Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 23, 2014, 07:09:47 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Angelina Jolie Has Double Mastectomy  (Read 1084 times)
BikiniSlut
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5033


I'm dating and love Uncle Junior! Xoxoxo


View Profile
« on: May 14, 2013, 03:22:23 PM »

 

Jolie has double mastectomy


By Paul Casciato, Reuters

 
   



NEW YORK - Oscar-winning film star Angelina Jolie revealed on Tuesday that she underwent a double mastectomy after learning she had inherited a high risk of breast cancer and said she hoped her story would inspire other women fighting the life-threatening disease.

Jolie, an actress who has long embodied Hollywood glamour and has in recent years drawn nearly as much attention for her globe-trotting work on behalf of refugees as for her role as a celebrity mom, disclosed her choice in an op-ed column in the New York Times.

The 37-year-old performer, raising a family with fellow film star and fiance Brad Pitt, wrote that she went through with the operation in part to reassure her six children that she would not die young from cancer, as her own mother did at age 56.

“We often speak of ’Mommy’s mommy,’ and I find myself trying to explain the illness that took her away from us. They have asked if the same could happen to me,” wrote Jolie.

“I have always told them not to worry, but the truth is I carry a ’faulty’ gene.”

The actress, who won an Oscar as best supporting actress for her 1999 role in the film “Girl, Interrupted,” said she opted for the surgery after her doctors had estimated she had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, due to an inherited genetic mutation.

 

 


“Once I knew this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much as I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy,” she said. She said her breast cancer risk had dropped to under 5 percent as a result.

Celebrities, cancer survivors and doctors expressed admiration for her openness, saying she was an inspiration for other women.

“I commend Angelina Jolie for her courage and thoughtfulness in sharing her story today regarding her mastectomy. So brave!” tweeted singer Sheryl Crow, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2006.

Singer Kylie Minogue, another cancer survivor, thanked Jolie for helping women, as did television host Giuliana Rancic, who also had surgery after being diagnosed with the disease.

“Angelina Jolie reveals double mastectomy. Proud of her for using her incredible platform to educate women,” Rancic said on Twitter.

PITT AT HER SIDE   

Pitt was by Jolie’s side through three months of treatment that ended late in April, she said. The two became engaged last year.

“Having witnessed this decision firsthand, I find Angie’s choice, as well as so many others like her, absolutely heroic,” Pitt told London’s Evening Standard newspaper.

“All I want is for her to have a long and healthy life, with myself and our children. This is a happy day for our family.”

Jolie said she decided to be open about her surgery after finishing treatment to help women who might be living under the shadow of cancer.

“It is my hope that they, too, will be able to get gene tested,” she said.

Breast cancer kills about 458,000 people each year, according to the World Health Organization. It is estimated that one in 300 to one in 500 women carry a BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 gene mutation, as Jolie does.

CNN anchor Zoraida Sambolin announced on Tuesday that she had breast cancer and was also getting a double mastectomy.

Sambolin, who anchors CNN’s “Early Start” morning show, discussed her condition on the show while talking about Jolie’s procedure.

“I struggled for weeks trying to figure out how to tell you that I had been diagnosed with breast cancer and was leaving to have surgery,” Sambolin, 47, said on Facebook. “Then ... Angelina Jolie shares her story of a double mastectomy and gives me strength and an opening.”

Dr Chet Nastala, a breast surgeon at PRMA Plastic Surgery in San Antonio, Texas, said Jolie’s fame and openness about her treatment will have a big impact on women faced with the same decision.

“It is difficult to go public,” he said in an interview. “It shows a lot of courage.”

In past 10 years the PRMA practice has done about 5,000 reconstructive breast surgeries and about 20-30 percent have been for preventative mastectomies.

Dr. Kristi Funk, director of the Pink Lotus Breast Center in Beverly Hills where Jolie was treated, also applauded her choice.

“We hope that the awareness she is raising around the world will save countless lives,” said Funk at a brief news conference outside the clinic.

Richard Francis, head of research at the Breakthrough Breast Cancer charity in Britain, said it demonstrated the importance of educating women with the gene fault.

“For women like Angelina it’s important that they are made fully aware of all the options that are available, including risk-reducing surgery and extra breast screening,” Francis told Reuters.

Jolie also lends her star power to a range of humanitarian causes, including serving more than 10 years as a goodwill ambassador for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

In April, she urged governments to step up efforts to bring wartime sex offenders to justice. 
















         

 

 
 
Report to moderator   Logged
BikiniSlut
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5033


I'm dating and love Uncle Junior! Xoxoxo


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2013, 03:24:16 PM »

How do you feel about this? I wouldn't call it "heroic". It's great she's putting her health first. However if she does get breast cancer anyways, I wonder if she'll regret it.

The odds were 87% of her getting breast cancer. Now they are 5%. Do you think she did the right thing and would you have done the same?
Report to moderator   Logged
Princess L
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 10198


I stop for turtles


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2013, 04:30:54 PM »

Faced with the same situation, I'd like to say definitely, but really who knows?  I have a girlfriend who had breast reduction surgery in college only to develop a golf ball sized tumor at the age of 32.    She had a double mastectomy at that point for the same reasons, along with the whole reconstruction thing.  Insurance didn't pay a dime because she chose that route rather than following the "routine" course of treatment.  Roll Eyes  Then I watched my neighbor come through breast cancer with flying colors only to develop another cancer that took her life a couple of years ago.  Most recently some friend's daughter developed breast cancer while she was pregnant (at least it was discovered then) and couldn't start treatment until after delivery.  Things seemed to go well for about two years and then spread to her brain.  She died a week and a half ago.  Cancer is a bitch.  Angry
Report to moderator   Logged

:
booty
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 11270



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2013, 12:04:11 AM »

How do you feel about this? I wouldn't call it "heroic". It's great she's putting her health first. However if she does get breast cancer anyways, I wonder if she'll regret it.

The odds were 87% of her getting breast cancer. Now they are 5%. Do you think she did the right thing and would you have done the same?
I think shes pretty brave.  I guess living in fear of developing cancer when you know you have the gene and 87 per cent chance of getting it would be very scarey.  You would think about it everyday.  Angelina can get a breast reconstruction and have peace of mind that she has a very slim chance of getting breast cancer now. 
Report to moderator   Logged
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24240


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2013, 04:51:58 AM »

How do you feel about this? I wouldn't call it "heroic". It's great she's putting her health first. However if she does get breast cancer anyways, I wonder if she'll regret it.

The odds were 87% of her getting breast cancer. Now they are 5%. Do you think she did the right thing and would you have done the same?

Her body, her choice.

I wish her all the best. It could not have been an easy decision, either the surgery, or sharing her decision publicly. I wish her all the best, as well as a speedy recovery. I'm glad she was able to reveal the info on her terms rather than have the information blasted by TMZ or some other unscrupulous hospital employee looking for a quick buck.
Report to moderator   Logged

w
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24240


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2013, 01:20:21 AM »

EXPOSED: Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion)

Thursday, May 16, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com




(NaturalNews) Angelina Jolie's announcement of undergoing a double mastectomy (surgically removing both breasts) even though she had no breast cancer is not the innocent, spontaneous, "heroic choice" that has been portrayed in the mainstream media. Natural News has learned it all coincides with a well-timed for-profit corporate P.R. campaign that has been planned for months and just happens to coincide with the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on the viability of the BRCA1 patent.

This is the investigation the mainstream media refuses to touch. Here, I explain the corporate financial ties, investors, mergers, human gene patents, lawsuits, medical fear mongering and the trillions of dollars that are at stake here. If you pull back the curtain on this one, you find far more than an innocent looking woman exercising a "choice." This is about protecting trillions in profits through the deployment of carefully-crafted public relations campaigns designed to manipulate the public opinion of women.

The signs were all there from the beginning of the scheme: Angelina Jolie's highly polished and obviously corporate-written op-ed piece at the New York Times, the carefully-crafted talking points invoking "choice" as a politically-charged keyword, and the obvious coaching of even her husband Brad Pitt who carefully describes the entire experience using words like "stronger" and "pride" and "family."

But the smoking gun is the fact that Angelina Jolie's seemingly spontaneous announcement magically appeared on the cover of People Magazine this week -- a magazine that is usually finalized for publication three weeks before it appears on newsstands. That cover, not surprisingly, uses the same language found in the NYT op-ed piece: "HER BRAVE CHOICE" and "This was the right thing to do." The flowery, pro-choice language is not a coincidence.

What this proves is that Angelina's Jolie's announcement was a well-planned corporate P.R. campaign with carefully-crafted messages designed to influence public opinion. But what could Jolie be seeking to influence?

...how about trillions of dollars in corporate profits?

Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule on patent viability for BRCA1 gene

Angelina Jolie's announcement and all its carefully-crafted language had four notable immediate impacts:

1) It caused women everywhere to be terrified of breast cancer through the publishing of false statistics that drove fear into the hearts of anyone with breasts. (See below for explanation.)

2) It caused women to rush out and seek BRCA1 gene testing procedures. These tests just happen to be patented by a for-profit corporation called "Myriad Genetics." Because of this patent, BRCA1 tests can cost $3,000 - $4,000 each. The testing alone is a multi-billion-dollar market, but only if the patent is upheld in an upcoming Supreme Court decision (see below).

3) It caused the stock price of Myriad Genetics (MYGN) to skyrocket to a 52-week high. "Myriad's stock closed up 3% Tuesday, following the publication of the New York Times op-ed," wrote Marketwatch.com.

4) It drove public opinion to influence the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule in favor of corporate ownership of human genes (see more below).

Women all over the world are being duped into supporting Angeline Jolie, having no idea that what she's really doing is selling out women to the for-profit cancer industry. But to fully understand what's happening, you have to dig deeper...

Myriad Genetics sees stock price skyrocket thanks to Jolie, and Obamacare will funnel billions their way

"Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics (MYGN) holds the patent on the test that determined the actress had an 87% chance of developing breast cancer, as well as the genes themselves," wrote MarketWatch.com.

And that's only the beginning. If the U.S. Supreme Court can be influenced to uphold Myriad's patent, it could mean a trillion-dollar industry over just the next few years. Even more, Myriad Genetics is reportedly "ripe for mergers" according to the financial press, because it's part of the super-hot human genome industry.

"The world's largest maker of DNA testing and analysis tools, Life Technologies Corp. said that it is set to be acquired by Thermo Fisher Scientific for a record $13.6 billion," writes MarketWatch.com. "A race that kicked into high gear more than 26 years ago is heating up, with foreign governments and corporations joining the U.S. in funding the quest to map all the human genomes. And even as the recent flurry of mergers and acquisitions in the genomics space has spurred returns, investors still have opportunities to profit from this multibillion-dollar industry."

The higher Myriad's stock price goes, the more profitable a merger becomes for its current owners. So Jolie's P.R. stunt just happened to generate unknown millions of dollars in value for the very people who claim a patent monopoly over the breast cancer genes residing in the bodies of women. Coincidence? Hardly.

Obamacare mandates taxpayers pay for BRCA gene testing: yet another government handout to wealthy corporations

But here's what's even more crooked about all this: You know how Obama likes to talk "free market" but actually engages in so-called "crony capitalism" by handing out money to all his corporate buddies, Wall Street insiders and deep-pocketed campaign donors? Part of Obamacare -- the "Affordable Care Act" -- mandates that taxpayers pay for BRCA1 genetic testing!

Myriad Genetics, in other words, stands to receive a full-scale windfall of profits mandated by government and pushed into mainstream consciousness through a campaign of "medical terror" fronted by Angelina Jolie and the New York Times. Are you starting to see how this all fits together yet?

This is all one big coordinated corporate sellout of women, and it's all being hidden by playing the "women's power" card and using "choice" language to more easily manipulate women. Angelina Jolie, remember, is a key spokesperson for the United Nations, an organization already caught engaged in child sex slavery and drug running. Although Jolie obviously isn't engage in that sort of behavior, her job is to covertly influence American women into supporting a carefully-planned, plotted and executed corporate profit campaign that turns women's bodies into profits.

Here's why the Supreme Court decision puts trillions of dollars at stake...

Details on the upcoming Supreme Court decision

The ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit in 2009, challenging the corporate ownership of human genes. Anyone who believes in women's rights, human rights, civil rights or even the right to eat non-GMO foods should immediately agree that corporations should NOT be able to patent human genes and then use those patents to rake in billions of dollars in profits while stifling scientific research into those genes.

A question to all women reading this: Do you believe a corporation in Utah owns your body? If not, you should be opposed to corporate ownership of human genes. It also means you should oppose Angelina Jolie's P.R. campaign because although she's running a brilliant public relations campaign, behind the scenes her actions are feeding potentially trillions of dollars of profits directly into the for-profit human gene patenting industry that denies human beings ownership over their own genetic code.

The ACLU explains the basics of its lawsuit against Myriad Genetics as follows:

On May 12, 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed a lawsuit charging that patents on two human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are unconstitutional and invalid. On November 30, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear argument on the patentability of human genes. The ACLU argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 15, 2013. We expect a decision this summer.

On behalf of researchers, genetic counselors, women patients, cancer survivors, breast cancer and women's health groups, and scientific associations representing 150,000 geneticists, pathologists, and laboratory professionals, we have argued that human genes cannot be patented because they are classic products of nature. The suit charges that the gene patents violate the First Amendment and stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women's options regarding their medical care.

Got that? If the Supreme Court rules against Myriad Genetics, it will cause a multi-billion-dollar breast cancer genetic testing industry to collapse virtually overnight. This means a huge loss for not just Myriad, but also many other human gene corporations that wish to exploit the human body -- including the bodies of women -- for monopolistic profits. (All patents are government-granted monopolies.) Ultimately, trillions of dollars in corporate gene patents are at stake here.

Patenting human genes is huge business

Today, about 20 percent of your genes are already patented by corporations and universities. As the ACLU explains, "A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents."

This means that when corporations own patents on human genes, it stifles scientific research while granting that corporation a monopoly over the "intellectual property" encoded in your own DNA! (How criminal is that? You decide...)

What this means is that if the Supreme Court rules against Myriad, it would set a precedent that would dismantle the entire human gene patenting industry, affecting trillions of dollars in future profits.

This, I believe, is the real reason behind Angelina Jolie's announcement. It seems designed to invoke women's emotional reactions and create a groundswell of support for corporate-owned genes, thereby handing these corporations a Supreme Court precedent that will ensure trillions in future profits. It's a for-profit PR stunt that tries to trick women into supporting a corporate system of patents and monopolies that claims, right now, to own portions of the bodies of every woman living today.

While most media outlets have no clue about the patent issues at stake here, the Detroit Free Press took notice, saying:

Quote
"The Hollywood star's decision to get tested for a breast cancer gene mutation, undergo a double mastectomy and then write about it calls attention to a case now pending before the court. The justices have just weeks to decide if Myriad Genetics' patent on the two genes that can identify an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer is legal. Critics complain that the company's monopoly leaves them as the sole source of the $4,000 tests needed to determine each woman's risk."


Lying with statistics: Jolie's 87% risk exaggeration

There's more to this story than just the patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Angelina Jolie is also using blatantly misleading statistics to terrify women into thinking their breasts might kill them.

In the NYT op-ed piece, Jolie claims her doctor told her she has an "87% risk" of developing breast cancer. But what she didn't tell you is that this number doesn't apply to the entire population: it's actually old data derived almost exclusively from families that were previously documented to have very high risks of breast cancer to begin with.

A study published on the National Human Genome Research Institute website and conducted by scientists from the National Institutes of Health reveals that breast cancer risks associated with BRCA1 genes are significantly lower than what's being hyped up by Jolie and the mainstream media.

In fact, in a large room of 600 women, only ONE will likely have a BRCA mutation in her genetic code. The actual incidence is 0.125 to 0.25 out of 100 women, or 1 in 400 to 1 in 800. I used 600 as the average of 400 and 800.

And out of that 1 in 600 women who has the mutation, her risk of breast cancer is only 56 percent, not 78 percent as claimed by Jolie. But 13 percent of women without the BRCA mutation get breast cancer anyway, according to this scientific research, so the increased risk is just 43 out of 100 women.

So what we're really talking about here is 1 in 600 women having a BRCA gene mutation, then less than half of those getting cancer because of it. In other words, only about 1 in 1200 women will be affected by this.

Yet thanks to people like Jolie and the fear-mongering mainstream media, women all across the nation have been terrified into believing their breasts might kill them and the best way to handle the problem is to cut them off!

This, my friends, is the essence of doomsday fear mongering. This issue affects less than one-tenth of one percent of women but is being riled up into a nationwide fear campaign that just happens to feed profits into the for-profit cancer diagnosis and treatment industry, not to mention the monopolistic human gene patenting cartels.

That's the real story of what's happening here. Don't expect to read this in the New York Times.

Corporate media refuses to mention real prevention and treatment options

As part of the breast cancer fear mongering and treatment scam now being run across the mainstream media, nearly all media sources are prohibiting any mention of holistic or natural options for treatment or prevention.

Sure, the media talks about "options," but all those options just happen to lead back to the for-profit cancer industry. As an example, read this story by ABC News, part of the lying mainstream media that misinforms women and pushes a corporate agenda:

If you do test positive for BRCA, you have options, and you don't necessarily have to go the Jolie route. Some women choose not to have surgery. Instead, they increase cancer surveillance with imaging tests. These include regular mammograms to test for breast cancer, and regular pelvic sonograms and blood-tests to watch for ovarian cancer.





Nowhere in this article does ABC News mention ways to suppress the BRCA1 gene by, for example, eating raw cruciferous vegetables containing Indole-3-Carbinol (I3C), a potent anti-cancer nutrient that halts breast cancer in its tracks. Nowhere does ABC News mention vitamin D which prevents nearly 4 out of 5 cancers of all types, including breast cancer.

Nope, the "options" being pushed by mainstream media are nothing more than mammograms, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy -- all owned and run by the for-profit cancer industry that feeds on women and exploits their bodies for profit.

Nor is their any discussion of the total scam of the "pink ribbons" cancer cure industry which is primarily focused on giving women cancer through "free mammograms." As any scientist or physicist already knows, mammograms cause cancer because they emit ionizing radiation directly into the breast and heart tissues. Get enough mammograms done and sooner or later they will detect breast cancer because they caused it! To date, 1.3 million women have been harmed by mammography.

Thanks, Angelina, for keeping the wool pulled over the eyes of women everywhere while selling out to for-profit, monopolistic, corporate interests that incessantly seek to exploit women for profit.

Photo credit: PEOPLE Magazine cover, used under Fair Use for public commentary and education.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0wRLdyriYA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0wRLdyriYA</a>

Also read:
How Angelina Jolie was duped by cancer doctors into self mutilation for breast cancer she never had

Angelina Jolie inspires women to maim themselves by celebrating medically perverted double mastectomies


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040365_Angelina_Jolie_gene_patents_Supreme_Court_decision.html
Report to moderator   Logged

w
Butterbean
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19461


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2013, 07:24:44 AM »

How do you feel about this? I wouldn't call it "heroic". It's great she's putting her health first. However if she does get breast cancer anyways, I wonder if she'll regret it.

The odds were 87% of her getting breast cancer. Now they are 5%. Do you think she did the right thing and would you have done the same?

It would be a very difficult choice.  Having no children to worry about could make it easier to choose to take your chances.







Interesting article jag.  I wonder if Obama has Myriad Genetics stock in his portfolio?
Report to moderator   Logged

R
BikiniSlut
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5033


I'm dating and love Uncle Junior! Xoxoxo


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2013, 02:30:39 PM »

The 87% chance of getting cancer always seemed odd to me. In university I had some special oncological research to do and not once did I come across a probability of getting cancer as high as that.

Definitely her body her choice. However I don't believe most women in the US could afford this surgery, and Angelina could be giving some false hope.
Report to moderator   Logged
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24240


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2013, 10:35:35 PM »

The thing is Myriad Genetics is claiming ownership over a woman's genes.

They are essentially saying they are God.

Their patent prevents any genetic research on the gene without their approval... That means no other firm can even begin to look for a cure, or the ability to turn off the expression of the cancer gene without their approval. What company looking to profit is going to allow someone else in to develop a cure for a disease from which they profit?

In addition, just because an individual has a history of certain genetic expressions does not mean these expressions have to manifest. Diet & exercise play huge part in how our genes express themselves. The human body produces thousands of cancer cells daily, ...however a healthy immune system seeks those out and kills them. At some point, the immune system can become overwhelmed, and those cancer cells grow out of control, and we see this expressed, ...however not all genetic defects have to express themselves.

Someone with a history of cardiovascular disease in their family tree is not necessarily going to develop it themselves, and have a heart attack. Proper nutrition, and regular moderate exercise can support a state of health. Now if one chose to consume greasy fried foods, tons of animal fats, smoked like a chimney, and led a life as sedentary as a slug on a rock, ...chances are highly likely their genetic defects for cardiovascular disease would manifest themselves into whatever expressions existed in their DNA.

Angelina Jolie's Breasts, Gene Patents, & Supreme Court

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGXj2De84NQ" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGXj2De84NQ</a>
Report to moderator   Logged

w
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24240


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2013, 10:51:09 PM »

The 87% chance of getting cancer always seemed odd to me. In university I had some special oncological research to do and not once did I come across a probability of getting cancer as high as that.

Definitely her body her choice. However I don't believe most women in the US could afford this surgery, and Angelina could be giving some false hope.

The testing is only that expensive because Myriad has an exclusive patent that would prevent anyone else from developing a less expensive test.

If I were to develop a test that cost $5 in order to determine it's efficacy, I would have to test the test would I not? I couldn't determine the test was accurate in detecting BRCA1 or 2 without testing it's ability to identify those genes, ...however, due to the nature of Myriads patents, I would not be able to have access to the genes in question without their permission. This leaves access to these tests in the hands of the very rich, ...unless the people rose up in anger and demanded the testing be covered under Obamacare.

This too can open up an entire can of worms with many different unanticipated perceptions.

The BRCA1 & 2 genetic defects are most often found in the Ashkenazi Jewish population.

So now we have a Utah based company claiming ownership over the genetic makeup of Ashkenazi Jews, ...and or a universal healthcare system that covers the funding for these tests.... But what of diseases that are prevalent in "other communities"? Will we see mandated covered for the testing for sickle cell trait which is found predominately in the Black community, as well as Mediterranean and Falasha Jewish communities? Will we see mandated testing coverage for the cystic fibrosis genetic defect which primarily affects those of Northern European, descent?

Where does one draw the line, ...and whose lives are more important (Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, or Falasha  Jews? or Saxons, or Africans, or etc., etc.,)? A huge can of worms whichever way you slice it. One thing is for certain, ...there is a huge campaign underway with all sides jockeying into position, ...and the minds & emotions of women everywhere are being manipulated for gain.
Report to moderator   Logged

w
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!