Creating Waves of Awareness
The famous actress Angelina Jolie shot into fame again. This time for a different reason: Mastectomy! She has been operated for something she did not have. A "preventive" surgery for breast cancer. Hence, the claim that her chances of breast cancer are less than 5%.
Does this give a wrong message to all to get their breasts removed before they develop cancer? Is this procedure justified? Are we only relying on statistics? What does the Homeopathic Community has to say about this?
Next may be all men getting their prostate gland removed before it becomes cancerous. This list can be endless. There is treatment in Homeopathy for such problems. This is the message which should have been sent. The views of all are welcome.
I wonder if men would be so happy with this approach if it was testicular cancer we were talking about? I bet not.
I also wonder how those women will feel if in the future, as often happens in allopathic medicine, they change their minds and decide they were wrong about the risk, or that the gene actually does something positive (like also prevents cancer)?
Perhaps we can just remove all the organs that might become diseased, in the name of 'preventative' health? Is this madness really acceptable to people?
What I have continued to hear in the media is how 'brave' Ms Jolie is for having the surgery, and how she is a 'shining example' for other women. Seriously? You are so frightened that you 'might' get cancer you are willing to allow someone to mutilate your body, remove parts of your femininity? And this fear should 'inspire' other women to do the same?
Thanks for this response! I agree totally.
Dear David and Dr Rajiv - In fact, GreenMedInfo indicates that there may be genes that do protect women from breast cancer. You see, when we dumb down information, create a summary, or simplify the facts instead of view the intricacy and complexity of the body electric, we miss much of the integral factors that go into creating and maintaining health.
When we, as humans, with either an agenda to fulfill, or a limited mindset, promote a theory as truth, rather than staying open-minded to the possibilities and potentials for self healing or realization that the "mind" can be the trigger to health or illness, then we have made big mistakes and rob people of choices.
When statistics and material numbers rule, instead of the nuances of life and spirit, we do not take into account the human spirit for survival and the individual's potential to overcome a 'tendency' only. If we had a different view of our world, our bodies, our environment and the part we play, the outcomes would be very different.
A large part of the story for health versus genetic disposition in men and women has been suppressed. Today, the majority of people do not know about the subversive activities of genetic manipulation of the food supply by Monsanto and others. Today, the majority of people do not know the connection between Vitamin D, minerals such as magnesium bicarbonate, and iodine for preventing cancer growth. Today, the majority of people are not taught yoga and stress reduction as part of a healthy lifestyle. Today, the majority of people have not been provided the basics as listed in Maslow's need to function properly, including security, shelter and love. Today, the majority of people live in a polluted world where criminal acts against humanity abound. What do we expect? Stress creates illness. This is a well known fact. All of this does not account for the pressure to inject toxins into every living being; nor the trend to reduce God given freedoms to live naturally.
One person who bucked the system was the actress Suzanne Somers, who was actually diagnosed with breast cancer and then caused controversy when she chose alternative treatments. Remember, Angelina has not been diagnosed with the disease. Known as a health and fitness guru for women, this pronouncement traumatized her world and she took a deeper look into how to improve her health.
In 2000, "doctors performed a lumpectomy. After surgery, Somers had radiation treatment, but she decided against having chemotherapy. She chose to take an alternative treatment called Iscador. Her course of treatment soon became a subject of public debate with some doctors and others criticizing Somers for her actions. She was also chastised for continuing to take hormones after her treatments against her doctors’ advice." ~ Bio
Thanks Debby for sharing the info about Suzanne Somers. She was on Iscador therapy [Viscum Album] I have had the opportunity to use these injectables at out hospital under the guidance of Late Dr. Rastogi. It did help some but the major factor was its availability and the cost!
However as you know that on Angelina's case she did not even have cancer, and removing an organ before it gets cancerous does not sound very logical. Is this "bravery" as the media as put it.
She would not have done this if she had read some Homeopathic books. If one organ is not present, the disease can come out through another route. The tendency to cancer is in fact having affinity to various organs or systems. If the more susceptible organ is not there, the disease may take other route. It is just like removing the heart to prevent heart attack, or removing the brain to prevent dementia! Any way, may God keep her free from all diseases.
What about having support from trusted family to give more options?
yes, that is more valid.
The discussions and views vary widely all over the internet. Angelina has brought this issue up front and center. Maybe there will be more discussion about the cause, triggers, inheritance and some clear statistics. Perhaps more women will think first, get second and third opinions, ask trusted family members and friends before having surgery. Many people see the oncologist and physicians as the most trusted persons in the field to save their lives. This necessity comes from looking at them as the authority on the subject of cancer treatments. Perhaps more people will begin to investigate other options?
Many people would rather take 'pre-emptive' strike, like in a war, rather than 'wait and see' for their future. There are many, many rubrics in the mind and physical sections of repertory that can apply for each individual. Whether 'fear of unknown' or 'fear of cancer' or 'fear of future' or 'fear of disease,' etc. homeopathy can strengthen the vital force.
I agree that there will be endless discussion for and against this issue. As far as we are concerned our discussion is limited to the scope of Homeopathy only in such a case. The rubrics mentioned narrows down the remedy to Calc.Carb.
Any other remedy of choice?
Actually, the discussion is much broader than simply homeopathy. As we all know, homeopathy is holistic. This includes blocks to cure, lifestyle, emotional triggers and much more. Concern for the environment. I hope you don't mind, that I added a video from Fran Drescher that directs the conversation towards our polluted toxic environment in and out of the home. In addition, respects that each individual has their own path and journey through sickness and health. During such times, compassion and understanding that people make their own choices, whether or not we agree, disagree or would have made the same or a different choice. Since we do not live or walk in their shoes, we must simply send love and healing prayers.
Here are a few points made by Fran:
"The human race has invented nearly every toxin imaginable. In our food, there are chemicals that kill pests, make foods ripen faster and grow bigger, and lengthen shelf life. In our clothing, chemicals make fabrics soft, keep them from wrinkling, make them fire retardant and resistant to stains, and keep them from collecting static. In our kitchens and bathrooms, chemicals create suds, remove grease, stiffen our hair, make our skin feel smooth, stop us from perspiring, change our hair color, lengthen our lashes, and make us smell good.
Unfortunately, many of these chemicals, designed to improve and simplify our lives, cause birth defects, hyperactivity, learning disabilities, attention deficit, early puberty, and developmental problems—to name a few."
As for 'homeopathy,' we can discuss cancer based upon centuries of experience and documentation. We can talk about cured cases, but we cannot project or make assumptions. Unless you have had an open interview with an individual, I don't think we can guess on remedies.
After reading about Angelina’s choice this week, I wondered what the amazing Anita Moorjani would have to say about it.
As you might know, Anita was instantly cured of cancer after a near-death experience. She went on to write about it in her New York Times best-seller Dying To Be Me.
This is what I wrote to her: I was thinking that if it’s Angelina’s reality that she will die from cancer because of what happened to her mother, then I guess that is what she will create. However if she truly believes she had evaded it with this operation, then I guess she has evaded it. Would you agree?
Anita very generously replied: Hiya Yasmin!
“Yes, I absolutely do agree with you – and I don’t have a problem with Angelina’s choice – because doing this will alleviate her fears of getting cancer, then she has basically created that reality. She has to do what she has to do, and I would never judge her for it. Personally, I can just leave it at that, but so many people are asking me my opinion on this matter, as though looking for guidance, or a cue as to my take on this whole subject of having a double mastectomy as a preventative. So my take is that it is absolutely not necessary to have a double mastectomy even if you have the gene. So my issue is not with Angelina per se, but with the way our society, and the entire medical system view cancer. Because Angelina is a public figure, her double mastectomy is now putting fear into everyone else’s minds and hearts, and causing them to go and be tested genetically, to see if they have inherited the cancer gene. And if they find that yes, there is a cancer gene (which, by the way, many people have, but never get cancer!), they will develop this fear, and feel the need to go and do the double mastectomy, or hysterectomy, or whatever in order to alleviate the fear. My point is, let’s move on from propagating the thinking that cancer is purely physical, and that detecting some gene, or doing earlier and earlier detection, or that cancer is some enemy that has to be found and caught at any cost. This thinking in itself is unhealthy, and is propagated by many well meaning people, with the intention of doing good.
If we, as a society, put as much focus and awareness and money into health awareness as we put into cancer awareness, and taught people how to FOCUS on health, instead of focusing on cancer, we would have a very different reality. If we taught people what it means to be mentally, spiritually and physically healthy, instead of putting our focus on cancer, we can create a very different environment, where health is supported and promoted by society as a whole, instead of a planet obsessed with finding disease everywhere we turn.
As a result, I don’t support any anti cancer movements, or drives, or campaigns. Never have and never will. But I am always happy to promote total health and wellbeing.
As a side note, an entire discussion could evolve around the idea of patenting our genes. [BRCA GENE TESTING PATENT Myriad Genetics, has a monopoly on BRCA testing, it determines the cost, which is about $3,000.]
Huffington Post | Do Not Fear Your Genes. Knowledge is Power by Jeffrey Bland, PhD
GREENMEDINFO | The Great DNA Data Deficit: Are Genes for Disease a Mirage?
Natural News Exposes The Money Trail | The Patenting of BRCA Gene DNA
Dr Lissa Rankin http://bit.ly/119lLKr