Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

CFR's Jolie has both breast removed without yet having cancer. Didn't anyone slip her the memo?

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Actually, I did do a little research on it, but a surprising lack of mortality rate info (just survival rate info on the cancer). I seriously doubt she's getting full tissue removal, but instead opting for the version in which they leave the outside intact.

I don't recall Angelina ever going public about previous plastic surgery (nor did I find any references to support it). The rhinoplasty and botox are simply obvious to me as I am a portrait artist, and that long studying faces, I can certainly tell her nose has a pronounced difference that goes well beyond aging, as does her facial skin tension, etc.

If you do find something showing she has gone public before though, then yes, this would be excellent evidence that would certainly help disprove my hypothesis.

I may come off as insensitive to this, but I wonder how many women would feel differently if it was a woman they despise, such as Britney Spears, doing this, rather than Angelina Jolie. Would they be so quick to deny my accusation? Or, would they jump on the bandwagon? Hmm....




posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
This is one of the saddest things I have read in a long time. It's just completely sad.


I hope you mean this thread? In all the time I've been on ATS this is the thread that has had so many posters sinking below a level of common human decency. As someone who has seen female family members go through the trauma of breast cancer, and family members and extended family members go through the horror of cancer as a whole, to see some people make such childish ridiculous comments on such a serious and sensitive subject matter is more than a sad statement.

As per the post by k21968, this isn't some conspiracy theory, this is real life and it affects many many people worldwide. How it has become a subject to actually make fun of I really can't comprehend. Statistically there will be others on this site who will either be affected directly or indirectly by cancers passed on genetically and yet some on here are questioning a pro active approach to reduce the risk of early death for the sake of both themselves and their loved ones.

Some things just aren't funny.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Personally, I think she simply is getting older, wanted a boob job, but then her publicist thought of a way for her to get one without getting negative press. Not really rocket science. I'm really surprised the MSM (and the public) are falling for it, but then again, I really shouldn't be.


Personally I think you should get out more. She watched her mother DIE of breast cancer. She has had proven to her she will statistically suffer the same fate without intervention, she made the intervention.

Personally I hope other women understand this message that it doesn't make you any less of a woman to make this choice. But then again I'm an adult who doesn't find the thought of dying of cancer when it could have been prevented something to laugh about or try and make into a conspiracy.

Pathetic, and you are a mod.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Part of me thinks that Jolie really didn't have it done..... but the media is just saying that to influence the sheeple. If they can fake a bombing in Boston they can damn well fake this.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 



Originally posted by Gazrok
I seriously doubt she's getting full tissue removal, but instead opting for the version in which they leave the outside intact.


The skin covering the breast is irrelevant. The breast tissue is the blood vessels, lymph vessels, lymph nodes, lobules, fat, ducts, and sometimes muscle that lie underneath the skin. That is the breast, not the skin covering it. And to go in there and scrape that all out is a delicate operation (not to mention VERY painful), much more so than an incision and implantation.



I may come off as insensitive to this, but I wonder how many women would feel differently if it was a woman they despise, such as Britney Spears, doing this, rather than Angelina Jolie. Would they be so quick to deny my accusation? Or, would they jump on the bandwagon? Hmm....


So, you have jumped on this particular bandwagon because you despise her and simply cannot think objectively.

Just so you know, if Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann had made this announcement, I would have immediate and unwavering support, sympathy and sensitivity for them ON THIS ISSUE. Not being able to separate my feelings about them from the critical issue of breast cancer, would say something about me that I would be highly embarrassed to admit. To think that ANY woman would use breast cancer as a ruse to get a boob job is just the most cynical and unfeeling thing I can imagine.
edit on 5/15/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Personally I think you should get out more. She watched her mother DIE of breast cancer.


Actually, she watched her mom die of OVARIAN cancer, and she did so SIX YEARS AGO, so she's been aware of her high risk factor for all this time. (Ovarian cancer is certainly cause for he to get the testing). I get out plenty. You should actually investigate the situation before making an erroneous statement as fact.


So, you have jumped on this particular bandwagon because you despise her and simply cannot think objectively.


On the contrary, I haven't jumped on the popular bandwagon of "oh, she's so brave" because I CAN think objectively. To be objective, let's look at the facts.

1. She's an aging Hollywood actress, known for playing sex symbol roles.
2. She's had previous plastic surgery for purely cosmetic reasons, she's been mum about (ok, so an educated supposition other than a "fact", but just look at past pics and concentrate on the nose).
3. She's known about the risk factor for SIX YEARS.

Then, compare that with what we know of aging Hollywood sex symbols and plastic surgery. So, I drew a logical conclusion that any breast surgery may just have more to do with her looks than cancer risk, but if she can do both with one stone?

Bah. I don't really despise her, (I do dislike her) I just don't see elective surgery that will improve your looks as being "brave"....
What I despise is the way she's being hailed as some kind of hero for this.
edit on 15-5-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 





That is TRAUMA. Trauma, something that the likes of me, a person raised by a true pathological liar stepdad, has endured something that might give an ounce of insight into.
Im assuming you are talking about the surgery here (your thoughts are far too all over the place for me to be sure). If so, EVERY surgery could be classified as trauma. Dont want it? Dont have it. It really is that simple, and you have absolutely NO RIGHT to tell people what they should or shouldnt do.




See for youself, what this person, who is desensitized to images of war, death, carnage, mass murder, gore and brutality is incapable of ever again watching: Breast Reduction Surgery
Again, shock tactics have no place in this conversation, and it is a desperate tactic to try and use them. NO SURGERY IS PRETTY. Again, no one is making you watch.




never again will I deliberately watch such true life socially induced mutiliationary carnage. Do with these facts what you will. Those images I've seen of Iraqi's that were tortured by drillbits powered by drills, this is all my likewise kryptonite.
And? Geez, you arent even out in left field....you're playing in a whole different stadium. That you have a hard time with surgeries has absolutely no relevance to this topic.




She's so brave!!!!! Yes, as "is"everyone who lives by the live-by plastic surgery, mythos.
Now you're just being obtuse. If you think this has any relation to most plastic surgeries, you are fooling yourself.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

To think that ANY woman would use breast cancer as a ruse to get a boob job is just the most cynical and unfeeling thing I can imagine.


Perhaps. I've certainly been accused of being cynical more than once, and I can admit that my distaste for her may make me seem as unfeeling in my accusations of her motives. However, I threw my suggestion out there for consideration all the same. I suppose we'll have to just wait until the premiere of "Salt 2" to see if she was brave or if she's sporting some bigger gals. My intention wasn't to offend...though it obviously was the result. But I don't see this act as "brave" on her part...



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 



Angelina made the brave decision to have the procedure after doctors told her she was a carrier of the BRCA1 cancer gene.

The news was made all the more personal by the fact that Angelina lost her mother Marcheline Bertrand to ovarian cancer when she was just 56.


Her Dr. told her she had a 87% chance of getting cancer.

L ink

Lot's of people get cancer in every career field, I don't think there is a higher % of actors dying of it. And it flies in the face of the theory of a super-secret cancer cure. No rich person would die of cancer if it were true.



1 wishes her the best with dealing with learning of the potential dangers and then taking whatever precautions she and her docs felt was best for her health to advance. She seems to resonate on a positive vibration from what 1 has observed.

Good Luck

LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Well, IF she had a nose job and botox but was quiet about it, why wouldn't she just have the breast surgery quietly?

She didn't lie about her mother dying of ovarian cancer. I doubt very seriously she is lying about having the genetic marker for high risk cancer. So, it only makes sense that she decided to have the double mastectomy. Whether she had it now or 6 years ago - what difference does it make if she's not lying about her high risk of cancer? Even if she was waiting until her breasts started to fall, what's the crime in that? At age 37, she's still getting it done way before her mother got the ovarian cancer (in her late 40's). People admire her for telling everyone about it and letting women know they have options other than having to wear falsies in their bra. She's not the first celebrity to have it done, but she's a big movie star that lots of people pay attention to. She could have been embarrassed about it and just kept it a secret, but she didn't. Kudos to her for that.

Bah, you're an insensitive male. You probably think women who are raped did something to deserve it.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 



Originally posted by Gazrok
3. She's known about the risk factor for SIX YEARS.


How do you know when she had the genetic testing done?

Her first surgery was in February, followed by two others. Are you suggesting that she had three surgeries on her breasts just so she could look better and appeal to men more and make more money???? As if she NEEDS more attention and she and Brad NEED more money? You think she's that insecure? As if she doesn't already have all the attention from men (and women) than ANY person could hope for?

MANY women have this operation because of cancer risk. We just never hear about them. Just because she's famous, doesn't mean she did it for fame. Jesus! I can't believe the position you're taking here.



I just don't see elective surgery that will improve your looks as being "brave"....


I don't either, but there's no indication that that's what's taken place here.


What I despise is the way she's being hailed as some kind of hero for this.


She is a hero. Just because you've decided that she did this basically for money, without ANY evidence, doesn't make it true.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I feel like there is a major aspect of this being overlooked. Women with this particular marker are at a greatly elevated risk for breast AND ovarian cancer. The preemptive approach is not just about reducing the risk of breast cancer. Breast cancer is generally very treatable.

HOWEVER, when a person is faced with TWO forms of cancer (in this instance, breast AND ovarian), the survival rates drop IMMENSELY. Its often simply far too much for the body to handle. So this approach is taken, which studies suggest reduces the risk of breast cancer exponentially. That way, if the person DOES end up with ovarian cancer, its a much less strenuous (though still horrific) treatment. Some of the stuff I have read suggests that this approach ALSO reduces the risk of ovarian cancer in this particular group, though, I have yet to see some real numbers on it.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Gazrok
 



Originally posted by Gazrok
I seriously doubt she's getting full tissue removal, but instead opting for the version in which they leave the outside intact.


The skin covering the breast is irrelevant. The breast tissue is the blood vessels, lymph vessels, lymph nodes, lobules, fat, ducts, and sometimes muscle that lie underneath the skin. That is the breast, not the skin covering it. And to go in there and scrape that all out is a delicate operation (not to mention VERY painful), much more so than an incision and implantation.



I may come off as insensitive to this, but I wonder how many women would feel differently if it was a woman they despise, such as Britney Spears, doing this, rather than Angelina Jolie. Would they be so quick to deny my accusation? Or, would they jump on the bandwagon? Hmm....


So, you have jumped on this particular bandwagon because you despise her and simply cannot think objectively.

Just so you know, if Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann had made this announcement, I would have immediate and unwavering support, sympathy and sensitivity for them ON THIS ISSUE. Not being able to separate my feelings about them from the critical issue of breast cancer, would say something about me that I would be highly embarrassed to admit. To think that ANY woman would use breast cancer as a ruse to get a boob job is just the most cynical and unfeeling thing I can imagine.
edit on 5/15/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


BH, thank you for providing a much needed post of sanity to this thread, along with some others who understand the real world rather than what they see in their basement view.

Some disturbing comments on here really does make me wonder about the state of the posters on ATS but you have been - along with others such as k21968 - a breath of hope.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Now picture someone with the same outtlook and has not the funds to do this...
Oh angela is such a sweet woman, yeah right

Never liked the woman and never will...



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by drneville
Now picture someone with the same outtlook and has not the funds to do this...
Oh angela is such a sweet woman, yeah right

Never liked the woman and never will...



Insurance covers it if you have the extremely high risk genetic marker. It's cheaper for the insurance companies to pay for the surgery than to pay for all the cancer treatments.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by drneville
Now picture someone with the same outtlook and has not the funds to do this...
Oh angela is such a sweet woman, yeah right

Never liked the woman and never will...



Insurance covers it if you have the extremely high risk genetic marker. It's cheaper for the insurance companies to pay for the surgery than to pay for all the cancer treatments.


That is an issue for those on here in America. In most European countries you would not have to pay for such surgery.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by drneville
Now picture someone with the same outtlook and has not the funds to do this...
Oh angela is such a sweet woman, yeah right

Never liked the woman and never will...



That is quite pathetic isn't it? Do you not think the answer is to look at (and I assume you are American) how treatments are funded? Is it one persons fault that your system expects you to pay to stay alive?

If you don't like a person then does that mean she should choose to not have treatment that will save her life?

Mad is the right word, only it's the one that may be shouting at you the next time you look in the mirror.






top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join