture perfect birth experience (hypnobirthing-awesome!), all natural, no complications, no gravely incorrect practices. I am very young and have been at optimum health my whole life.
So I kept playing all of this in my head thinking, "WHAT DID I DO WRONG???? If there is anyone with license not to have prolapse its me!!!" And then my husband just said, "you didn't do anything wrong, maybe you were just meant to get prolapse". Sounds like that wouldn't make me feel any better, but it did.
To wrap up, I personally believe that it is necessary to just try to be your healthiest in general. There are some things that will probably happen to us no matter what we do, and there are also many things we can prevent simply by doing simple things like eating healthily, exercising and as I have learned, posture!
There are so many variables that go into a decision that one person makes. We are all so complex, our physical selves as well as our emotional and spiritual selves.
All we can do is our best.

I think AJ's decision must be seen in the context of her risk factor, her age, and the ages of her kids. None of us wants to live forever, and we all dread and hope to avoid being a burden on our children. She wants to see hers grow up! She wants to be there for them during all the stages of parenthood that the rest of us take for granted. - Surviving

That’s one of the best things about this site. Amongst any thread there is a gem, someone who can speak from the heart, someone who has been so close to similar situations that they can point to the pain, the angst, the fear and the love of the situation that few of us have seen or can bear to dwell on any too long. My thanks to you Graceful for your caring for the sick and the dying, such courage, such love. And thanks for being here on this forum and letting us see.

P.S. I too am one of the fortunate inheritors of good genes and 'hard' (read that as stupid) heads.

I agree with Whole Woman PA......she is not part of this forum.

duplicate post.

I've spent the last couple of days reading posts and considering my charge of censorship against the forum. Some distance and re-reading has given me a clearer perspective to be able to respond to Christine's allowance to explain myself. Some of us have at times made statements in a provocative and inflammatory tone. This post began with one and it was certain to get responses. Another recent example is node5409 in RealisticWoman's description of her miserable experience with a doctor. I have reviewed that one carefully and saw the inflammation rise to a fever pitch, but the provocative tone continued to steadily and quietly persist in the exchange between RealisticWoman and Surviving. There was a censure of RealisticWoman in which I participated and which I now see as not entirely fair. There were legitimate statements made on both sides to the argument and I could have made appropriate responses without taking one side or the other.

Another example that left me with an aftertaste of censorship (node 5203 - late in the thread) is the discussion between Fab and Louise wherein Fab suggested the forum is not the place to debate evolution vs. creationism. That's not what was going on and I joined that thread to give my opinion. My opinion, btw, is still that the current ongoing debate between evolutionists and creationists is a bogus diversion from both faith and science (which are not in disagreement with one another when done honestly and competently). In this case I think the subject of that debate was brought up as a deflection from the beauty of God's creation. Read it and see what you think.

More recently in node 5395 the appreciation of God was interrupted with the politically correct warning to respect those who don't want to hear it. I suggest you all read at least that thread and a definition of censorship and determine for yourselves if there's any validity to my charge.

Still, after that, I conceded that an evangelical agenda has no place in this forum and have honored that in posts that followed. In this thread I responded to Sylvia's impression that this forum was about the whole woman and it is not. It is a necessarily narrowly focused forum about what it is about and it works well that way. I do apologize that I didn't explain it but just threw down a charge of censorship and in that confusing apples and oranges, (apples being the justifiable focus of the forum and oranges being my personal feelings).

Christine, your post shows immediately before mine but was posted while I was writing. If I had seen your gentle reminder to move on, I think I would have restrained my tendency to rant. This is your home, after all. I can imagine your process over the years of worry about your liability, of wanting to maintain the forum for the good it does, and of coming to the experience of knowing when to intervene and understanding when it will take care of itself.

For you, Fab, because if reviewed in depth it will seem like I'm leveling that charge against you, I hope that since those exchanges we've developed a more understanding (although anonymous) relationship. I'm saying this publicly "for the children" and because we don't communicate privately. I respect your knowledge and your level of reasoning and ability to get it across in writing. I enjoy exchanges with you, whether in agreement or disagreement. Why else would debate be so much fun or have any purpose?

Surviving, I identify with you in your straightforwardness and have taken to myself the warning that if I will be blunt, I should expect to be able to back it up and not afterward demure and withdraw from the argument. I also take the point from that (and from this) to consider the effect of my words in the first place. I do appreciate what you said above about my participation.

Sincerely, Bebe

No offense taken. It was terrible what you went through with your mother’s untimely death and your father’s pain and suffering. There is no consolation for that. And the memories you hold of those times are still raw. I certainly hope that time will heal your grief. There will continue to be times when someone’s plight, in this case Angelina’s, will reawaken the memory and emotions of those times for you and require you to suffer yet once again. I wish you fewer of those times.

As to an explanation, I suspect I don’t have any that would ring true to you personally Bebe. I don’t see any trace of my trying to censor this particular thread. So I don’t really feel guilty as charged here. I guess in the other threads you mention I am guilty as charged. I can’t find them according to your numbers. I remember I wanted realisticwoman to understand where Surviving was coming from and that she was inadvertently misinterpreting and insulting her. I failed. I wanted to assist realistictwoman to see that she needed to take back her anger towards her doctor and make it work constructively for her. I failed again. I thought that surviving should have a reality check that other people did not go along with what realistictwoman said about her. Again, I’m not sure I succeeded.
As to your second charge, from memory I found the mention of creationism a discordant note. I don’t really want to go into it. When Darwin first formed his opinion after great personal struggle, the major churches at that time, Anglican and Catholic, accepted evolution without difficulty. Since then it has become a big creationism versus evolution issue in the US which I do not wish to be involved in. You disagree. So? You claim that you came in on that thread, so where was the censorship? Your third example, I do remember you talking about prayer, and do remember chipping you and a few others about that. I gave my reasons at the time about hopefully it was a secular site in a secular society open to all regardless of beliefs and that forming a little clique is a notorious method for creating an atmosphere of exclusion.
I also remember criticising people who posted adds not having first cleared this with the owners of the site, people being anti-vaccination and chiropractors offering herbal alternatives, people promoting kegels, people slagging doctors and the medical profession in general, people promoting veganism or simple remedies which were magical cures. All of which I claim to have done with the intention of preserving the integrity of this site as scientifically astute and extending acceptance and respect to everyone.
Whatever your issues with me are Bebe feel free to communicate with me privately if you want, but I really do think that to do so publicly on this forum is a misuse of this site. So yeah, I am censoring again.

Well, there has been a lot of action on this topic while I have been away! Some discussion of very broad subjects is happening. I have learned a little more about a few subjects.

If anyone of you wants to email privately, email me first, so I can clear it with the other person, before I give out any email addresses.

Louise

With the Divine in every blade of grass, every speck of dust, how strange that we have to go on about creationism vs evolution. It is an argument belonging to another century and I so hope we can evolve past it. I sense an air of “My God is better than your god, and I’m upset because we don’t talk enough about my God here”, an attitude that just takes my breath away.

Nor let us be completely swayed by the religion of science! Science is a conventional perspective on reality that is agreed upon by a select group of people. Even within science itself there are sharp disagreements about what is real, true, or fact. The BRCA genes are just one such example. A huge controversy has existed on the subject since the 90s. The company that does the testing in the States, Myriad Genetics, has always been mired in controversy. Critics say the testing system itself is flawed because Myriad’s focus on DNA sequencing misses the importance of counseling about the uncertainty of the genetic risk. All we hear is the “87% risk of developing breast cancer”, but if you look into it, I think the issue is much more complex. Breast cancer is also associated with several other known gene mutations and these are linked to many other cancers - of the thyroid, adrenal gland, lung, lymphoma, leukemia. Myriad didn’t even discover the gene, but fought against many scientists who knew better for the rights to patent and sell the test. The body’s own ability to repair damaged genes is another critical factor, which Angelina’s body had been doing up until the time of her mastectomy.

Also the notion that her reconstructive surgery will come with no risk is inaccurate. She has no breast tissue to slip the implants into, so they will form a pocket in her chest wall, dissecting pectoral and other muscles to place the implants under. In time, her entire rib cage will expand and she will not have the body she once knew. Her breathing will be affected, because the pecs are accessory respiratory muscles. Within the next couple of years, we will open our discussions to breast implant/cancer survivors because what they need above all is WW posture!

I really don’t wish to stir the pot anymore, but needed to make these few points.

Christine

It’s a commonly held view that because scientists are passionate about their work and findings that science is seen as just another religion. I really don’t think this is giving due credit. Scientists indulge for the most part in rational thought. Science is thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis. Religion is thesis alone. Science is about argument, about strongly held divergent views, about experimentation, discovering error, about controversy, and about when the facts change, you change your mind.
I was shocked like many people when hearing about Angelina’s decision, but when I got at the facts of the matter, I changed my mind. And I decided to get at the facts of the matter out of due respect for the person who had made this decision. I did not stereotype her as having more money than sense, of being an easily misled air head or some masochistic nut who laid herself out to be butchered.
In the spirit of needing to make some points:
(This from a very courteous medic) “breast are not ''lopped off'' like some sort of macabre massacre - as if a woman is left with two gaping holes. On the contrary - mastectomy involves dissecting out the breast tissue, leaving the chest wall underlying and the skin and subcutaneous tissue overlying, with scope for reconstruction. It's no picnic, but nor is it barbaric."
I have no knowledge of your Myriad Genetics, but it sounds like a company making money. This happens in capitalist societies, and its tendency to foster monopolies a basic flaw, but it’s not really about the science.
“The body’s own ability to repair damaged genes is another critical factor, which Angelina’s body had been doing up until the time of her mastectomy.” We do not know that. I think this was the whole point. There was a distinctly high chance Angelina’s body was not going to continue to do this past a certain age (like 40, giving her a three year leeway). Angelina’s mother died in 2007. This is no spur of the moment decision on Angelina’s part. She has had six years to think on this. I remember Steve McQueen, the big filmic hero of my youth, tried the hippy route to cure his cancer, but then in his day there were only these drastic alternatives and the hippy philosophy of ‘if you feel good, you’ll be healthy’ has a lot going for it, however, it is not going to work in many cases, and these cases are becoming more and more known. I grant Angelina enough intelligence to have investigated all of that, even if her mother had not before her; which of course is doubtful.
“All we hear is the 87% risk of developing breast cancer”. No, this is not all we hear, conservative doctors would place this risk at 60% but even that is a little too high when looking at risk assessment and management of this particular condition and after watching your own mother suffer and die from this cancer. We are also hearing of ovarian cancer which, if I remember correctly, is the one her mother died of.
If something does not gel to you, by all means say something. Maybe, you could twitter her some suggestions (if you haven’t already), but to condemn a woman for wanting to live the best way she knows how is wrong.

I appreciate the scientific process too, Fab. But science is a social process as well, and the factors that drive scientific inquiry are often indistinguishable from the power and greed that infuse so much of our society. I’m certainly not condemning Angelina for her choice, and made that point in my initial post. It’s just that we have very limited information and the situation is far more complex than we have any idea. For instance, mutations in the BRCA2 gene also lead to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer, malignant melanoma and several other types of cancer. Yet, breast and ovarian CA are getting all the hype. Almost 30% of people who carry the mutated gene have no familial history of breast cancer, which suggests some interaction with environmental factors. Biotechnology is already so out of control and the race is on to find a genetic cause of - everything. I just read today that researchers have “proven” that bunions are caused by genetics, not lousy shoes! (click here)

I stand by what I said about the implants. They will not put them directly under her skin, but under the muscles of her chest wall. It is an additive injury, but I certainly do not condemn her choice.

Genes load the gun lifestyle pulls the trigger. Sad she seemed like a woman in the know. So sad.