It’s Starting to Look Like a Coordinated Yet Cleverly Designed PR Campaign...

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.

                             SPONSORS

           Why Arthritis Drugs Don't Work and the
            Natural Method That Does.
                      http://bit.ly/193hi3i

 

              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i   
                 
        
           Why High Blood Pressure Drugs Don't Work And
           The Natural Method That Does
                      http://bit.ly/1gqP7ln


        World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative
        Cancer Treatments Cancer Defeated
                  http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw


                Continued from 1-27-14



 It’s Starting to Look Like a Coordinated Yet Cleverly Designed PR Campaign...

    When looking at a number of different yet related events, this
whole thing is starting to look like a well-coordinated PR push where
a number of companies and industries stand to gain. The only real
loser in this game appears to be women in general... First, as we
predicted would happen months ago, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of
Monsanto in the Monsanto vs. Bowman case, thereby affirming that a
patent holder can control the use of its patent through multiple
generations of seed. Alas, the implications of this ruling go far
beyond agriculture. It will also have implications for other businesses
such as vaccines, cell lines, and human genes.

    What this ruling does is grant ownership of genetic material in
perpetuity. A silly but simple analogy would be that if you own the
patent to a dog trait, and your dog with that trait impregnates all
the neighbors’ dogs, all the pups would be yours, as would the pups
of those pups, and so on. As we predicted, the Supreme Court only
took this case to protect the biotech industry by setting precedent.
There is very little morality left in our fascist federal government,
and that includes most of its agencies, including the IRS, FDA, and
FTC. They’re all operating for political and industrial gains.

    In Monsanto vs. Bowman, Justice Kagan justified the unanimous
decision to allow living, self-replicating organisms and their off
-spring to be licensed property of the patent owner due to financial
interests. A patent would plummet in value after the first sale of
the item containing the invention, she said. And just seconds into
Bowman’s attorney’s opening arguments, Chief Justice Roberts
interrupted him by asking why anyone would ever patent anything if
Bowman were to prevail?

    That and more indicated that it was a closed case right from
the start...Justice Breyer went so far as referencing the infamous
law Buck vs Bell (that still stands in the US to this day, which
legitimizes government-forced sterilization and vaccination) when
he said: There are three generations of seeds. Maybe three
generations of seeds is enough. This was a spin on Supreme Court
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's statement:

        "It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to
execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for
their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly
unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains
compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the
Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

    It’s a chilling thought when you consider the potential
implications this case can have on the trend of patenting of
human genes and other life forms. Over 20% of the human genome
is already patented, and the old eugenics movement has a lot
in common with the burgeoning anti-choice movement when it comes
to vaccinations and other medical treatments, including cancer
treatment for minors. Children have been taken from their parents
for refusing to follow the conventional cut-poison-burn cancer
treatment plan for their ailing children, even though statistics
and research clearly shows that chemotherapy is typically what
ends up killing the patient, even when the cancer itself is
conquered!

GMO Opponents Are 'Elitist' and Insensitive to World’s Needs,
Monsanto CEO Says

    If the idea of a new eugenics movement is not enough, Monsanto
CEO Hugh Grant was recently quoted stating that opponents who want
to block genetically modified foods are guilty of “elitism” and fail
to consider the needs of the rest of the world. Thank goodness the
CEO of a $58 billion multinational corporation, which last year paid
him over $14 million, is ready to stand up to the selfish elitists
opposing his plan to save the world...

    But I digress... On May 14, one day after Big Biotech was granted
patent rights to genetic material in perpetuity, Angelina Jolie’s op-ed
comes out, and the very next day, biotech stocks took a jump. Then
on the 16th, Arthur Caplan, director of the Division of Bioethics at
New York University's Langone Medical Center, pens a CNN op-ed
applauding Jolie’s brave message. Chillingly, he ends his article
with:

        As the U.S. pushes forward into health reform, Jolie's story
reminds us that we need to adjust our health care system from one that
pays for treatment to one that also covers prevention.

    Prevention here meaning a $4000 test that if positive results in
amputation of a non-diseased organ... According to reports,18 Jolie
is also planning to remove her ovaries to limit her risk of ovarian
cancer—a decision that leads to ‘surgical menopause,’ which requires
careful hormone replacement and monitoring.

    Truly, we need to drive home the message that testing is NOT
prevention. Testing is a diagnostic tool that has nothing to do
with actually preventing disease. True prevention requires taking a
close hard look at lifestyle choices, as well as making some radical
changes to a wide range of industries that don’t want to change the
way they do business. Toxic chemicals are oftentimes far cheaper
to use than all-natural ones. And toxins drive cancer processes
in your body...

The Angelina Effect—Don’t Be Swayed...

    Deception by the agricultural, food, biotech, chemical, and
personal care product industries are primary drivers of most of
the chronic and deadly diseases plaguing our modern society. They’re
poisoning you from all angles, and then pretend to have the solutions...
Parallel with this mockery of a science-based health care system,
federal agencies have been cleverly manipulated by highly leveraged
lobbying to force you to pay for most of this by tax subsides, and
federal regulatory agencies limiting your choices.

    Within days of her coming out, Jolie again graced the cover of
TIME magazine with the words: The Angelina Effect Angelina Jolie’s
double mastectomy puts genetic testing in the spotlight. What her
choice reveals about calculating risk, cost, and peace of mind.

    I have no special insights about what this woman has been thinking,
but I certainly don’t blame her. To me she is merely a victim of
sophisticated and clever techniques that have successfully twisted
common sense on its head. She has learned to trust and believe in the
system that has created this insanity. The PR campaign that catalyzed
her decision is clearly aimed at deceiving naïve and preoccupied people
into an utterly flawed system motivated primarily by corporate greed
not by any compassion or desire to decrease human suffering.

    I don’t fault Jolie for any of it. She, like everyone else, made
the best decision she could based on the information she was given or
sought out. Few people have enough time to study and understand the
complexity of system that has evolved for over a century.

    In this case, the goal is not to empower you to make proactive
decisions about your health. It’s about herding you into the fold
of the most profitable industries in the world. Myriad Genetics alone
rakes in approximately half a billion dollars in revenue each year.
Genetic testing for breast cancer accounts for 85 percent of their
total revenue, and again, they have complete and total control of
this niche since they own the patent for the BRCA genes. Salon magazine
recently wrote an article titled "How One Company Controls Your Breast
Cancer Choices:

        Myriad’s monopoly over BRCA1 and BRCA2 not only means showing
that it can charge whatever it wants for the test; it also means that
further research on the genes is restricted, and that women who take
the test and get an ambiguous result can’t get a second opinion, only
take the test again. An ambiguous result can mean the difference
between removing breasts or ovaries or leaving them intact.

        The economic and racial implications of all this are major,
both for how the research has been done and who gets access to it. In a
video on the case, the ACLU points out, 'Initial gene studies focused
on white women. And now the patents make it more difficult to learn
what some mutations mean in women of color, because Myriad has total
control over researchers’ access to those mutations....Myriad’s patent
on the genes expires in two years, but the Supreme Court’s ruling will
set the broader principle going forward. For now, Jolie’s Op-Ed has
apparently made Myriad’s stock price rise 4 percent, its best level in
years.

       Continued

 God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer and Radical Mastectomy

Are Women Being Misled into a False Sense of Security?

This is an extremely long article that is extremely important.
I'm going to break it down into parts over a few days because
I don't want people to become overwhelmed.

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.

                             SPONSORS

       
       Why Arthritis Drugs Don't Work and the
       Natural Method That Does.
                      http://bit.ly/193hi3i

        World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative
        Cancer Treatments Cancer Defeated
                          http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw


"Who Else Wants To Naturally Cure Herpes Outbreaks From Home Within 72
Hours, With No Harmful Prescription Drugs?"
                        http://bit.ly/19Wwqmb


    The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

                 

By Dr. Mercola

    Some days I wonder if this is all a bad dream. How on earth
have we come to this craziness? The latest and greatest preventative
strategy for women genetically predisposed to breast cancer is
amputation, which puts the wheels in motion for this type of
preventive surgery to be covered by health insurance.

    I’m referring, of course, to Angelina Jolie’s recent and very
public decision to undergo a double mastectomy as a prophylactic
measure.  While she admits this is a very personal decision, the
impacts to the public could be quite significant based on her
celebrity influence.

    Her mother died from ovarian cancer at the age of 56, and
Jolie carries a hereditary gene mutation associated with both
breast and ovarian cancer. According to Jolie, who revealed her
decision in an op-ed in the New York Times:

        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.

        Only a fraction of breast cancers result from an inherited
gene mutation. Those with a defect in BRCA have a 65 percent risk
of getting it, on average.

        Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be
proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. ... I wanted
to write this to tell other women that the decision to have a
mastectomy was not easy. But it is one I am very happy that I made.

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

    It is nearly incomprehensible to me how any researcher can
give such precise predictions of future cancer risk based on
genetics. The only explanation is near complete ignorance of the
science of epigenetics and the power we all have to change the
expression of our genes.

Why Does US Recommendations Place Women with Gene Defects at
Even Greater Risk?

    The genetic test to check for mutations in the BRCA1 and
BRCA2 genes (the BRCA stands for ‘breast cancer susceptibility
genes’) costs about $4,000 in the US, when not covered by
insurance.

    Ironically, if you discover that you carry the mutated BRCA
gene, the standard recommendation in the US is to get a mammogram
and an MRI scan at least once a year thereafter, even if you’re
under the age of 40. This is unconscionable, in my opinion. If
anything, should you have genetic susceptibility for breast cancer,
it would be wise to avoid ionizing radiation as much as possible,
not the other way around!

    Several European countries including Britain, the Netherlands
and Spain, have already altered their screening recommendations
for women with BRCA mutations, advising them to get MRIs (which do
not emit ionizing radiation) instead of mammograms before the age
of 30.

    Research has demonstrated that women with these genetic mutations
are more sensitive to radiation, and because the genes in question
are involved in repairing DNA, radiation damage to these genes will
subsequently raise your cancer risk. For example, a study published
just last year in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found that women
with faulty BRCA genes are more likely to develop breast cancer if
they’re exposed to chest X-rays before the age of 30. According to
Cancer Research UK:

        Women with a history of chest radiation in their 20s had a
43 percent increased relative risk of breast cancer compared to women
who had no chest radiation at that age. Any exposure before age 20
seemed to raise the risk by 62 percent.

    In response to these findings, Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief
medical officer of the American Cancer Society was quoted as saying:

        "This will raise questions and caution flags about how we
treat women with (gene) mutations."

    And Anouk Pijpe of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, one of the
authors in the above-mentioned study, told CBS News:

        "We believe countries who use mammograms in women under 30
should reconsider their guidelines. It may be possible to reduce
the risk of breast cancer in (high-risk) women by using MRIs, so
we believe physicians and patients should consider that."

Genetic Defects Are Not a Major Contributor to Breast Cancer

    A key point for women to remember is that while women with BRCA
defects have a 45-65 percent increased risk of breast cancer, only
about TWO PERCENT of diagnosed breast cancers are caused by BRCA
faults. So this genetic defect is nowhere close to being a primary
cause of breast cancer. Clearly, other non-genetic factors play a far more
significant role.

    As pointed out by H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine
at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice
and a co-author of Over diagnosed: Making People Sick in the
Pursuit of Health, Angelina Jolie's personal story is completely
irrelevant to 99 percent of all women because they simply do not
have the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. In a recent CNN article, he
writes:

        Let's be clear, the BRCA1 mutation is a bad thing... It is
a powerful risk factor for these cancers... When people are at very
high risk for something bad to happen, preventive interventions
are more likely to be a good deal... When people are at average
risk, the deal changes... It is a fundamental precept of medicine...
Patients with severe abnormalities stand to gain more from
intervention than patients with mild ones. Patients with mild
abnormalities are more likely to experience net harm from
intervention, simply because they have less opportunity to benefit.

        The vast majority of women don't have the BRCA1 mutation.
They are at average risk for breast cancer... They should not have
a preventive mastectomy.

        ...But there is a second question for women raised by Ms.
Jolie's piece:

Should I be tested for BRCA1?

        She seems to believe the answer is yes, pointing to the
half-million women who die from breast cancer worldwide each year.
But she neglects to point out that 90 percent of these deaths have
nothing to do with the BRCA1 mutation. That's because most women
don't have the mutation and because most breast cancer is sporadic.

    Furthermore, it’s also important to understand that even if you
do carry a defective gene, that in and of itself does not mean that
the gene in question is destined to be expressed. In other words,
having the BRCA defect is by no means an automatic death sentence.
As you will see below, there are many things you can do to
dramatically decrease your cancer risk through the lifestyle choices
you make, which have a profound impact on your genetic expression.

What Do Gene Patents Have to Do with It?

    Since the mid-1940’s, genomics and the patenting of genes has grown
exponentially. At present, nearly 20 percent of the entire human
genome, or some 4,000 genes, are covered by at least one US patent.
These include genes linked with Alzheimer’s disease, colon cancer
and asthma. Myriad Genetics8 owns the exclusive patent for the
BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. As explained by The New Yorker:

        "Anyone conducting an experiment on them without a license
can be sued for infringement of patent rights. This means that Myriad
can decide what research is carried out on those genes, who can do
that research, and how much any resulting therapy or diagnostic test
will cost."

    Needless to say, this has profound implications for medicine.
As stated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

        Through its patents, Myriad has the right to stop anyone
from using these genes for clinical or research purposes. It has
therefore locked up a building block of human life.

    In her op-ed, Jolie states that this has got to be a priority
to ensure that more women can access gene testing and lifesaving
preventive treatment, pointing out that the cost of genetic testing
is an obstacle for many. The root of that problem lies with our
current patent laws, which allow for the patenting of human genes
and other life forms. According to the ACLU, which is the plaintiff
in another gene patent lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court in April,
Myriad recently raised the price of their genetic test from $3,000
to over $4,000, even though gene testing technologies have advanced
to the point where you can sequence ALL of your genes, about 23,000
or so, for as little as $1,000.

    The Supreme Court will decide in a matter of weeks whether human
gene patents will continue to be allowed or not, and if they are,
you can expect prices for gene-related medicine to continue to skyrocket
and become increasingly monopolized.


                   Continued on 1-29-14


 God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.