March 13, 2018 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
14:07
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Welcome back, special edition of the Robert Scott Bell Show here, and we're following the ongoing controversy of Angelina Jolie's example to have women lopping off their body parts, even if they're not sick or cancerous, and now we find that men are doing it too. | |
| Yes, men are stupid. | |
| Well, we already knew that, but really? | |
| Really? | |
| Well, to follow up on this and the backlash and a whole lot more, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, is back with us in our new time slot between 3 and 5 p.m. | |
| Eastern Time, every day on Natural News Radio. | |
| Mike, welcome back, my friend. | |
| Hi there, Robert. | |
| Thanks for having me back on. | |
| Yeah, this story is developing quite rapidly and there are two things that have come out just now. | |
| One is that, yeah, a man in the UK has had his prostate gland surgically cut out even though he has no prostate cancer. | |
| So he did this because he has the breast cancer gene mutation made famous yet again by Angelina Jolie. | |
| Now, I know people out there listening are thinking, well, that doesn't make any sense. | |
| He has a breast cancer gene mutation, so he removes his prostate gland. | |
| Well, None of this makes any sense. | |
| And the prostate gland, by the way, you need that. | |
| It's supposed to be in there. | |
| If you don't have that, number one, you're going to have problems with controlling your urine, incontinence, in other words. | |
| You're going to have sexual problems as well. | |
| That's no fun. | |
| Not pleasant at all for men that they would do this and to think he was just trying to get a date with Angelina Jolie. | |
| No, no. | |
| I mean, what was he thinking? | |
| He wasn't. | |
| And this is where, you know, I speculate that alien life comes down, looks at these humans and goes, there's no intelligent life here except for the animals because they're not stupid enough to cut out their body parts. | |
| When they're not even sick! | |
| Well, speaking of that, now I know the real story behind the cattle mutilations that have been credited to the little green men from outer space. | |
| It turns out it was just breast cancer surgeons practicing for Angelina Jolie's new pregnancy. | |
| We are rolling right here, right now with Mike Adams on the Robert Scott Belt. | |
| So we figured out the cattle mutilation and it does relate to Angelina Jolie, People Magazine, Time Magazine. | |
| Listen, we going back through this and this I remember one of our original interviews on the subject got banned by YouTube, had to be put, you know, only on naturalnews.tv because we were hitting so close to the facts and the truth about this matter related to genetic patents, patents on human genes, ownership of you, me, everybody, all of life. | |
| The U.S. Patent Office evidently says, yep, that's right. | |
| We own you. | |
| We can we can approve it. | |
| They banned – YouTube banned our discussion about corporate ownership of human genes, and not only did they ban it – and it's still banned, by the way – but they put a label on the banning of it saying it was, quote, scams, spams, or commercially deceptive. | |
| So they said that our discussion of corporations claiming intellectual property ownership over human genes was somehow commercially deceptive. | |
| How's that for a complete 180 on reality? | |
| Yeah, and I speculated too. | |
| I was like, really? | |
| Of all the things we could have been discussing to get banned on, there was no discussion of any violent, pornographic anything. | |
| I mean, literally, it was an intelligent, intellectual discussion, speculating based on what we know, what we've learned, reading about how the press operates, how press releases are done, how language is utilized, how it sounds, yet that isn't too close to the bone for them. | |
| Yeah, apparently, you can't have a real discussion about corporate ownership over human genes. | |
| But let's get to the other breaking news today, which is that there's a big backlash now growing against Angelina Jolie by women who are calling her double mastectomy procedure an elitist procedure that's affordable only by the ultra rich. | |
| You see, Jolie, she's got obviously millions and millions of dollars. | |
| She can take months off of work. | |
| She can undergo hugely expensive reconstructive cosmetic breast surgery that isn't accessible to other hardworking everyday women who can't who can't pay half a million dollars out of pocket. | |
| They can't take two or three months off of work. | |
| So this procedure, this double mastectomy is being perceived as an elitist, ultra rich, you know, one percent maybe of the of the women in this country can really afford to have it done right. | |
| Everyday women can't do it, and yet Jolie is trying to push it as a women's rights issue by calling it her choice, you know, invoking the choice language. | |
| Well, unless this was covered by Obamacare, there's going to be back-alley mastectomies. | |
| Right? | |
| That's where this is going. | |
| Of course, what we covered before, which was huge that you found out, that the Obamacare actually will cover the gene testing, the BRCA 1 and 2 testing, which is three to four grand a pop, which, again, is an elitist test because how many Americans at this point can actually afford to just pay that kind of money out of pocket? | |
| Well, that's right. | |
| Right now it's not covered by insurance, but it will be soon under Obamacare. | |
| But that is a handout to the corporation known as Myriad Genetics, which owns the patent on those genes. | |
| And every time you even test your own genetic code for that gene, you have to pay a royalty to that company in Utah. | |
| And that's why every test costs $3,000 to $4,000 when it should cost about $100. | |
| So there's about a A $2,900, maybe a $3,900 monopoly royalty payoff that you've got to pay to that company to test your own genetic code. | |
| How's that? | |
| Yeah, it's absolutely unaffordable, but that is the corporatism. | |
| It's corporate welfare, but it really plays into the Supreme Court decision pending, which is why all of this seems to be suspicious. | |
| No, it is suspicious in the way this whole Jolie PR stunt was rolled out. | |
| And we were attacked initially. | |
| You were certainly by stating these facts at the beginning or our perception of what the facts were at that time. | |
| And I think we're more right than ever again, as evidenced by the banning. | |
| Now, the good news is the folks seemingly on our side saying, no, no, this is this is not right. | |
| This is just not right. | |
| Well, it was a big synchronized PR rollout from day one. | |
| People Magazine, New York Times op-ed, Angelina Jolie giving interviews, and then Time Magazine cover. | |
| All of this was timed to coincide all at once. | |
| So it was a carefully constructed, engineered PR campaign Even the language of Joe Lee's op-ed in the New York Times was very carefully crafted. | |
| You could tell by reading it. | |
| Even Brad Pitt's quotes were very carefully – it looks like he was coached on what to say to keep it super positive. | |
| This was a big PR push. | |
| I was supposed to get women behind this by invoking the choice word to say, oh, hey, it's my choice to have an abortion? | |
| Well, it's my choice to have a double mastectomy. | |
| It's my choice. | |
| Women power. | |
| I'm going to exercise my power as a woman by cutting off my breasts. | |
| Yes, Angelina, we love you. | |
| That was what it was supposed to be. | |
| It has failed. | |
| The backlash is on. | |
| The critics, such as you and I, are pointing out the ridiculousness of surgically removing organs that don't have any symptoms of disease. | |
| It's a violation of human rights, of women's rights, and of reproductive rights. | |
| And it's medical insanity. | |
| It's bad medicine from the outset. | |
| And, of course, the absurdity of even if an organ is diseased, the idea that you must pull it out instead of nursing it back to health. | |
| It's still another foreign concept to what has become allopathic monopoly medicine, sanctioned by government. | |
| And it is an insane thing, even if in the case of cancer being present. | |
| So that kind of treatment, though, is not sanctioned or condoned. | |
| So the doctors that would do that are often marginalized, ridiculed, sometimes losing their license simply because they won't cut slash burn or radiate. | |
| Yeah, that's that's crazy. | |
| But if you look at recent pictures of Angelina Jolie. | |
| There's another reason why she might get breast cancer, and that's because she looks pale. | |
| She's not getting enough sunlight, so she's almost certainly vitamin D deficient. | |
| Now, if you're vitamin D deficient, you will grow cancer tumors. | |
| Vitamin D prevents four out of five cancers of all types, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, skin cancer, you name it. | |
| So the fact that she's running around almost certainly vitamin D deficient and then cutting off her breasts just shows you how ignorant she is about self-care. | |
| She needs to be boosting her nutrition and keeping her body intact and healthy so she doesn't have scar tissue. | |
| She doesn't have nerve damage. | |
| She doesn't remove lymph nodes that are crucial for immune function. | |
| And she doesn't undergo anesthesia, which is a risk all by itself. | |
| Many people undergo these procedures and they die on the operating table. | |
| Sure, the anesthesia is that risky. | |
| Now, by the way, I realize, and Mike does too, that those that are opposing this based on economic grounds may not understand the depth of what we're trying to relate to you about the physiological realities and even the genetic things that we've called into question about genetic causation. | |
| Just yesterday I had Dr. Nick Gonzalez, a brilliant medical doctor, talking about this very issue. | |
| These are the things we cover here on Natural News, Natural News Radio, and the Robert Scott Bell Show. | |
| But there's a bigger issue, and that is this whole ownership of life, the patenting of life. | |
| How is it possible that a government, even the Supreme Court, could have the authority to rule on your property, your genes, your genetic code? | |
| Well, this is another insanity that has to stop because these companies claim to have invented your genes. | |
| That's what a patent covers is an invention. | |
| Well, how can they have invented your genes when these human genes have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, long before corporations? | |
| So you can't invent something that's been around for eons. | |
| You know, thousands of generations of humans have had these genes. | |
| So at the outset, it's ludicrous. | |
| But of course, it's a big government handout to the corporations. | |
| But if they continue down this road, Robert... | |
| They're going to patent your eye color. | |
| They're going to patent your hair color. | |
| They're going to patent other body parts, ears, hands, feet, noses, breasts, testicles. | |
| They're going to patent your penis, Robert. | |
| Oh, good Lord. | |
| No, no. | |
| My wife says it's enough. | |
| All right. | |
| All right. | |
| Hey, new hair color by L'Oreal. | |
| Genetics that you can count on, but we own you. | |
| So yeah, it's changing everything. | |
| It's so absurd what we're dealing with here, but it's very real. | |
| Now, in the Natural News article you wrote as well about this, you said that 20% of the genes are already owned by universities and corporations. | |
| How does that mean that 100% is owned? | |
| Explain that to everybody. | |
| 100% of your body is owned by the government because the government claims the right to then dish out ownership to corporations that apply for patents. | |
| So the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office claims the authority to hand out ownership over your genes to private companies implies, it means, it proves that the Patent Office believes it has 100% ownership over your entire genetic code. | |
| Yeah, that is an important distinction to make because some folks don't understand. | |
| Well, if it's 20, how do they honor? | |
| But the very fact that they claim that they can do this means that they own it or they perceive and believe that they own it. | |
| And it isn't about begging Obama or any representative or senator to say, please don't let them own me. | |
| There's got to be something more to do. | |
| Well, I think we're headed for a genetic revolution. | |
| Now, the Monsanto issue is really the same thing. | |
| Monsanto claims intellectual property monopolies, i.e. | |
| patents over food-producing crops, that it engineers. | |
| But at least in Monsanto's case, it actually does create something that didn't exist in nature. | |
| It actually does engineer some bizarre combination of insect and corn genes put together, or soil bacteria genes in the case of GM corn. | |
| But this idea that corporations can patent a gene that you already have in your body that has existed for thousands of generations, now that has no justification for claiming that some corporation invented that. | |
| So the argument falls flat. | |
| Now, if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with us on this point and it disallows these patents in a key decision that's expected in June, then that would put a huge – that would basically implode the human gene patenting industry. | |
| Well, the question is, how much power do they hold sway? | |
| How much do they do? | |
| How much do they lobby to get this thing? | |
| Is the fix in? | |
| And that was the question we asked when we saw this whole Jolie PR stunt. | |
| Is the fix in? | |
| Now, they could stimulate, as you said, genetic revolution. | |
| Because how many people at that point will say, no, that's too far. | |
| I mean, we've kind of allowed us. | |
| You can raise the temperature this much. | |
| Okay, we're not going to do anything. | |
| What's that point? | |
| What is that breaking point? | |
| And, of course, the genetic ownership of you and your children may be that breaking point. | |
| Well, my point is that even the Supreme Court has no authority over this issue. | |
| Correct. | |
| Government has no claim to your genetic code. | |
| Government has no claim to seeds. | |
| This is a universal law. | |
| This is between you and the creator, and that's it. | |
| So even the Supreme Court even ruling on this – I mean I guess it has to for practical reasons, but it has no authority over this. | |
| And we the people may have to stand up and actually fight for a new right, maybe in a new Bill of Rights amendment that is the right to own our own genes. | |
| Yeah, exactly. | |
| Or you can stand prostateless with Angelina Jolie in favor of eugenics. | |
| But not here, not now, not ever. | |
| Not on the Robert Scott Bell Show, not on Natural News. | |
| And I would encourage you all to catch up on the news, if you haven't already, every day on naturalnews.com. | |
| Right here on robertscottbell.com. | |
| Robert Scott Bell Show, now 3 to 5 in the afternoon Eastern time and downloads for free through the archives at Natural News Radio. | |
| We appreciate you being here, Mike, as always, covering the news like nowhere else in media. | |
| This is a message of health, freedom, and healing liberty that we need to just let loose on all the time. | |
| Absolutely. | |
| Thanks, Robert. | |
| Thanks for being here. |
Export Selection