Thank you for the thoughtful engagement with this essay. A few reflections on the comments:
To Aliss and Loiseau — Your stories are exactly why this piece exists. Aliss, your 25-year survival after refusing conventional treatment is not an anomaly to be explained away. It's data. Loiseau, your mother and her identical twin — same genes, different outcomes — is the penetrance problem in human form. These stories deserve to be part of the evidence base, not dismissed as anecdotes.
To Erika — I appreciate you sharing your family's experience in such detail. Five generations is significant, and I'm genuinely glad you and your mother are alive and well.
I want to be clear about what this essay argues and what it doesn't:
It does not argue that women with strong multi-generational family histories like yours should ignore that history. It does not argue that surgery never makes sense for anyone. It does not argue that you made the wrong decision for yourself.
It argues that the foundational research does not prove what the public was told it proves — that a variant causes cancer rather than associating with it in pre-selected families. It argues that risk figures derived from statistical outliers (families like yours) were applied to women with very different profiles. It argues that 35-55% non-penetrance demands explanation, and that explanation was never adequately pursued. It argues that financial incentives shaped which questions got funded.
You note that your doctors acknowledged environmental factors and the 35% non-penetrance figure. That's better than what many women receive. The BMJ study I cited found women estimating 80% risk when their computed risk was 12%. The machinery failed them. It may not have failed you.
The question I'm raising is not whether you should have made a different choice. It's whether the women being counseled today — especially those without your family history — are being given accurate information about what the science actually shows.
On the deeper question — The framing paragraph notes that this essay engages the genetic framework on its own terms without endorsing it. For those interested in why that caveat exists, see my interview with Jamie Andrews which examines the foundations of DNA theory itself.
On Angelina Jolie — Several of you have raised questions about whether the surgery actually occurred. I don't know. What I do know is that her op-ed shaped the decisions of thousands of women who trusted that the science behind her choice was sound. Whether she had the surgery or not, they did.
Thank you for reading, and for sharing your stories. The women who've lived this — on all sides — know things the papers don't capture.
This has been part of a long-planned assault and destruction of womankind. Deliberate and most evil. Imagine being so demonic that you’d try to destroy what gives birth to you. Mother nature too.
I am the only woman I know who had breast cancer and refused to even allow node sampling during surgery (partial mastectomy). I was 47 with young children. I have had ONE mammogram that did not even find the palpable tumour - after I just had needle biopsy confirming malignant cells. My maternal grandmother had premature ovarian failure, probably PCOS, and died of metastatic breast cancer at age 49 after horrific radiation effects, but I refused genetic testing. I simply never believed in the genetic prediction myth. I think cancer is an environmental toxin effect, so I acted as I believed and cleaned up my external and internal environment to the best of my ability and finances. I was told I'd be dead in 3-5 years if I didn't agree to radiation, tamoxifen or raloxifene, consider chemo, consider full mastectomy or even preventive mastectomy on the other breast, even ovary removal, consider enrolling in their drug trial, and of course get regular mammograms and MRI. I am clearly alive and well 25 years later having done none of these. The surgeon and oncologist refused to accept me for annual follow up, saying they weren't going to waste time on a patient who wasn't going to take their advice. They did not want to know about successful alternatives. I went to local patient support groups for several years but stopped, because so many of the wonderful women I got to know, who had faithfully done everything their doctors advised, died anyway.
My mother was an identical twin. Her twin was diagnosed with breast cancer at about 48 or 49 years old and had a radical mastectomy. She seemed to be cancer free for about 10-12 years, then had a recurrence (after a stressful situation that my mother always believed caused the recurrence) and died at age 60. My mother never developed cancer and died at age 93.
Did A. Jolie really have her breasts removed or did she and the media say she did? I find it astonishing that she needed only 3 days to recover after a double mastectomy. I think she was part of the psyop.
I have long wondered if AJ did not actually have her breasts removed, whether it was just a pschop for some other reason. Note that the same year she came out with her news (2013) is the exact year that the Supreme Court invalidated the gene patents, so Myriad stood to lose alot if there was no surge in numbers of women getting tested and having mastectomy. Could be coincidence but maybe not.
it always helps to have a big celebrity (esp a woman known for her beauty) promote a new incredibly disfiguring surgery (double mastectomy) to scared impressionable women. i remember feeling sad, appalled (and incredulous) that angelina had done that to herself. it was only later when they started rolling out celebrities for the covid psyop, starting with tom & rita hanks - who supposedly "came down with covid" in march 2020 after a trip to indonesia - that i pieced it together. actually the hanks announcement elicited my first concrete suspicions about the bizarre covid narrative.
And due to this red door young women have their breasts cut off. I wish all articles had 'explain it to a 6 year old' because that shows the absurdity of quite a few medical errors.
Excellent article summarizing the fallacies of modern medicine. The sad reality of stifled information in a world of high speed data is intentional greed.
Good ol Dr. Drew admitted he gets colonoscopies yearly due to Lynch type syndrome. ….. and how much is the wellness co stuff ? Medical education is broken. 😞
Also worth noting, these women, and women in general, are not being told that they should be supplementing liberally with iodine to prevent breast cancer, as ingesting plenty of iodine has been shown to markedly reduce the risk of breast cancer (epidemiologically, via comparison to the Japanese, who consume far more iodine than the rest of the world) and through fundamental research as well.
I know that you are a skeptic of supplementation. And women could get these greater iodine amounts via eating seaweed, as the Japanese do. But this is an example of a nutrient for which supplementation has proven to be beneficial. The soil in some regions is known to be deficient, for example the U.S. Midwest was known as the goiter belt. Though we would have less need to supplement if we weren't being poisoned so badly, but here we are!
I read this article with interest because the BRCA1 gene has played a starring role in my family. At age 29 (and pregnant) I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Testing found that I carried the same BRCA1 variant my mother had…she was, at that time a 5 year survivor of breast cancer. Our tumors were in the same axilliary tail of our left breasts and close to the same size & stage. Her mother before her died in the early 90s (before the Myraid gene test I believe) after ‘breast cancer’ was found in her ovaries, treatment put her in remission only for her axilliary tail of her left breast to have a tumor discovered in it. After mastectomy she did chemo & was again told she was in remission only for her right breast to develop a tumor that was actually only one of many since her cancer had metastatized (I can’t spell today, sorry) to her liver, bones, and brain. She died within 3 years of her first diagnosis at age 58. Her mother had died in her 40s in Germany with ‘female cancer’ as had her mother before her. All told, I am the 5th generation of breast cancer in my maternal line…only one of two that survived. I’m now 16 years cancer free and my mother is 21 years cancer free. Both of us not only did chemo but also had bilateral mastectomies based on our family history and genetic testing.
In this whole many year process, I was never presented my genetic status the way you frame it. The risks were laid out with the chance of no cancer in the 34% region you indicate. Doctors, surgeons, & genetic counselors were very clear saying they weren’t sure why my cancer popped up at such a young age because environmental factors could definitely influence the timing or even presence of cancer in someone like me. My older brother was tested for the gene & when it was discovered he had the same variant as my mother and myself, he began surveillance for male breast cancer and associated male cancers. As far as I know, he was also presented with the 35% chance you won’t get cancer because of environmental and other unknown genetic factors. So far, he has been cancer free.
In my experience, my risk for further cancer related to my BRCA1 variant was outlined clearly as high risk because of our family history as well as genetic status, but unknown overall because of what doctors & scientists don’t know about why some people get it & others do. I actually had to fight to have my ovaries & tubes removed at age 30 because they told me the risk was much less than for a recurrent breast cancer. However, I chose to go ahead with removal because I couldn’t take the unknown of being diagnosed with cancer while pregnant again. Plus my ovaries were already revolting on their own with PCOS, endometriosis, & multiple miscarriages that became more life-threatening the more I had. I mourn the loss of my breasts, ovaries, tubes, and uterus (emergency surgery to remove those because of a ruptured abscess). However, I feel that even with the weird complications I had from my many surgeries and treatments I made the best decision for me & my family. That pregnancy during my breast cancer has developed into my 16 year old daughter who is talented in school, the arts (ballet and drawing/painting), singing, and horseback riding. With my family history, I wanted to live to see her not only born, but also grow up…and I have been able to do so. It is unknown whether I would have been able to do so had I not sought the aggressive treatment I did. She will probably be tested as a young adult, not to have a prophylactic mastectomy, but to adjust her surveillance and environmental triggers that could increase her risk.
I guess this long comment is meant to show that BRCA1 testing and counseling isn’t always as you portray it. Some doctors & scientists give their patients the full picture, even admitting the unknowns so their patients can make the best decision for themselves. I would hesitate to throw this test under the bus or out with the bathwater simply because I am confident my continued survival relied on the information doctors and scientists gave me. I made the choice to pursue chemo while pregnant (at the time they’d been doing it for 20 years with no complications), more chemo after delivery, & surgery to remove the parts of me that were trying to kill me. Perhaps I’m one of those outliers because of my strong family history. I just know that having the genetic testing answered some questions about my family history and gave us more knowledge to survive beyond our ancestors. My mom is almost 70, and has out survived her own mother by 12 years despite being diagnosed with her cancer at a younger age (48 versus my grandmother’s age of 58). Again, without the aggressive treatment recommended to us based on both our family history and genetic status, we’re unsure she would still be around to see her grand children hit adulthood.
yep, an' I'm still convinced Miz Jolie still has her "girls"....an' others follerin' her "noble lead" ain't got thars... 'tis so even if AJ was "compelled" ta shill (as I do think wuz the case).... End result either way's turribly tragic (an' all young gals--even teens--need ta be aware as there's $$$ fer dokturds that'll push the tests...an' the proFITa'bull...results ;-(
I agree, the pics in you article of AJ are very revealing....as one can't see any scars. Not so with regular folks (and young girls) who got their's removed and reconstructed.... so much visible scarring.
an' they'll never be able ta breastfeed...by the time they'll be old enuf ta recognize their profound loss...'tis so sick, turns mah stomick (but then again, as I covered in mah stack, it pushes the trans agenda...which erases those bee-u-tee-full bonds 'tween mothers & children an' promotes male chest-feeders)... yep, the "speed" at which AJ "recovered" is impossible too... all a show but sadly such a destructive one...an' the myth of preventative hackin' is a long lastin' tragic reality...
“A mutation implies something broken, damaged, pathological. It carries causal weight. But what the researchers actually observed were sequence variations—DNA that differs from an arbitrarily defined reference standard.”
Might it be an adaptation or compensation variation/mutation?
Author's Note
Thank you for the thoughtful engagement with this essay. A few reflections on the comments:
To Aliss and Loiseau — Your stories are exactly why this piece exists. Aliss, your 25-year survival after refusing conventional treatment is not an anomaly to be explained away. It's data. Loiseau, your mother and her identical twin — same genes, different outcomes — is the penetrance problem in human form. These stories deserve to be part of the evidence base, not dismissed as anecdotes.
To Erika — I appreciate you sharing your family's experience in such detail. Five generations is significant, and I'm genuinely glad you and your mother are alive and well.
I want to be clear about what this essay argues and what it doesn't:
It does not argue that women with strong multi-generational family histories like yours should ignore that history. It does not argue that surgery never makes sense for anyone. It does not argue that you made the wrong decision for yourself.
It argues that the foundational research does not prove what the public was told it proves — that a variant causes cancer rather than associating with it in pre-selected families. It argues that risk figures derived from statistical outliers (families like yours) were applied to women with very different profiles. It argues that 35-55% non-penetrance demands explanation, and that explanation was never adequately pursued. It argues that financial incentives shaped which questions got funded.
You note that your doctors acknowledged environmental factors and the 35% non-penetrance figure. That's better than what many women receive. The BMJ study I cited found women estimating 80% risk when their computed risk was 12%. The machinery failed them. It may not have failed you.
The question I'm raising is not whether you should have made a different choice. It's whether the women being counseled today — especially those without your family history — are being given accurate information about what the science actually shows.
On the deeper question — The framing paragraph notes that this essay engages the genetic framework on its own terms without endorsing it. For those interested in why that caveat exists, see my interview with Jamie Andrews which examines the foundations of DNA theory itself.
On Angelina Jolie — Several of you have raised questions about whether the surgery actually occurred. I don't know. What I do know is that her op-ed shaped the decisions of thousands of women who trusted that the science behind her choice was sound. Whether she had the surgery or not, they did.
Thank you for reading, and for sharing your stories. The women who've lived this — on all sides — know things the papers don't capture.
— Unbekoming
Best report I've read this year !
Best report on this topic that I've read in 4 decades !!
Absolutely love the "Explaining It to a Six-Year-Old".
--- This is definitely the section to read over and again, as I simply cannot believe that they were so stupid. Sorry to be blunt.
--- It makes me tearful that there are many people I can show this report to, but most of them will simply not want to believe it.
.
New here. Which report are you referring to?
Never mind, I see it is linked.
especially the ones who had it done.
This has been part of a long-planned assault and destruction of womankind. Deliberate and most evil. Imagine being so demonic that you’d try to destroy what gives birth to you. Mother nature too.
I am the only woman I know who had breast cancer and refused to even allow node sampling during surgery (partial mastectomy). I was 47 with young children. I have had ONE mammogram that did not even find the palpable tumour - after I just had needle biopsy confirming malignant cells. My maternal grandmother had premature ovarian failure, probably PCOS, and died of metastatic breast cancer at age 49 after horrific radiation effects, but I refused genetic testing. I simply never believed in the genetic prediction myth. I think cancer is an environmental toxin effect, so I acted as I believed and cleaned up my external and internal environment to the best of my ability and finances. I was told I'd be dead in 3-5 years if I didn't agree to radiation, tamoxifen or raloxifene, consider chemo, consider full mastectomy or even preventive mastectomy on the other breast, even ovary removal, consider enrolling in their drug trial, and of course get regular mammograms and MRI. I am clearly alive and well 25 years later having done none of these. The surgeon and oncologist refused to accept me for annual follow up, saying they weren't going to waste time on a patient who wasn't going to take their advice. They did not want to know about successful alternatives. I went to local patient support groups for several years but stopped, because so many of the wonderful women I got to know, who had faithfully done everything their doctors advised, died anyway.
My mother was an identical twin. Her twin was diagnosed with breast cancer at about 48 or 49 years old and had a radical mastectomy. She seemed to be cancer free for about 10-12 years, then had a recurrence (after a stressful situation that my mother always believed caused the recurrence) and died at age 60. My mother never developed cancer and died at age 93.
You would think someone like Jolie who has a lot of money would have someone look into it before jumping on the new "discovery".
She could have also looked into alternative treatments. We know about some of them that are dirt cheap.
https://fenbendazole.substack.com/
I bet she thinks vaccines are safe too. If anything, that's what give many cancer as injecting foreign and toxic crap into the body cannot be good.
A lot of money but also very little doubt in the system.
The irony is that she was sort of a rebel and was open to alternative things. But she didn't question the white coats and pharma mafia?
Did A. Jolie really have her breasts removed or did she and the media say she did? I find it astonishing that she needed only 3 days to recover after a double mastectomy. I think she was part of the psyop.
I have long wondered if AJ did not actually have her breasts removed, whether it was just a pschop for some other reason. Note that the same year she came out with her news (2013) is the exact year that the Supreme Court invalidated the gene patents, so Myriad stood to lose alot if there was no surge in numbers of women getting tested and having mastectomy. Could be coincidence but maybe not.
it always helps to have a big celebrity (esp a woman known for her beauty) promote a new incredibly disfiguring surgery (double mastectomy) to scared impressionable women. i remember feeling sad, appalled (and incredulous) that angelina had done that to herself. it was only later when they started rolling out celebrities for the covid psyop, starting with tom & rita hanks - who supposedly "came down with covid" in march 2020 after a trip to indonesia - that i pieced it together. actually the hanks announcement elicited my first concrete suspicions about the bizarre covid narrative.
And due to this red door young women have their breasts cut off. I wish all articles had 'explain it to a 6 year old' because that shows the absurdity of quite a few medical errors.
if only they were just "errors".
Excellent article summarizing the fallacies of modern medicine. The sad reality of stifled information in a world of high speed data is intentional greed.
Good ol Dr. Drew admitted he gets colonoscopies yearly due to Lynch type syndrome. ….. and how much is the wellness co stuff ? Medical education is broken. 😞
Dr Drew is a walking asshole. 😂
That's why colon health is crucial for him.
But yeah, how dumb are the people who not only sell us the snake oil but believe in it too??
😂
Excellent analysis.
Also worth noting, these women, and women in general, are not being told that they should be supplementing liberally with iodine to prevent breast cancer, as ingesting plenty of iodine has been shown to markedly reduce the risk of breast cancer (epidemiologically, via comparison to the Japanese, who consume far more iodine than the rest of the world) and through fundamental research as well.
I know that you are a skeptic of supplementation. And women could get these greater iodine amounts via eating seaweed, as the Japanese do. But this is an example of a nutrient for which supplementation has proven to be beneficial. The soil in some regions is known to be deficient, for example the U.S. Midwest was known as the goiter belt. Though we would have less need to supplement if we weren't being poisoned so badly, but here we are!
I read this article with interest because the BRCA1 gene has played a starring role in my family. At age 29 (and pregnant) I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Testing found that I carried the same BRCA1 variant my mother had…she was, at that time a 5 year survivor of breast cancer. Our tumors were in the same axilliary tail of our left breasts and close to the same size & stage. Her mother before her died in the early 90s (before the Myraid gene test I believe) after ‘breast cancer’ was found in her ovaries, treatment put her in remission only for her axilliary tail of her left breast to have a tumor discovered in it. After mastectomy she did chemo & was again told she was in remission only for her right breast to develop a tumor that was actually only one of many since her cancer had metastatized (I can’t spell today, sorry) to her liver, bones, and brain. She died within 3 years of her first diagnosis at age 58. Her mother had died in her 40s in Germany with ‘female cancer’ as had her mother before her. All told, I am the 5th generation of breast cancer in my maternal line…only one of two that survived. I’m now 16 years cancer free and my mother is 21 years cancer free. Both of us not only did chemo but also had bilateral mastectomies based on our family history and genetic testing.
In this whole many year process, I was never presented my genetic status the way you frame it. The risks were laid out with the chance of no cancer in the 34% region you indicate. Doctors, surgeons, & genetic counselors were very clear saying they weren’t sure why my cancer popped up at such a young age because environmental factors could definitely influence the timing or even presence of cancer in someone like me. My older brother was tested for the gene & when it was discovered he had the same variant as my mother and myself, he began surveillance for male breast cancer and associated male cancers. As far as I know, he was also presented with the 35% chance you won’t get cancer because of environmental and other unknown genetic factors. So far, he has been cancer free.
In my experience, my risk for further cancer related to my BRCA1 variant was outlined clearly as high risk because of our family history as well as genetic status, but unknown overall because of what doctors & scientists don’t know about why some people get it & others do. I actually had to fight to have my ovaries & tubes removed at age 30 because they told me the risk was much less than for a recurrent breast cancer. However, I chose to go ahead with removal because I couldn’t take the unknown of being diagnosed with cancer while pregnant again. Plus my ovaries were already revolting on their own with PCOS, endometriosis, & multiple miscarriages that became more life-threatening the more I had. I mourn the loss of my breasts, ovaries, tubes, and uterus (emergency surgery to remove those because of a ruptured abscess). However, I feel that even with the weird complications I had from my many surgeries and treatments I made the best decision for me & my family. That pregnancy during my breast cancer has developed into my 16 year old daughter who is talented in school, the arts (ballet and drawing/painting), singing, and horseback riding. With my family history, I wanted to live to see her not only born, but also grow up…and I have been able to do so. It is unknown whether I would have been able to do so had I not sought the aggressive treatment I did. She will probably be tested as a young adult, not to have a prophylactic mastectomy, but to adjust her surveillance and environmental triggers that could increase her risk.
I guess this long comment is meant to show that BRCA1 testing and counseling isn’t always as you portray it. Some doctors & scientists give their patients the full picture, even admitting the unknowns so their patients can make the best decision for themselves. I would hesitate to throw this test under the bus or out with the bathwater simply because I am confident my continued survival relied on the information doctors and scientists gave me. I made the choice to pursue chemo while pregnant (at the time they’d been doing it for 20 years with no complications), more chemo after delivery, & surgery to remove the parts of me that were trying to kill me. Perhaps I’m one of those outliers because of my strong family history. I just know that having the genetic testing answered some questions about my family history and gave us more knowledge to survive beyond our ancestors. My mom is almost 70, and has out survived her own mother by 12 years despite being diagnosed with her cancer at a younger age (48 versus my grandmother’s age of 58). Again, without the aggressive treatment recommended to us based on both our family history and genetic status, we’re unsure she would still be around to see her grand children hit adulthood.
How celebrities play huge roles in pushing medical agendas.......
https://open.substack.com/pub/thcsofdaisymoses/p/removin-the-girls-we-be-boobies?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
🤗 thx muchly, wuz gonna share my link as (of course) there's a lotta angles to these dangerous curves! ;-)
i followed the link . . . wow . . .flatten the curve - no kidding.
Daisy your article does cover lots of angles in the mutilation of women's bodies!:)
It was the A.J. bit that instantly brought to mind your article.
yep, an' I'm still convinced Miz Jolie still has her "girls"....an' others follerin' her "noble lead" ain't got thars... 'tis so even if AJ was "compelled" ta shill (as I do think wuz the case).... End result either way's turribly tragic (an' all young gals--even teens--need ta be aware as there's $$$ fer dokturds that'll push the tests...an' the proFITa'bull...results ;-(
I agree, the pics in you article of AJ are very revealing....as one can't see any scars. Not so with regular folks (and young girls) who got their's removed and reconstructed.... so much visible scarring.
an' they'll never be able ta breastfeed...by the time they'll be old enuf ta recognize their profound loss...'tis so sick, turns mah stomick (but then again, as I covered in mah stack, it pushes the trans agenda...which erases those bee-u-tee-full bonds 'tween mothers & children an' promotes male chest-feeders)... yep, the "speed" at which AJ "recovered" is impossible too... all a show but sadly such a destructive one...an' the myth of preventative hackin' is a long lastin' tragic reality...
Thank you Unbekoming for this article!!! I shared it with my daughter who had the "bcra gene" test.
Excellent report!
“A mutation implies something broken, damaged, pathological. It carries causal weight. But what the researchers actually observed were sequence variations—DNA that differs from an arbitrarily defined reference standard.”
Might it be an adaptation or compensation variation/mutation?