By Yves Rasir (*)
Dear Ms. Jolie,
Since we don’t know each other and you will probably never read this letter, I would like to call you Angelina.
I’ll be frank and direct; between your doctors and your breasts, I’m afraid you made the wrong choice.
Of course, at first glance your decision to undergo a double mastectomy might seem justified. Women who, like yourself, carry the BRCA1 gene have an 87% risk of developing breast cancer. And surgery is supposed to drastically reduce this risk down to 5%. Sacrificing your bust would seem to spare you the fate of your mother, who died prematurely at 56.
But do you know that these cold statistics hide appalling lies?
Besides the fact that breast tumors account for less than 5% of female mortality, and represent therefore only a relative danger, a first terrible lie is to have you believe that medicine is getting better and better at fighting cancer.
This is a delusion based on statistics suggesting that the rate of remission after 5 or 10 years is improving. But this apparent progress has nothing to do with the presumed effectiveness of conventional treatments.
In reality, this is mainly a consequence of widespread screening: as cancers are diagnosed earlier and earlier, the time between verdict and death gets longer statistically, with no real benefit for patients.
As Doctor Marc Girard points out in his latest book (1) there is in fact “no serious evidence that early treatment of cancer improves the chances of survival or cure.” On the contrary, there are indications that heavy treatments undertaken after mammography shorten life expectancy.
The emerging industry of preventive mastectomy is a new way to hide the failure of conventional medicine in cancer treatment. By removing an organ, all we do is circumscribing a local problem, but with no benefit to overall health. And probably even to its detriment.
Another truth that was shamefully hidden from you, Angelina, is that your risk of getting the disease was probably much lower than claimed.
Let me explain: all human beings carry oncogenic promoters of cancer, yet only a minority actually develops the disease. Why? Because the genetic make-up may well remain closed. The progress of a new science, epigenetics, enables us to understand that gene behaviour during life depends heavily on the context, and circumstances external to the cell are more decisive than its internal structure. To paraphrase Claude Bernard, one could say that “the gene is nothing, its environment is everything.”
There is no fatality, because anyone can ensure that the damaged DNA fragments inherited from his or her parents are not awakened by negative stimuli. Through a healthy lifestyle, we can put defective genes to sleep and build immunity capable of controlling runaway cells.
Concerning breast cancer, for example, it has been shown that exposure to pesticides, contraceptive pills and menopause treatment by synthetic hormones are risk factors. By contrast, the practice of sport, breastfeeding and a diet rich in Omega 3 and resveratrol (from grape pigments) have been identified as protective factors. I don’t know if you like fatty fish or sport, but I know that you have had three children and that you look after three others, and that you must love wine since you own wine production in the South of France and your vineyard is in a village devoted to organic viticulture.
Your usual pallor suggests you may be wary of the sun, which is a pity because the sun is a friend of the breasts through vitamin D, but for the rest you have a really “anticancer” profile. If you had known, would you have had the “courage” (as Brad put it) to allow being butchered?
The people who cut off your breasts also lied to you on the validity of their scientific data.
There is in fact no evidence that mutation of the BRCA1 gene is the Damocles sword suggested by the scary “87% risk “. The alarmist studies were conducted on families where most women developed cancer. The estimate of the threat has been calculated on a very narrow segment of the population, instead of on the total population. This is a huge bias since it is not possible to compare the relative influences of lifestyle and heredity.
This has been recognized by the National Cancer Institute of the United States, and here is their official statement: “Because members of the same family not only have genes in common, but often also share the same environment, it is possible that the number of cancers observed in these families may be due to other genetic or environmental factors.” (2) Therefore, in the current state of knowledge the presence of BRCA1 should not allow anyone to make you panic. Moreover, there is no long-term study comparing the health of women carrying the mutated gene to that of women genetically “healthy”.
But there are two studies whose crucial conclusions have undoubtedly been hidden from you.
The first one, published last January in The Journal of Cell Biology (3), indicates that vitamin D supplementation significantly reduces the likelihood of developing breast cancer, with or without the BRCA1 gene. Which means that the latter does not have the role attributed to it or that the nutrient hinders its effect.
The second, published in 2009 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (4), highlights the remarkable benefits of selenium supplementation for women at risk. This research on double-blind mode has shown that the first blood cells of female carriers of the defective gene were indeed fragile. When exposed to chemical attack, they have an injury rate of 0.58 on average, against 0.39 in women without BRCA1 mutation. In a second phase, the researchers prescribed 276 micrograms of selenium per day to participating carriers of the gene. After three months, they found that the percentage of damaged DNA was decreased to 0.40 on average, roughly the same level as in the cells of genetically “correct” material. In other words, the antioxidant element found in abundance in seafood does as well as surgery to protect mammary glands!
Before they mutilated you your doctors also lied by omission in not telling you that the psychological factor is not negligible in the genesis of cancer.
Yet it is in scientific literature, that, for his latest book (5), psychologist Gustave Nicolas Fischer found the arguments to highlight the link between the psyche and the onset of the disease. Although psychological factors can’t be isolated or quantified as objectively as biological ones, there are many studies showing that negative emotions play an important role in the etiology of cancer.
But what would you have done if, in addition, you’d had knowledge of the works of Doctor Ryke Geerd Hamer and Doctor Claude Sabbah?
With his “iron law of cancer,” the first one discovered it takes a major emotional shock to trigger a malfunctioning which is in no way anarchic. In boldly stating that “the gene is not the cause but the consequence” the second suggested that cancer could be “programmed” by the traumatic experience of our ancestors.
This is highly relevant! What are breasts for? To feed and to seduce.
The first function is obvious, and the second one too when we remember that the woman is the only female mammal whose breasts are still swollen outside periods of lactation.
The disease develops when a “nest conflict” alters the relationship of a mother with her children (real or symbolic) or with a sexual partner. Even when they have a legacy of deadly memories, happy moms and women tenderly loved run little risk of experiencing the carcinogenic emotion.
For all these reasons, Dear Angelina, you shouldn’t have surrendered to the scalpels. You shouldn’t have accepted the removal of your beautiful natural bust which silicone ersatz could never replace.
But your sacrifice will not be in vain.
Now the whole world can see that Western medicine is reaching the peak of its materialist mechanistic delirium.
It used to change parts of the human machine, now it goes further and removes them preventively to avoid failure! When will they emasculate to avoid testicular cancer or decapitate to prevent brain tumors?
Your personal drama has the merit of exposing how deep in irrationality allopathic medicine is sinking.
Incidentally, offering your two breasts draws attention to a strange fact: you could still develop breast cancer in the absence of your breasts! To explain this your senologist may have pointed to the limitations of surgery and told you that cells surviving the scalpel could stay long in the surrounding tissues or travel erratically.
According to an alternative hypothesis, more fascinating and more credible, these particular breast cells are actually stem cells with a mandate to differentiate under instructions from the brain.
Anyway, this phenomenon of “breast cancer without breast” after mastectomy reflects the tremendous intelligence of nature and the biological purpose of its special programmes called diseases.
Diseases, as evidenced by the new medicine of Doctor Hamer and total biology of Doctor Sabbah, are no just pointless maledictions, but pain expressing inner suffering.
Contrary to appearance, they are solutions of survival! And when a body organ is gone, the body acts as if the lost organ was still there until the causal stress is resolved.
I hope this will not be the case for you, Angelina, and I hope that your nest will be free of conflicts. I hope you never have to regret having sacrificed a splendid part of your anatomy for nothing.
If, by chance, you read this letter, forgive its hardness and be assured that I would be very happy to discuss with you while enjoying a bottle of your delicious rosé.
Yours sincerely,
Yves Rasir
(*) Yves Rasir is editor in chief of “Néosanté” a French language magazine dedicated to a free and lucid view on medicine, healing and health
link to English page of the site : http://www.neosante.eu/?gtlang=en
(1) « La brutalisation du corps féminin dans la médecine moderne » (disponible dans la médiathèque de Néosanté)
(2) www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA
(3) BRCA1 loss activates cathepsin L-mediated degradation of 53BP1 in breast cancer cells. The Journal of Cell Biology, 2013; 200 (2)
(4) Selenium Supplementation Reduced Oxidative DNA Damage in Adnexectomized BRCA1 Mutations Carriers -Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev November 2009 18; 2923
(5) « Psychologie du cancer », Editions Odile Jacob.
Leo Foresta 