Women are being told they "have the BRCA gene for breast cancer" and are electing to have their reproductive organs removed as a preventive measure against reproductive-system cancer(s). What is the BRCA gene, anyway (pronounced "braca")? According to Wiki, it's a human tumor suppressor gene that ensures the proper repair of DNA double-strand breaks (see here). Actually, ALL WOMEN have the BRCA genes; it is only when they mutate that one's risk of breast cancer supposedly rises. So to be told you "have the BRCA gene," as a friend of mine recently was, means nothing unless one has "the BRCA gene mutation," yet this is not the way commoners phrase it. Given the mutation news, some women are getting into a panic and undergoing radical surgeries (paid for out of pocket) to dodge the possibility of certain cancers.
In 2013 and again in 2015, actress Angelina Jolie modeled the choice to have a preventive double mastectomy and breast reconstruction, followed by surgeries for ovarian and fallopian-tube removal. She is only in her thirties, but feared the cancers that claimed the lives of other women in her family. Epigenetics is the science that tracks heritable cellular potential and is relied on for genetic risk assessment -- predicting disease development in family lines (see more here).
Compare Angelina Jolie's female deconstruction to the making of Caitlyn Jenner (right). The transgender movement is making women out of men (adding sexual characteristics/organs) while the cancer business is taking sex organs out of women. Both result in one thing: non-reproductive humans. Jenner claims he "has had these issues since he was ten" -- presumably wanting to be a girl. He's been given the Arthur Ashe Courage Award for his transition, which included ten hours of facial-feminization surgery. All this retrofitting and body-morphing for, in the case of Jenner, a cosmetic result that finally supports a lifelong quest, and in the case of Jolie (who now has artificial breasts) to maximize health. "I didn't expect there to be so much support, and I was very moved by it," Jolie says. "It's been a really beautiful journey."
The reality is that cancer results from cellular energy loss due to extreme cytotoxicity -- toxic cells that can no longer keep up with their metabolic workload. Epigenetics only points to the areas of our bodies that might first fail when systemic oxidative stress becomes too great. If those body systems are removed, common sense suggests that cancer will only develop elsewhere. Additionally, artificial breasts are no picnic! Muscle is taken from the back and brought to the chest to anchor the new breasts, the skin for which is supplied by other areas of the body (donor areas -- e.g., the back), resulting in scarring, tightness, pain, pressure, loss of natural sensitivity. Sequential implant surgeries stretch the new breasts over time, until the final implants are put in. These are often silicone (the preferred medical choice) and can later rupture. The artificial breasts have no nipples until these are constructed from vaginal tissue and added as a final touch. Lifelong chest scars remain, and women who have had radiation (for earlier breast cancer) report great difficulty breathing, which is the result of chest muscles adhering to the lungs from radiation damage. "I feel like I live in a straitjacket," said one. "I can't breathe, I can't sleep comfortably ... no one -- not even all the women who had this done -- told me this was going to happen."
An important postscript: Cells can repair broken DNA a limited number of times. The presence of micronuclei (multiple small nuclei) in cells is a red flag indicating mutation, that proper DNA repair is not happening. Micronuclei are now considered a diagnostic marker for elevated risk of cancer (Berwick/Vineis, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, August 2000). Please note that a mere 24 hours of exposure to cell phone radiation creates micronuclei in red blood cells (Lai/Singh, 1994 and Tice/Hook, 1998-99). In a world where nearly everyone is now bathed in wireless radiation, how much can we expect from BRCA genes?
EMFScientist.org has put out an appeal for international recognition of the dangers of this new kind of radiation: