You're not going to believe this one: A recent poll of 1500 women in Britain and five other countries found that 22 percent of them would consider having both breasts removed if they were at high risk for breast cancer. We're not talking about the removal of breasts that have cancer; we're talking about the removal of both breasts, a double mastectomy, as a prevention strategy -- even without a diagnosis of cancer. Amazingly, one out of five women said yes.
Now, wait a minute. Let's get a hold of our senses for a second here. If you went to a group of women and said, "Your mother died of breast cancer. Therefore, we are going to take a scalpel and physically slice off both of your breasts just on the off-chance that we might be able to prevent breast cancer in you" -- are you telling me that 22 percent of those women would say yes? How insane is that?
This is a case in which you can't just blame the medical community. Of course, they're evidently practicing medical insanity in suggesting such a drastic "preventative" measure, but you can't really blame the surgeons here -- you have to blame the 22 percent who said yes. What is wrong with these women that they would blindly say, "Yeah, sure, cut them off. I might have cancer some day, so just remove all the parts that could become cancerous." What do you do if you're a guy and you have a history of prostate cancer? What if you have a family history of colon cancer, lung cancer or liver cancer? Do you just take those organs out? Is this what conventional medicine has come down to? Let's remove the parts that might become diseased! Is this how far off the deep end modern medicine has gone?
What happened to true prevention? What happened to helping patients heal? What happened to conserving and supporting the health of one's organs? What happened to keeping one's breasts healthy so that you don't have to cut anything out for the sake of preventing cancer down the road? What happened to that kind of thinking? I mean, isn't medicine based on, "First, do no harm"? Isn't that the opening line of the Hippocratic Oath? Aren't doctorssupposed to be helping patients, not slicing them up? "Doctor, my arm hurts." "Don't worry, we can remove it." Is that what medicine has come to?

Women in the UK were even more likely to say yes

Here's another interesting fact to all of this -- this will be especially disconcerting to those of you in the UK. Thirty-one percent of women from the UK said yes in this survey, compared to 22 percent overall. Now, I know that in the UK you like to think of Americans as being mad, and you're 51% right. But in this case, it's the British who are crazy to the tune of one-third of their female population saying yes to this. "Sure, doc. Cut them off. I don't need these. I'm preventing breast cancer."Now, does all of this remind anybody else of Bush's war on Iraq and its so-called "preemptive defense?" Maybe medicine could call this "offensive prevention." They'll prevent a disease before it happens by removing the organs that it might affect. God forbid if you have a history of brain tumors in your family -- off with your head! That's their plan; that's where they're taking medicine. That's the level of insanity that seems to be pervading the thinking of medical authoritiesout there. Give a doctor a scalpel and he wants to cut off everything in sight.

Let's get real about breast cancer

Despite the insanity of conventional medicine, you nonetheless can deal with breast cancer in a rational way. You can treat it and overcome it. You can even reverse it with natural medicine. It's not that difficult to do, really. In all truthfulness, cancer is one of the easiest diseases to reverse with natural medicine. I'm talking about medicinal herbs, reishimushrooms, shiitake mushrooms, outstanding nutrition and avoidance of certain food ingredients and environmental toxins such as plastic cookware -- measures like that. It's not overly difficult to reverse this disease or even prevent it from happening in the first place, but what modern medicine wants to do is take away your organs.When they're not removing your organs, they're irradiating them: "Let's smash your breasts between this machine like a pancake and irradiate them to see if we can find some tumors in there." That's what they call a mammogram. They refer to it as prevention -- preventing cancer by irradiating your breast, which makes about as much sense as treatingdiabetes by giving you sugar. How is that prevention? How can that even be classified as medicine?
A mammogram is not a preventative technique; it is a diagnostic technique for detection, and it's not even very effective. Even worse, it causes cancer. That's right: the radiation emitted by these mammogram machines is, all by itself, a significant cause of breast cancer. (And many of these machines are not properly calibrated to begin with, so even the radiologist may not know how much radiation you're actually getting...) See the Mammograms cause breast cancerarticle to learn more.
So mammograms are touted as "prevention", and we now have all these celebrities running around urging everyone, "Go get screened for cancer! Come on, rush on in there! Put yourself in the machine, get irradiated and find out if you have a cancerous tumor in there."
So, let me pose a question: If the double mastectomy becomes an accepted prevention procedure, would celebrities recommend that women go in and have their breasts removed? Imagine this public service announcement: "Hi, I'm a famous actress. I have my breasts, but I don't think it's safe for you to have yours. Go in and get them removed. It's good medicine; it will prevent breast cancer." Is that what we're heading toward?

I'm not making this up

I sometimes receive emails from people who think that I'm making this stuff up. They say, "Mike, you've lost it this time. You're just making this up. Modern medicine couldn't be that crazy." Unfortunately, I can assure you I'm not making this up. You can verify for yourself: Go to Google News or any search engine you want and search for the keywords "double mastectomy breast cancer prevention." The Times of London did this report, so you can check it out yourself.I am not making this stuff up, folks. In fact, I couldn't possibly make this type of stuff up; it is much too bizarre to pop into my head. I'm busy thinking about other things, like "How are those tomato plants doing today in the back yard? I wonder if the soil is acidic enough to support the growth of this blueberry plant? I would sure like to have some fresh blueberries this year." Those are the thoughts that occur to me in the normal course of things. I certainly don't think, "Hmm, maybe we could prevent cancer in the world by removing all the organs that could be afflicted by cancer. Yes!" It's a mad scientist kind of thought: "Take the breasts off. Take the organs out of everybody." But that's what is going through the heads of the doctors, scientists and medical authorities who are suggesting this kind of thing. It's truly scary and downright insane; yet, it passes as organized medicine. Pretty soon, they'll start making women feel guilty for keeping their breasts. You know, in the same way they make parents feel guilty if they don't put their kids on Ritalin.

Defend your natural-born breasts

I know that most of the readers here are women and I just have some advice that I'd like to pass on to you. You can accept or refuse it, but my advice is that you should not remove your breasts. Keep them right where they are; don't let any surgeon near them. Who knows what they want to do?Keep your breasts, and adopt a healthy lifestyle instead -- a lifestyle that supports womens' health. For example, implement a lifestyle of eating fermented soy products and avoiding red meat, especially processed meats. Avoid hydrogenated oils and consume healthy oils instead -- olive oil, macadamia nut oil, salmon oil and flax oil, for example. Eat lots of nuts and seeds in their raw, unprocessed state. Avoid milk and dairy products, food additives, added sugars, artificial food coloring and artificial sweeteners. You know the drill. You know how to be healthy. You know how to prevent breast cancer. It's not that difficult to prevent.
Live your life in a healthy, happy way and stay away from these insane surgeons with scalpels and mad ideas about removing organs that might someday have cancer. I mean, think about it: They want to take a perfectly healthy piece of tissue off of your body. There's not even any disease in it, but they'd still like to take it.
That's insane! It's like saying, "You might have foot disease someday -- let's take the foot off." Wouldn't you normally wait for something to actually be diseased before you chop it off? There are a lot of amputations in this country for diabetics. They get gangrene because they have diabetic neuropathy and eventually they don't have active nerve endings in their limbs any more. In fact, the majority of amputations in this country are due to diabetes, but at least there's a point beyond which they can justify it. They can say, "This leg isn't going to make it. You can't feel it, you can't move it, and it's getting infected." In such a case, an amputation is medically justified. But let's say that they said, "You're diabetic? Hmm, I think we should take your legs now before they get infected as a preventative measure" -- that's what they're saying about breast cancer. "Take them off now to prevent breast cancer."
They're going to use fear, of course, saying, "We'll be saving your life by taking these off! You could very well save your life down the road. You want to save your life, don't you?" Then they say, "Don't listen to those internet people. They don't know what they're talking about; they don't have a medical degree. What do they know about breast cancer? We have to remove these now. You cannot wait! If you remove your breasts now, you might live six to twelve months; otherwise, you'll only live one to three months." They'll use that kind of language on you to scare you into submitting to theirsurgical procedures.

This is strange medicine. These are strange days, folks. And this, it appears, is just one of many strange (but true) stories I'll be bringing to your attention. So stay tuned for more.

About the author: Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health He has authored more than 1,500 articles and dozens of reports, guides and interviews on natural health topics, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of energy efficient LED lights that greatly reduce CO2 emissions. He also founded an environmentally-friendly online retailer called BetterLifeGoods.com that uses retail profits to help support consumer advocacy programs. He's also the founder of a well known HTML email software company whose 'Email Marketing Director' software currently runs the NaturalNews subscription database. Adams also serves as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit consumer protection group, and practices nature photography, Capoeira, Pilates and organic gardening. Known as the 'Health Ranger,' Adams' personal health statistics and mission statements are located atwww.HealthRanger.org

Articles Related to This Article:

• The mineral selenium proves itself as powerful anti-cancer medicine

• Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism (Book Excerpt)

• New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

target="_blank"

Which better prevented tumors, red grapes or green tea?  

A May 2006 study found that the polyphenol, resveratrol, found in red grapes, is more effective than the polyphenol, epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), the major catechin found in green tea in preventing breast tumors in rats.  Starting at birth, rats were given either dietary resveratrol, drank EGCG,  or had regular food.  At 50 days' old, the rats were given the carcinogen, DMBA.  The rats on resveratrol had fewer tumors, and there was a delay in time to the developmentof the tumors.   Analysis of the mammary tissue revealed that resveratrol treatment resulted in more differentiated lobular structures.  Plus,  there was a significant reduction in proliferative cells in mammary ductal structures, making the mammary tissue less susceptible to damage from carcinogens. (See Whitsett TG et al., Resveratrol, but Not EGCG, in the Diet Suppresses DMBA-Induced Mammary Cancer in Rats, J Carcinog 2006.)

• Anti-Inflammatory Turmeric Fights Breast Cancer
  

Inflammation is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including breast cancer. Women with atypical hyperplasia in benign tumors in their breasts, who went on to develop breast cancer, were found to have significantly high levels of COX-2, which is produced in the body when there is inflammation. (See Mechanisms' Section.) In a key 2005 study, curcumin, which is derived from turmeric, was found to down-regulate COX-2.  In India, where women consume curcumin, 79 in a million women develop breast cancer, while in the US, where women do not consume curcumin, 660 women per million develop breast cancer. (See Turmeric in Supplements' Section.)

• Anti-Inflammatory Fish Oil Fights Breast Cancer
  

Omega-3 fats, found in fish oil, inhibit the growth of breast cancer cells in culture and in grafts in mice.  Dietary fish oils lead to incorporation into membrane lipids.  Increased cell death is attributed to inhibition of the COX-2, enzyme which promotes the cancer process. Plus, fish oil activates PPAR, a regulator of lipid metabolism capable of modulating proliferative activity in breast cells. (See Stoll BA, n-3 Fatty Acids and Lipid Peroxidation in Breast Cancer Inhibition, Br J Nutr  2002.)  Women in Japan who consume iodine-rich seafood have a lower incidence of breast cancer (See Iodine and Breast Disease.)

• Cabbage Family's I3C's Anti- Breast Cancer Mechanisms
  

The cabbage family, including cabbage, cauliflower, and broccoli, contain phytochemicals that act against cancer in many different ways. Cabbage, alone, has 200+ chemicals. There has been important new research on the phytochemical, indole-3-carbinol (I3C), which is derived from the cabbage family, finding that I3C influences cancer genes and a receptor site. Plus, phytochemicals in the cabbage family are able to induce phase 2 enzyme activity to protect against chemical carcinogens. In a 2006 Georgetown University study, indole-3-carbinol (I3C) phytochemicals in broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbage, were found to boost the production of DNA proteins BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 - that repair damaged DNA that are decreased in cancer cells.  (See Rosen E et al., Veggies May Protect Against Cancer, British Journal of Cancer 2006.) Dr. Eliot Rosen, the lead researcher in the Georgetown study, commented, "It is now clear that the function of crucial cancer genes can be influenced by compounds in the things we eat.  Our findings suggest a clear molecular process that will explain the connection between diet and cancer prevention." Another I3C study, a November 2005 study, exploring the anti-tumorigenic properties of the indole-3-carbinol food component in cruciferous vegetables, found that the anti-tumor effects of I3C in human cancer cells may be I3C's ability to reduce estrogen receptor-alpha expression.(See Wang TT et al., Estrogen Receptor Alpha As a Target for Indole -3- Carbinol, J Nutr Biochem 2005.) In a broccoli sprouts' study in rats,  broccoli sprouts were found to be an exceptionally rich source of inducers of enzymes that protect against chemical carcinogens.  Extracts of three day old broccoli sprouts were highly effective in reducing the incidence, multiplicity, and rate of development of mammary tumors in rats. (See Fahey JW., Broccoli Sprouts: An Exceptionally Rich Source of Inducers of Enzymes that Protect Against Chemical Carcinogens, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997.)

• Berries Help Fight Breast Cancer
  

A Harvard study tracking the diet and health of 1,271 people wholove strawberries found an overall 70% decrease in all cancers.  A 2004 cell study investigated the specific effects of ten different extracts of fruits and berries, including rosehips, blueberries, black currant, black chokeberries, apple, sea buckthorn, ligonberries, cherries, and raspberries, on breast cancer cells and colon cancer cells.  The extracts decreased the proliferation of both the breast cancer cells and the colon cancer cells.  The inhibition effect for the highest concentration of the fruits and berries varied - an average of 52% for the breast bancer cells.  Since this rate of anti-proliferation could not be found by ascorbate standard alone, there was a suggestion of a synergy between vitamin C and other substances.  For breast cancer cells, the anthocyanins , which are the red to blue pigments founds in the fruits and belong to the class of compounds known as flavonoids, may contribute their powerful antioxidant power to the inhibition of the cancer cells. (See Olsson M. et al., Inhibition of Cancer Cell Proliferation in Vitro by Fruit and Berry Extracts and Correlations with Antioxidant Levels, J Agric Food Chem  2004.)

• Tomatoes' Anti-Breast Cancer Mechanisms
  

Hot News:  While carotenoids have been well known as being free-radical scavengers, a 2006 study sought to determine the mechanism of action of tomato carotenoid lycopene and retinoic acid on inhibiting IGFs - insulin-like growth factors - in the proliferation of cancer cells, including breast cancer cells.  In the cell study, the cyclin D1 levels, that act as a growth factor sensor, appeared to be the target of lycopene's action. The weakening of the cyclin D levels by the lycopene and the retinoic acid is an important mechanism for reducing the IGFs' role in malignant cell proliferation.  (See Nahum A et al., Lycopene Inhibition of IGF-Induced Cancer Cell Growth Depends on the Level of Cyclin D1, Eur J  Nutr  2006.) Organic Strawberries Better Inhibited Breast Cancer Cell Proliferation Organically grown strawberries provided higher antioxidant levels and better inhibited cell proliferation than conventionally grown strawberries in breast cancer cells. In a 2006 study, the higher level of ascorbate (vitamin C) antioxidants found in organic strawberries correlated with a higher inhibition of breast cancer cell proliferation. The significance of the effect of ascorbate on cancer cell proliferation might be in a synergistic action with other compounds. (See Olsson ME et al.,Antioxidant Levels and Inhibition of cancer Cell Proliferation In Vitro By Extracts From Organically and Conventionally Cultivated Strawberries, J Agric Food Chem  2006.)