Rather than a victory for Women’s Heath, the big winner promoted by Ms. Joilie is Myriad Genetics, but read on … especially re the final article linking breast cancer with cleaning products and air fresheners, which unlike the whitewashing of bilateral surgical mutilation, barely raised the slightest response from the mainstream media, nor from the medical science community.~~~~~~~~~
Thursday, May 16, 2013
EXPOSED: Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion) by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger/Editor of NaturalNews.com
Angelina Jolie's announcement of undergoing a double mastectomy (surgically removing both breasts) even though she had no breast cancer is not the innocent, spontaneous, "heroic choice" that has been portrayed in the mainstream media. Natural News has learned it all coincides with a well-timed for-profit corporate P.R. campaign that has been planned for months and just happens to coincide with the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on the viability of the BRCA1 patent.
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?
Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule on patent viability for BRCA1 gene
Angelina Jolie's announcement and all its carefully-crafted language had four notable immediate impacts:
1) It caused women everywhere to be terrified of breast cancer through the publishing of false statistics that drove fear into the hearts of anyone with breasts. (See below for explanation.)
2) It caused women to rush out and seek BRCA1 gene testing procedures. These tests just happen to be patented by a for-profit corporation called "Myriad Genetics." Because of this patent, BRCA1 tests can cost $3,000 - $4,000 each. The testing alone is a multi-billion-dollar market, but only if the patent is upheld in an upcoming Supreme Court decision (see below).
3) It caused the stock price of Myriad Genetics (MYGN) to skyrocket to a 52-week high. "Myriad's stock closed up 3% Tuesday, following the publication of the New York Times op-ed," wrote Marketwatch.com.
4) It drove public opinion to influence the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule in favor of corporate ownership of human genes (see more below).
Women all over the world are being duped into supporting Angeline Jolie, having no idea that what she's really doing is selling out women to the for-profit cancer industry. But to fully understand what's happening, you have to dig deeper...
Myriad Genetics sees stock price skyrocket thanks to Jolie, and Obamacare will funnel billions their way
"Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics (MYGN) holds the patent on the test that determined the actress had an 87% chance of developing breast cancer, as well as the genes themselves," wrote MarketWatch.com.
And that's only the beginning. If the U.S. Supreme Court can be influenced to uphold Myriad's patent, it could mean a trillion-dollar industry over just the next few years. Even more, Myriad Genetics is reportedly "ripe for mergers" according to the financial press, because it's part of the super-hot human genome industry.
"The world's largest maker of DNA testing and analysis tools, Life Technologies Corp. said that it is set to be acquired by Thermo Fisher Scientific for a record $13.6 billion," writes MarketWatch.com. "A race that kicked into high gear more than 26 years ago is heating up, with foreign governments and corporations joining the U.S. in funding the quest to map all the human genomes. And even as the recent flurry of mergers and acquisitions in the genomics space has spurred returns, investors still have opportunities to profit from this multibillion-dollar industry."
The higher Myriad's stock price goes, the more profitable a merger becomes for its current owners. So Jolie's P.R. stunt just happened to generate unknown millions of dollars in value for the very people who claim a patent monopoly over the breast cancer genes residing in the bodies of women. Coincidence? Hardly.
Obamacare mandates taxpayers pay for BRCA gene testing: yet another government handout to wealthy corporations
But here's what's even more crooked about all this: You know how Obama likes to talk "free market" but actually engages in so-called "crony capitalism" by handing out money to all his corporate buddies, Wall Street insiders and deep-pocketed campaign donors? Part of Obamacare -- the "Affordable Care Act" -- mandates that taxpayers pay for BRCA1 genetic testing!
Myriad Genetics, in other words, stands to receive a full-scale windfall of profits mandated by government and pushed into mainstream consciousness through a campaign of "medical terror" fronted by Angelina Jolie and the New York Times. Are you starting to see how this all fits together yet?
This is all one big coordinated corporate sellout of women, and it's all being hidden by playing the "women's power" card and using "choice" language to more easily manipulate women. Angelina Jolie, remember, is a key spokesperson for the United Nations, an organization already caught engaged in child sex slavery and drug running. Although Jolie obviously isn't engage in that sort of behavior, her job is to covertly influence American women into supporting a carefully-planned, plotted and executed corporate profit campaign that turns women's bodies into profits.
Here's why the Supreme Court decision puts trillions of dollars at stake...
Details on the upcoming Supreme Court decision
The ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit in 2009, challenging the corporate ownership of human genes. Anyone who believes in women's rights, human rights, civil rights or even the right to eat non-GMO foods should immediately agree that corporations should NOT be able to patent human genes and then use those patents to rake in billions of dollars in profits while stifling scientific research into those genes.
A question to all women reading this: Do you believe a corporation in Utah owns your body? If not, you should be opposed to corporate ownership of human genes. It also means you should oppose Angelina Jolie's P.R. campaign because although she's running a brilliant public relations campaign, behind the scenes her actions are feeding potentially trillions of dollars of profits directly into the for-profit human gene patenting industry that denies human beings ownership over their own genetic code.
The ACLU explains the basics of its lawsuit against Myriad Genetics as follows:
On May 12, 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed a lawsuit charging that patents on two human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are unconstitutional and invalid. On November 30, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear argument on the patentability of human genes. The ACLU argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 15, 2013. We expect a decision this summer.
On behalf of researchers, genetic counselors, women patients, cancer survivors, breast cancer and women's health groups, and scientific associations representing 150,000 geneticists, pathologists, and laboratory professionals, we have argued that human genes cannot be patented because they are classic products of nature. The suit charges that the gene patents violate the First Amendment and stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women's options regarding their medical care.
Got that? If the Supreme Court rules against Myriad Genetics, it will cause a multi-billion-dollar breast cancer genetic testing industry to collapse virtually overnight. This means a huge loss for not just Myriad, but also many other human gene corporations that wish to exploit the human body -- including the bodies of women -- for monopolistic profits. (All patents are government-granted monopolies.) Ultimately, trillions of dollars in corporate gene patents are at stake here.
Patenting human genes is huge business
Today, about 20 percent of your genes are already patented by corporations and universities. As the ACLU explains, "A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents."
This means that when corporations own patents on human genes, it stifles scientific research while granting that corporation a monopoly over the "intellectual property" encoded in your own DNA! (How criminal is that? You decide...)
What this means is that if the Supreme Court rules against Myriad, it would set a precedent that would dismantle the entire human gene patenting industry, affecting trillions of dollars in future profits.
This, I believe, is the real reason behind Angelina Jolie's announcement. It seems designed to invoke women's emotional reactions and create a groundswell of support for corporate-owned genes, thereby handing these corporations a Supreme Court precedent that will ensure trillions in future profits. It's a for-profit PR stunt that tries to trick women into supporting a corporate system of patents and monopolies that claims, right now, to own portions of the bodies of every woman living today.
While most media outlets have no clue about the patent issues at stake here, the Detroit Free Press took notice, saying:
"The Hollywood star's decision to get tested for a breast cancer gene mutation, undergo a double mastectomy and then write about it calls attention to a case now pending before the court. The justices have just weeks to decide if Myriad Genetics' patent on the two genes that can identify an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer is legal. Critics complain that the company's monopoly leaves them as the sole source of the $4,000 tests needed to determine each woman's risk."
Lying with statistics: Jolie's 87% risk exaggeration
There's more to this story than just the patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Angelina Jolie is also using blatantly misleading statistics to terrify women into thinking their breasts might kill them.
In the NYT op-ed piece, Jolie claims her doctor told her she has an "87% risk" of developing breast cancer. But what she didn't tell you is that this number doesn't apply to the entire population: it's actually old data derived almost exclusively from families that were previously documented to have very high risks of breast cancer to begin with.
A study published on the National Human Genome Research Institute website and conducted by scientists from the National Institutes of Health reveals that breast cancer risks associated with BRCA1 genes are significantly lower than what's being hyped up by Jolie and the mainstream media.
In fact, in a large room of 600 women, only ONE will likely have a BRCA mutation in her genetic code. The actual incidence is 0.125 to 0.25 out of 100 women, or 1 in 400 to 1 in 800. I used 600 as the average of 400 and 800.
And out of that 1 in 600 women who has the mutation, her risk of breast cancer is only 56 percent, not 78 percent as claimed by Jolie. But 13 percent of women without the BRCA mutation get breast cancer anyway, according to this scientific research, so the increased risk is just 43 out of 100 women.
So what we're really talking about here is 1 in 600 women having a BRCA gene mutation, then less than half of those getting cancer because of it. In other words, only about 1 in 1200 women will be affected by this.
Yet thanks to people like Jolie and the fear-mongering mainstream media, women all across the nation have been terrified into believing their breasts might kill them and the best way to handle the problem is to cut them off!
This, my friends, is the essence of doomsday fear mongering. This issue affects less than one-tenth of one percent of women but is being riled up into a nationwide fear campaign that just happens to feed profits into the for-profit cancer diagnosis and treatment industry, not to mention the monopolistic human gene patenting cartels.
That's the real story of what's happening here. Don't expect to read this in the New York Times.
Corporate media refuses to mention real prevention and treatment options
As part of the breast cancer fear mongering and treatment scam now being run across the mainstream media, nearly all media sources are prohibiting any mention of holistic or natural options for treatment or prevention.
Sure, the media talks about "options," but all those options just happen to lead back to the for-profit cancer industry. As an example, read this story by ABC News, part of the lying mainstream media that misinforms women and pushes a corporate agenda:
If you do test positive for BRCA, you have options, and you don't necessarily have to go the Jolie route. Some women choose not to have surgery. Instead, they increase cancer surveillance with imaging tests. These include regular mammograms to test for breast cancer, and regular pelvic sonograms and blood-tests to watch for ovarian cancer.
Nowhere in this article does ABC News mention ways to suppress the BRCA1 gene by, for example, eating raw cruciferous vegetables containing Indole-3-Carbinol (I3C), a potent anti-cancer nutrient that halts breast cancer in its tracks. Nowhere does ABC News mention vitamin D which prevents nearly 4 out of 5 cancers of all types, including breast cancer.
Nope, the "options" being pushed by mainstream media are nothing more than mammograms, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy -- all owned and run by the for-profit cancer industry that feeds on women and exploits their bodies for profit.
Nor is their any discussion of the total scam of the "pink ribbons" cancer cure industry which is primarily focused on giving women cancer through "free mammograms." As any scientist or physicist already knows, mammograms cause cancer because they emit ionizing radiation directly into the breast and heart tissues. Get enough mammograms done and sooner or later they will detect breast cancer because they caused it! To date, 1.3 million women have been harmed by mammography.
Thanks, Angelina, for keeping the wool pulled over the eyes of women everywhere while selling out to for-profit, monopolistic, corporate interests that incessantly seek to exploit women for profit.
Photo credit: PEOPLE Magazine cover, used under Fair Use for public commentary and education.
USA ~ May 16, 2013
Cashing In On Breast Cancer Awareness
In the wake of Angelina Jolie’s well-intentioned exhortation for “every woman” to explore their risk of breast cancer, one company stands to make a staggering profit.By Rose-Ellen Less
Many American women played the BRCA what-if game for the first time on Tuesday: what would I do if I had the mutation? Would I get a mastectomy, even though there was a chance I wouldn’t need it? Would I get an oophorectomy (the removal of the ovaries) even though it would propel me into early menopause? And if I chose not to get these surgeries, would I be able to live with the anxiety of knowing that I would probably get breast or ovarian cancer?
This is a thought experiment I’ve gotten pretty good at, because I am not exactly a neophyte what-ifer: I am the only woman in my family not to have a BRCA2 mutation. And even before I knew about the mutation, I worried about my risk: when I was ten years old, my mother was diagnosed with an invasive form of breast cancer at 37; she died ten years later in 1994, the same year Myriad Genetics filed its first BRCA patent. Before I took the test, while I waited for my test results, and even after I got them, I rehearsed how I would respond if I hadn’t been the lucky one with the intact copy of the BRCA gene.
It is exceedingly difficult to maintain a rational relationship to statistical risk. The classic example of this is the relative safety of flying as compared to driving: we all know that our odds of dying in a car accident far exceed our odds of perishing in a plane crash, and yet flying anxiety still outstrips driving anxiety by a wide margin. The BRCA gene mutations are poised to become the new fear of flying, as women who have a very low probability of a BRCA mutation now begin to worry that they are at risk.
Case in point: although I tested negative for the BRCA2 mutation five years ago, I now find myself worrying again that perhaps I should be retested. When my sister found that she had a BRCA2 mutation, my doctor advised me that I did not need the full sequencing for both BRCA1 and BRCA2, but could instead get the more limited test, which only evaluates areas of the BRCA2 gene already established as a the problem for my sister. Because it was less expensive to get the limited test rather than the full test, I went with the limited. Now I worry that this was a mistake. But I also know that my insurance carrier is unlikely to pay for a second round of testing, and that I cannot afford to pay the $3,000 required for the full test out of pocket.
The problem is that there is profit—a lot of profit—to be made from stoking all of this worry. The big winner on Tuesday was not women’s health; it was Myriad Genetics, the company that has held the exclusive patent on the BRCA 1 and 2 mutations since the 1990s. Because, in part, of Jolie’s well-intentioned but ambiguously worded exhortation for “every woman” to explore her risk, Myriad may well see a surge in business. And business is already booming: according to Karuna Jaggar, the Executive Director of Breast Cancer Action, “Myriad Genetics’ claim on our very DNA creates a profitable corporate monopoly for them, generating approximately half a billion dollars a year in revenue. In the last fiscal quarter alone, Myriad made $126 million off genetic testing for breast cancer—a full 85 percent of their total revenue.” Although the BRCA test could be easily performed by hundreds of US laboratories for as little as $200, Myriad’s patent prevents these more affordable tests from being performed.
The BRCA gene speaks to the impossible dilemma of for-profit healthcare, particularly when practiced as legal monopoly: some high-risk women will be saved, but many more women will be either needlessly alarmed, financially penalized, or both, so that one corporate monopoly can make a staggering profit. This does not seem like a good trade—or good healthcare policy—and it does not need to be this way.
About the Author
Rose-Ellen Lessy teaches at NYU and The New School. She is working on a book about families and breast cancer.
18 May 2013
Jolie’s Choiceby Michael Cook
Hollywood celebrity Angelina Jolie was hailed this week for her bravery in revealing that she has had a preventative double mastectomy. The New York Times published her explanation as a scoop on its op-ed page:
“For any woman reading this, I hope it helps you to know you have options. I want to encourage every woman, especially if you have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, to seek out the information and medical experts who can help you through this aspect of your life, and to make your own informed choices.”
Susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer runs in Jolie’s family. Her mother died at 56 of breast cancer and she carries the BRCA1 gene. Doctors told her that she had an 87% chance of contracting breast cancer. After the operation, she said, the risk is now only 5%.
The news was reported widely, so widely and extensively that columnist Brendan O’Neill, of Spiked, complained that it had overshadowed “everything from the savagery in Syria to the tussle over the future of the EU”.
Will the publicity help breast cancer sufferers? Daily Mail columnist Amanda Platell criticised Jolie for making the difficult and exhausting surgery seem too easy. Her doctor at the Pink Lotus Breast Center in Beverly Hills posted the whole procedure on her blog. It was staged over three months and it takes many weeks to recover.
However, the doctor said that Jolie was filled with “bountiful energy”, worked hard on directing another film and took time out to visit the Congo to highlight violence against women.
“To imply, as she has done, that it is possible to bounce back in a few days places an unfair burden on those women who struggle physically and mentally in the aftermath of such major and life-changing surgery.”
There was a political edge to her essay as well. It appeared to be an attempt to influence the US Supreme Court to rule against Myriad Genetics's patents on the BRCA 1 and 2 genes.
“It has got to be a priority to ensure that more women can access gene testing and lifesaving preventive treatment, whatever their means and background, wherever they live. The cost of testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, at more than $3,000 in the United States, remains an obstacle for many women.”
Media coverage, though, hardly scratched the surface of the complex ethical issues involved in Jolie’s decision to remove both breasts even though were no signs of cancer. According to the US government’s National Cancer Institute, “preventive mastectomy should be considered in the context of each woman’s unique risk factors and her level of concern.” In other words, worry itself is a factor. Many women with the BRCA gene fret so much about their future that they come to think that a mastectomy is the only solution. But there are other options, like frequent surveillance from an early age.
In fact, one study from the University of Michigan has shown that nearly three-quarters of women who decided to have one breast removed were actually at very little risk of developing cancer in the healthy breast. They were driven more by fear than by good medical reasons.
Jolie has had a very difficult personal history with a number of partners, including a lesbian relationship, estrangement from her father, adopting as a single parent, global fame as the world’s most beautiful woman, and intense scrutiny of her personal life by the media. Her case is obviously unique. While it is clear that she is brave and determined, it is far from clear that other women should take her as a role model.
May 16, 2013
A question of informed choiceRaising awareness about a disease is something celebrities do well. What Magic Johnson did for HIV, and Amitabh Bachchan and Rajnikant for polio in India, Angelina Jolie has now done for breast cancer. The Hollywood actor is being feted worldwide for bringing awareness about genetic testing for the disease, and the options available to women who have tested positive for abnormal BReast CAncer genes (BRCA 1/2). Testing positive for either gene puts women at a 65 per cent risk of developing breast cancer on average. In April, Ms Jolie completed three months of treatment including surgeries to remove both her breasts to ensure that she did not develop the cancer that killed her mother. She has said she chose to go public with her story “because there are many women who do not know that they might be living under the shadow of cancer.” While the procedure that Ms Jolie has undergone is not new and several women in the United States have had a bilateral mastectomy before this, it is her celebrity status that could motivate women in similar circumstances to make what is a difficult decision. It would also help those cancer-stricken women for whom breast removal is no longer just a preventive option, but a necessity.
And yet, the excited urgency that Ms Jolie’s article has caused globally must not mislead women into thinking a double mastectomy is the only way to beat breast cancer before it gets to you. However appropriate the procedure was for her, there are clearly other medical options. Oncologists need to give full information on the alternatives available to women who test positive for the BRCA genes, including periodic screening. Equally important is the need to stress that a negative BRCA test result does not preclude the occurrence of breast cancer at a later date. Essentially, the lesson from Ms Jolie’s story is that cancer is preventable. Spreading awareness about this continues to be a mammoth task in India. A large number of cancers are still being caught when they are too advanced, at a stage where medicine can do little or nothing for the patient. While prevention is recommended and possible by following a healthy lifestyle, early detection is key to squashing the growth of these rogue cells. It is only recently that the concept of preventive annual checks has caught on in India. While those who are at risk stand to gain immensely from genetic testing, the dangers of this diagnostic tool being turned into another exploitative enterprise cannot be ruled out. The government will do well to ensure that a monitoring and regulatory mechanism is in place to meet the eventuality that Ms Jolie’s example will create both a demand for the test and its supply.
Tuesday May 21, 2013
Bold moveAngelina Jolie’s disclosure of her double mastectomy procedure might help to increase public awareness about the threat of breast cancer and the options available for women to prevent and treat it. Genetic risk is an important factor in breast cancer, as indeed in the case of many other diseases.
The presence of cancer-causing genes is said to indicate a 70 per cent risk. The actress was well aware of this as her mother had lost her life to breast cancer at a young age. This made her go in for a test and when the presence of the cancer-linked genes was confirmed she went in for surgery to remove her breasts. In her case it is stated that there was an 87 per cent risk of breast cancer but this is believed to have come down to 5 per cent now.
The public announcement by Angelina might prompt many women to consider the need to go in for the surgical treatment if necessary. Endorsement by celebrities has encouraged many people in medical and in other areas to more readily accept proposals. Mastectomy is an emotionally stressful idea for most women. But very often it may be too late when they are prepared to go in for that. Though it is not always the case that mastectomy will completely eliminate the possibility of cancer it might reduce its chances. Mastectomy is not the only method to prevent the disease from developing. There are other processes like medication also. The importance of Angelina’s announcement is that it might increase awareness and help in early detection of the risk that many women carry and make them think of the options available.
The world over breast cancer is the most common form of cancer to affect women. In India more than 50,000 women die of it every year. While tests to understand genetic proclivity to the disease are certainly beneficial, it is very costly for most women. The test costs about $ 3,000 and it is unaffordable to most. A private company holds the right to conduct these tests in the US and this is based on its claim that it holds the patent for the cancer-linked genes. The claim for patent over human or plant genes is a hotly disputed subject. The American company’s claim is being tested before the US Supreme Court now.
London ~ Tuesday, 20 July 2010
Breast cancer link to cleaning products and air fresheners
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Air fresheners and some cleaning products increase the risk of breast cancer, a study suggests.
Women who regularly used a combination of cleaning products were twice as likely to have breast cancer as other healthy women, US scientists found. The strongest link was between cancer and air fresheners and mould and mildew removers.
Increased incidence of cancer was also linked to insect repellents.
But there was no connection with home and garden pesticides and surface and oven cleaners.
The researchers admitted the study was imperfect because they asked cancer sufferers to remember whether they had used cleaning products and the strongest correlation was found among those who believed chemicals contributed to the disease. But they defended the findings as "biologically plausible", saying many air fresheners and cleaning products contained endocrine-disrupting chemicals linked to breast cancer in laboratory experiments on rodents.
They said synthetic musks and phthalates were commonly used in solid and spray fresheners and antimicrobials, phthalates and alkylphenolic surfactants were found in many mould and mildew products.
Researchers from Silent Spring Institute, Massachusetts, and Boston University interviewed 787 women with breast cancer and 721 healthy women for the study.
The women – who all lived in the Cape Cod area of Massachusetts – were asked about their use of cleaning products and pesticides, and split into four groups ranging between high and low users.
According to the study, published in the journal Environmental Health: "Women who reported the highest combined cleaning product use had a doubled risk of breast cancer compared to those with the lowest reported use. Use of air fresheners and products for mould and mildew control were associated with increased risk."
The authors said their work was the first into a potential link between breast cancer and cleaning products.
Breast Cancer Research UK and Breakthrough Breast Cancer, which campaign against confirmed carcinogens such as cigarette smoke, said conclusions could not be drawn from it because it suffered from "recall bias". "This small study asked women with breast cancer to remember how often they used cleaning products many years ago," said Jessica Harris, Cancer Research's health information officer.
"It only linked the products to breast cancer among women who believed chemicals could cause breast cancer, and not in women who didn't think such products caused the disease."
Philip Malpass, director general of the UK Cleaning Products Industry Association, said UK brands did not contain substances shown to cause cancer, adding: "We agree with the US authors who recognise that these results could arise simply from selective or biased recall of cleaning product use."
Clare Dimmer, chair of trustees at Breast Cancer UK, said: "Although we will have to wait for more research before we can be sure about the link, some women already diagnosed with the disease may want to take a precautionary approach and review the levels of potentially-hazardous chemicals in the products they use."