|
|
|
Hi everyone
In view of recent events, I'm sending out this important supplemental newsletter.
When taking seminary classes several years ago, one of the best (and toughest) courses I took was called
Critical Thinking or Logic.
One of the things I learned was that a "logical fallacy" is a mistake in reasoning. A very common logical fallacy is what is called "an appeal to authority." This occurs when an "authority" (who is not really an authority) is used to add credibility to a specific claim. In other words, a spokesperson (often a celebrity) is used to support an argument or cause, when in fact, they are not an authority at all.
However, because of their social status or popularity, they are used for this purpose and unfortunately are believed and supported by many. But here's the catch, appeals to authority are always deductively false.
|
|
|
From the newsletter headline, you probably know where I am going with this. Only a few days ago, actress Angelina Jolie made the announcement that she had both her breasts removed as a preventative measure due to test results that show she has a defective gene (BRCA1); a gene that doctors told her increased her risk of developing breast cancer up to 87% (and her risk of ovarian cancer to 50%). She has since made countless headlines, received praise and congratulations from doctors and the public alike, affected medical stock prices and become a glorified "expert" on the test and procedure which subsequently has caused many women to look into the testing and surgery to prevent their own breast cancer from occurring.
In my opinion, Angelia Jolie is a tragic victim of the increasing scare tactics and lies promoted by the medical community for one purpose and one purpose only - money.
The revenue this single "appeal to authority" will generate in unnecessary testing, preventative chemotherapy and surgery is absolutely staggering. Yet, all this should raise questions that are simply not being asked, at least by the medical society and its supporters, among which are: is the gene testing necessary? Is it accurate? And, does the procedure really prevent breast cancer from occurring?
First, what exactly are BRCA1 and BRCA2? Keep in mind the information below is what we're being told by medical "experts" and should not be taken as 100% accurate.
- BRCA1 and BRCA2 are human genes that belong to a class of genes known as tumor suppressors. Mutation of these genes is thought as having a link to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.
- A woman's risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer is greatly increased if she inherits a harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Men with these mutations also have an increased risk of breast cancer. Both men and women who have harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations may be at increased risk of other cancers.
- Genetic tests are available to check for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. A blood sample is required for these tests, and genetic counseling is recommended before and after the tests.
- If a harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation is found, several options are available to help a person manage their cancer risk {such as chemotherapy, radiation and surgery}. Author's note: Nowhere is nutritional or environmental prevention EVER discussed or suggested.
|
|
|
The above medical points have not been proven. In fact, there's a tragic history of these kinds of statements and "facts" being promoted as breakthroughs only to be found out years later to be inaccurate or even worse, harmful.
Since I've written an extensive newsletter on cancer, chemotherapy and fund-raising (link to article: Chemotherapy Dangers) in the past, I'll just touch on a few brief points and spend a little bit more time on the testing in question.
Here are some quick facts about the breast cancer industry.
You've all seen the pink: pink candies, pink ribbons and lately pink baseball bats, even pink personal care products (which by the way, are made with aggressive cancer-causing ingredients). Yet, consumers have no idea where the funds they donate and raise actually go, nor do they know the truth about breast cancer since they'll never, ever be told by conventional cancer non-profit organizations.
Actually, nearly 100% of funds raised are used to recruit more breast cancer patients into highly profitable treatments that do more harm than good. Almost none of it goes toward teaching women how to prevent cancer!
What was very interesting was there was a grant list at the Komen for the Cure organization that showed funding was almost entirely spent on recruiting more women with mammograms (the link was actually deactivated shortly after some articles were published that brought it to people's attention!).
What the AMA is not telling women is that up to 98% of all breast cancers can be prevented through diet, anti-cancer nutritional supplements, avoiding exposure to toxic chemicals in consumer products and the environment, getting a little bit of sunshine every day (the sun does not cause cancer), and exercise (notice that having one's breasts removed is not on this list).
Currently, since the 1960s, it has been promoted that the only proven treatments for breast cancer are chemotherapy, surgery and radiation. Again, I refer you to my newsletter on the dangers and ineffectiveness of these treatments.
|
|
This brings us to the BRCA gene testing fallacy. Should BRCA-positive women consider mastectomies to prevent cancer?
Let's follow that with some other questions: Should one have a leg removed to prevent leg clots from occurring? Should one have their fingers removed to prevent carpal tunnel syndrome? Should one have their brain removed to prevent headaches?
Since Ms. Jolie's "brave announcement", countless women are now going to be frightened into taking a test that, if it does show they are "BRCA positive", they will be pressured into having double mastectomies - a procedure that benefits no one except the surgeon.
Please read this carefully: cancer is NOT an organ or tissue specific disease. It is systemic. Tumors in certain tissues are symptoms of systemic cancer, they are not the cancer itself. Many women (and men) who have unnecessary and dangerous medical procedures to remove pre-cancerous or cancerous tissue, wind up having recurrences somewhere else in the body months or years later.
What nobody is telling these women is that fruits and vegetables contain anti-cancer nutrients that specifically target BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, protecting women from breast cancer. (These foods should be organically grown; pesticides on conventionally grown fruits and vegetables can cause cancerous cells to form.)
Cancer doctors aren't taught preventative techniques in medical school; they are only taught to use drugs and surgery. Any other type of natural treatment would cut into their profits.
Simply because one's mother had breast cancer, does not mean the daughter will have it to. Cancer is NOT caused by faulty genes. In fact, genes have very little to do with your health outcome. What you put in your mouth and how you live your life is what determines your quality of life.
If your parents had cancer, they might have been eating too much cancer-causing foods, not enough anti-cancer foods and not taking organic whole food supplements. They may also have had long-term exposure to cancer-causing chemicals and metals from cigarette smoke, chemical solvents, unhealthy drinking and bathing water, perfume chemicals, household cleaners, pesticides, skin care products, conventional cosmetics, etc.
In conclusion, if you want bad and dangerous advice in just about anything, listen to a celebrity.
Please do your due diligence, especially when it comes to your health. It is absolutely worth the effort.
Thank you once again for reading and I look forward to serving you!
Until next month, I remain yours in good health!
Sincerely,
Dr. Mike
214-707-3878
www.SomaHealth.Net
|
|
|
