EXPOSED: Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion)

I found this article thought provoking and somewhat chilling.


Thursday, May 16, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of

This is the investigation the mainstream media refuses to touch. Here, I explain the corporate financial ties, investors, mergers, human gene patents, lawsuits, medical fear mongering and the trillions of dollars that are at stake here. If you pull back the curtain on this one, you find far more than an innocent looking woman exercising a “choice.” This is about protecting trillions in profits through the deployment of carefully-crafted public relations campaigns designed to manipulate the public opinion of women.

The signs were all there from the beginning of the scheme: Angelina Jolie’s highly polished and obviously corporate-written op-ed piece at the New York Times, the carefully-crafted talking points invoking “choice” as a politically-charged keyword, and the obvious coaching of even her husband Brad Pitt who carefully describes the entire experience using words like “stronger” and “pride” and “family.”

But the smoking gun is the fact that Angelina Jolie’s seemingly spontaneous announcement magically appeared on the cover of People Magazine this week — a magazine that is usually finalized for publication three weeks before it appears on newsstands. That cover, not surprisingly, uses the same language found in the NYT op-ed piece: “HER BRAVE CHOICE” and “This was the right thing to do.” The flowery, pro-choice language is not a coincidence.

What this proves is that Angelina’s Jolie’s announcement was a well-planned corporate P.R. campaign with carefully-crafted messages designed to influence public opinion. But what could Jolie be seeking to influence?

…how about trillions of dollars in corporate profits?  MORE

Then I found this article:

Angelina Jolie’s decision to undergo a preventative double mastectomy has put the spotlight on Myriad Genetics, the only company in the world that conducts genetic tests for breast cancer.

…In fact, Myriad (MYGN) has a patent for the BRCA gene, a fact which is now at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court case. That patent means Myriad is the only company that can administer tests for the BRCA genes, which suppress cancerous tumors. When mutations are discovered in the BRCA gene, they could indicate a high risk of breast cancer. Testing for BRCA mutations serves as powerful tools for women in deciding whether to undergo preventative mastectomies to try to curtail the emergence of potentially fatal cancer.

The Association of Molecular Pathology, the American Civil Liberties Union and other petitioners have challenged Myriad in the U.S. Supreme Court over its patent, which the ACLU refers to as “unconstitutional and invalid.”

Mary Steele Williams, executive director for the Association for Molecular Pathology, said in a statement last year that patents on genes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, “grant diagnostic test monopolies to commercial companies.” She said these companies often compile their findings in “proprietary databases to which the medical community lacks access.”

The court heard arguments on April 15 and a decision is pending.

Myriad spokesman Ron Rogers said that BRCA genetic tests cost $4,000. But he added that 95% of those undergoing tests are insured, meaning that patients either pay nothing, or are only responsible for a co-payment.

He said that coverage for the test has expanded since the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was enacted last year. Under the law, genetic testing is classified as a preventative measure.  MORE

The question that pops into my mind is:

A.  Who has the rights to my genes?  Do I have to pay some royalty if I have a gene that some company has patented?  What if my child is born with it? Do I pay a royalty fee for that?

B. Is everyone going to undergo genetic testing?  Would that data be used to deny medical procedures because there is a certain percentage chance that person will die and that puts them over the thresh hold for care?  I mean, why pay for an expensive surgery if you are not likely to live past the age of 30?  Death panels will simply say it’s not a wise use of the government’s money.  Or you just get put at the bottom of a list for surgery because you have some flawed gene. Or what if you carry some marker and the government determines you should not have children or might get cancer later in life.  Would they mandate you undergo surgery for sterilization or a mastectomy or hysterectomy to prevent cancer which is a more costly therapy?

Some might say I am really going off the deep end thinking or asking such questions, but at one point in our past we would have never thought of cutting the spinal cord and sucking the brains out of an unborn baby at the 9th month of it’s mother’s pregnancy.  Yet, that is exactly what is happening all over America.  Deliver the child and do it and it’s murder, but prevent that child from taking it’s first breath and it’s just a late term abortion.

Eventually, we will answer for all of our choices.



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s