Since Angelina Jolie went public with cutting off her own breasts and removing her sex organs due to her increased risk of cancer from genetic mutations, the world has gone crazy talking about genetic mutations and blaming them for everything and anything. They have become the new gluten within our natural health and living community. Exaggerated to the point of insanity.
But if you’re worried about your genetic mutations and their relationship to and increased risk of developing cancer, I want to tell you right now, to stop worrying.
In January of this year, one of the greatest perpetrators of the foolishness, in the American Cancer Society, published a clinical study in their medical Journal, called The Journal Cancer, which studied 35,000 women with breast cancer, and completed tests to identify 25 different genetic mutations which are currently considered to increase the risk of developing breast cancer.
Of those 35,000 women with breast cancer, only 9% of them had any one of the 25 different possible genetic mutations, and while each mutation needs to be identified on an individual basis to get a real and reliable determination of increased risk for each, that seems to indicate a crude and unreliable risk of about 0.4%, and this is what the world is going crazy over?
I will admit, that the study actually provides leaves us with more questions than answers, because they don’t identify the individual genetic mutations and their prevalence, whether there is a prevalence of multiple mutations being a higher risk… Etc. the very basic and crude data that they make public seems to indicate that this trend of fear mongering and celebrities mutilating their own bodies lacks a real risk/benefit ratio justification.
They don’t mention that 91% of the people who had breast cancer had no genetic mutations, and they don’t identify the risk from each of the individual 25 different mutations that they tested for, they just lump them all together so that they could scare the hell out of you. It’s nothing more than fabrication of fact and creative wording to justify the narrative in which they have set, themselves.
As I’ve written previously, so many of these clinical trials start out with what may be good intentions, and when they don’t get the results in which they hoped for, they fabricate creative ways to present the numbers in order to add validity to their failed scientific investigations. In this instance, they talk about “9%” to try to make it sound worse than what it was, but it’s 9% that had one or more of any of the 25 different mutations.
When scientists talk about the increased risk of developing cancer. They never present the overall and actual human risk, but only the “increased risk”, above what you already have, just from being alive. If your basic risk of developing a specific type of cancer, just from being human and alive was 1%, and they found something that increased that to 1.3%, the only thing that they will publish is that you have a 30% increased chance of developing a specific type of cancer. They will never talk about the overall risk, only the “increased risk” to make their findings sound more dramatic than what they really are. But that does not represent what your real risks are.
Don’t buy into the hype and fear mongering that too many scientists and medical journals are fabricating or creatively wording in order to justify why they spent so much time studying something that that had no real relevance.