PR-mastectomy

What is behind Angelina Jolie's statement about her Mastectomy

Olga Egorova, BlogNews.am according to the materials NaturalNews.com – Mike Adams, EXPOSED: Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion)The consequences of Angelina Jolie's performance have the same force, provided that the actress herself is sincerely convinced by doctors and spoke solely out of a sense of the need to tell the world about her decision.

Conspiracy or not? It hardly makes sense to make assumptions, but it is definitely possible to understand how sympathy, natural in such a situation, works against us.

Jolie's announcement that she underwent a double mastectomy (surgically removed both breasts), despite the fact that she did not have breast cancer, is not at all an innocent confession, which is not a personal "bold decision", as it is characterized in the press. It turns out that this statement was made public in a very timely manner, just ahead of the US Supreme Court's consideration of the case on the legality of patenting the BRCA1 gene.

Financial ties, investor interests, potential profits from the merger of large promising corporations, patents for human genes, lawsuits, trading on human fears and betting on billions of dollars are intertwined in a single tangle. Pulling back the curtain, you will immediately see not only an innocent–looking woman at the moment of a difficult choice - the matter is much more serious, and the question concerns the protection of billions of dollars of potential profits possible with a careful and competent public campaign to manipulate women's opinion.

Signs that this is a production could have been noticed a long time ago: Angelina Jolie's perfectly polished text for the New York Times, obviously written by a professional corporate writer, neat wording in which the word "choice" acquires a completely "political" charge… The obvious willingness even of her husband Brad Pitt to use prepared, precisely chosen words when describing this story: "stronger", "pride", "family".

But there are also facts that clearly indicate the scenario of what is happening: as if Jolie's spontaneous statement magically appeared on the cover of People magazine this week – on the cover of a magazine that is usually signed to print three weeks before it goes on sale. And on the cover, do not be surprised, the same linguistic programming, the same notes as in the New York Times: "a bold choice" and "it was necessary to go for it." These intonations are not a coincidence.

And this proves that her statement is part of a pre–planned PR campaign in which the "message" was carefully designed in order to form public opinion in a certain way. But how exactly did Jolie plan to influence public opinion? What about interests that can be estimated at billions of dollars in profit for some corporation?

The US Supreme Court is considering the issue of ownership of the patent for the BRCA1 gene.

Angelina Jolie 's announcement and all these precise word forms provoked four main consequences:

1. Everywhere, women began to fear breast cancer with a vengeance – the publication of false statistics made everyone who has breasts afraid (about statistics will be below).
2. The women rushed to look for laboratories where they would do this test. And the test, of course, is patented by Myriad Genetics Corporation, and thanks to the patentability of the gene, testing costs 3-4 thousand dollars. Only testing itself is already a multibillion–dollar market, but only if the Supreme Court recognizes the right to patent genes.
3. The statement caused a cosmic jump in the value of the shares of Myriad Genetics Corporation (MYGN)
4. Public opinion is set up in such a way as to influence the outcome of the case on patents for genes in the Supreme Court in favor of the right of corporations to own human genes.

All over the planet, women are being provoked to support Angelina Jolie, and no one has any idea that she is actually handing over women to the profit-oriented industry. But to fully understand what is happening, you need to dig even deeper.

The value of Myriad Genetics shares is growing by leaps and bounds thanks to Jolie, and thanks to the national Obamacare program, billions of dollars will be redirected into their channel.

"Myriad Genetics Corporation (MYGN) owns a patent for an analysis that showed that the actress has an 87% chance of developing breast cancer, as well as a patent for these genes themselves," they write on the resource page MarketWatch.com .

And this is just the beginning. If it is possible to influence the Supreme Court to support the right of a corporation to own a patent, then in the next few years the industry may become billion-dollar. Moreover, the financial press constantly writes that MYGN is "ready to merge", and that the gene industry is now a super–promising industry.

"In the world's largest corporation for the production of equipment for DNA tests and their analysis, Life Technologies Corp. they stated that they are ready to sell to Thermo Fisher Scientific Corporation for a record $ 13.6 billion," they write on MarketWatch.com . The atmosphere in the race, which began 26 years ago, is heating up more and more.

The higher the value of MYGN shares grows, the more profitable the future merger is for the current owners. So Jolie's public stunt just so happened to generate millions of dollars for the very people who demanded a monopoly on a patent for breast cancer genes living in the female body.

A coincidence? Unlikely. Obamacare obliges taxpayers to pay for the BRCA gene test – another gift to rich corporations.

And here's what's even more interesting in this story – you know how Obama likes to talk about the "free market", but in fact he is involved in the so–called "friendly capitalism" - in which money goes to his corporate friends, insiders from Wall Street, etc.? So, the provision on "Affordable medicine" as part of the program, Obamacare requires taxpayers to pay for BRCA1 analysis!

In other words, Myriad Genetics is about to be hit by a flurry of profits provided by government decrees and backed up by formed public opinion – the fear that Angelina Jolie feeds so well in her statement to the New York Times. Are you starting to get the whole picture?

There is a coordinated mass sale of women to corporations, covered up by playing cards in the spirit of "for women's rights", using strong words like "choice" for the sake of simplifying the manipulation of women. Don't forget, Angelina Jolie is also a person of the UN and often speaks on their behalf, on behalf of an organization that has already been caught working with child sexual slavery and drug smuggling. And although Jolie is obviously not involved in such things, her task is to surreptitiously influence the opinion of American women so that they sincerely support this carefully thought out and meticulously conducted campaign in favor of corporate profits, a campaign that will turn the actual bodies of these women into corporate profits.

And that's why we said above that in the Supreme Court the cost of the issue is billions of dollars:

In 2009, the ACLU (American Institute for the Protection of Civil Liberties) and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the right of corporations to own human genes. Anyone who believes in human rights, women's rights, citizens' rights, or even the right to eat non-GMO foods will immediately agree that corporations should not have the right to patent human genes and then use these patents to extract billions of dollars in profit, thereby starting to stifle scientific research that could be conducted on this material.

A question for all women reading this material: do you believe that your body belongs to a corporation from Utah? If not, you should oppose corporations' right to own human genes. Then you should understand that Angelina Jolie's speech is a PR that needs to be resisted, because, although she is leading a brilliant public campaign, her actions potentially provide billions of dollars of income directly to the industry of owners of patents for human genes, an industry that denies people ownership of their own genetic code.

The ACLU explain what the lawsuit against Myriad Genetics consists of as follows:

On May 12, 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Society filed a lawsuit demanding that corporations' ownership of the two genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2) be declared unconstitutional and be abolished. On November 30, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to consider a case concerning the possibility of patenting human genes. On April 13, 2013, the case was considered in court, it is expected that a decision will be made this summer.

On behalf of researchers, genetics advisors, women patients, cancer survivors, groups and societies of women with breast cancer, women's health groups, scientific associations representing 15,000 geneticists, medical laboratory staff and pathologists, we stated that human genes cannot be patented because it is a natural product of nature. The lawsuit is intended to prove that the patent for genes violates the First Amendment and does not allow diagnosticians and researchers to work, whose work could help find ways to treat, and also that these patents, thus, limit women's options for choosing medical care.

Is that clear? If the Supreme Court rules that Myriad Genetics is not eligible for a patent, the multibillion-dollar industry of tests in oncology will collapse, one might say, in a minute. And this means huge losses not only for Myriad, but also for many other corporations that own similar patents, interested in extracting monopolistic profits from human body materials, including women's (all patents are monopolies transferred by the government). Clearly, this is a matter of billions of dollars in corporate ownership of patents on human genes.

This is a huge business. Today, about 20% of your genes have already been patented by corporations and universities. The owner of a patent for a certain gene has the right to prohibit research, tests, even just consideration of this gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing are postponed, limited or even closed due to the fact that the genes are patented. And this means that when corporations own patents on human genes, scientific work is suffocated, and the monopoly on the "intellectual property" embedded in your DNA remains with the corporation. (Is it criminal? Decide for yourself...)

Thus, if the Supreme Court decides against the corporation, there will be a judicial precedent that will strangle the entire patent system in the gene industry and prevent it from receiving billions of dollars in profit.

That's what seems to be really behind Angelina Jolie's statement. It seems that it was supposed to awaken an emotional response in women and create a solid foundation for corporations that own genes, a reserve for future huge incomes. And this PR stunt is an attempt to trick women into supporting corporations and patenting, monopolies. To support corporations that now claim to own genes – own a part of our bodies, a part of the body of every woman living on the planet now.

And, among other things, the statistics and those 87% are also an exaggeration. It's not just about patents for these two genes – Jolie, in addition, uses statistics that are defiantly incorrect in the sense that leads to incorrect conclusions aimed at intimidating women so that they start thinking that their breasts can kill them.

A very detailed statistical study on this subject (Domchek et al., Association of Risk-Reducing Surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation Carriers With Cancer Risk and Mortality) was published in open access in The Journal of the American Medical Association back in 2010.

In that statement to the New York Times, Jolie wrote that her doctor told her she had an 87% risk. But she does not write that this figure does not apply to all of humanity: in fact, these are data that are obtained almost exclusively from the material of families who previously had a high risk of developing breast cancer. A study published on the website of the National Institute for Human Genome Research – and conducted by scientists from the National Institutes of Health Research, says that the risk of breast cancer associated with the BRCA1 gene is significantly less than what Jolie says in the press. In fact, out of 600 women, only ONE is likely to have a mutated BRCA gene. That is, it is really from 0.125 to 0.25 chances per 100 women, or one case per 400-800 women. 600 is given as an averaging.

And of those 600 women with the mutated gene, her risk of developing breast cancer is only 56%, not 78, as she points out in the article. But 13% of women without this mutation still get breast cancer, according to research, that is, 43 women out of 100 have a risk.

So in fact, we are talking here about 1 case per 600 women with a mutated gene, and among them less than half detect cancer itself. In other words, only one in 1,200 women with a mutated gene develops breast cancer. And yet, thanks to people like Jolie and the press feeding on the sense of fear living in the audience, women all over the country are afraid and believe that their breasts can kill them, and the best way to solve the problem is by cutting it off!

That's how fear works. The problem concerns less than one tenth of one percent of women, but it is inflated into a campaign that inspires fear of an entire nation and, as it turns out, leads to multibillion-dollar profits of the cancer diagnostics and treatment industry aimed at extracting profits, not to mention cartels aimed at monopolizing patents on human genes.

That's the picture, and don't expect to read something like this in the New York Times.

Almost the entire press is involved in the intimidation program, and any mention of alternative methods of cancer treatment or prevention is being pushed out.

Of course, "options" are discussed in the press, but for some reason they all lead back to the same industry aimed at extracting profits. Even if you have this mutated gene, you have options – you don't have to go Jolie's way. Some women choose not to operate. Instead, they closely monitor the development of the situation, use other tests, regular mammograms, ultrasound, blood tests.

Practically nowhere will you find any mention that this gene is suppressed, for example, by raw cruciferous plants, which contain a powerful anti–cancer substance that inhibits the development of cancer - indole-3-carbinol. Almost nowhere will you read that vitamin D prevents the development of 4 out of 5 types of cancer, including breast cancer. These options are not covered in the press – only radiation, chemotherapy, surgery – everything that costs a lot of money and is fed at the expense of sick women.

It is also not mentioned that free and frequent mammograms (the Pink Ribbon program) provoke the development of breast cancer. Any scientist or physicist knows that a mammogram causes cancer, because there is ionizing radiation directed at the breast and heart tissues. The more mammograms, the more likely cancer is – the radiation itself will cause it!

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru24.05.2013