Angelina’s Tits And The Commercial Implications Of Their Absence

Yesterday we reported a different perspective to the “heroic superstar makes supreme sacrifice for the benefit of all women wil a million dollars to spare favoured by mainstream media reporters of the increasingly sick celebrity culture.

Boggart Blog is always ahead of the news but this time we were only a day ahead. Kicks up the arse will be delivered in private to our editorial team. Today we see this:

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

Friday, 17 May 2013 09:19

‘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 …
(Read full story – it’s a bit technical but not too bad)

Attempts by Big Pharma, Big Money and Big Evil (not Google, they are only apprentices) to patent the human genome for profit have been on the cards for some time. Looks like the corporate bastards have recruited the Hollywood A List and the thoroughly corrupt Obama administration to help sell the idea that slavery is a good option to the public.

UPDATE:
Just saw this comment from Johnathan Mason at Anna Raccoon’s blog:

The stock of the company that produces the test Angelina Jolie took has jumped after the announcement. It is an ill wind…

RELATED POSTS:
In The News

MORE FROM THE GREENTEETH STABLE

Boggart AbroadDaily Stirrer homeGreenteeth BitesBoggart BlogGreenteeth LabyrinthAuthorGatherBubblewsAuthorsdenScribdLittle Nicky Machiavelli
Ian Thorpe at Facebook

Why Are We Celebrating Angelina’s Tits (Or Lack Of Them)

The headline read:

Angelina Jolie inspires women to save themselves the agony of breast cancer by having preventive double mastectomies

There were any number of similar headlines in mainstream media this week, all full of praise for A(ish) List Celebrity, A-list barm pot and alleged actress Angelina Jolie for being brave enough to have her tits off because according to “experts” she had an 87 per cent chance of developing breast cancer. Angelina Jolie was not brave, her decision was either cowardly or calculating. It would be uncharitable to suggest the Jolie jugs were sagging unattractively as she nears forty and her ‘people’ came up with a great way of having them lifted and milking maximum publicity out of it, so we will not mention that possibility.

But why are we celebrating self mutilation. If some teenager who’d had a shitty childhood was cutting him or herself would we celebrate that?

Ah no, but Angie had an eighty seven per cent chance of developing breast cancer. Eighty Seven per cent of what, you wonder. We did at the Boggart Blog editorial meeting. Only yesterday I was trying to explain to a science head Daily Telegraph blogger why only nine per cent of people trust statistics. It went like this:

Tom Chivers:

Fifty-eight per cent of Britons between 16 and 75 believe that if you flip a coin twice, the probability of getting two heads is 50 per cent. Fifty-four per cent of Britons are “fairly confident” in their ability to use data and numbers.

If the Ipsos-Mori poll from which this is taken was accurate, it means that at least 12 per cent of Britons think they’re pretty good with numbers but can’t work out 0.5 times 0.5.

I’m not especially brilliant with numbers, data and statistics, in the scale of things, I should admit. But they are important. They’re the only tool we have for assessing the world dispassionately, for stripping it as far as we can of the colour of our own experience. Which is why the numbers given above are not, actually, the most depressing in the poll.

The most depressing numbers are the following. One thousand and thirty-four British adults between 16 and 75 were asked to choose between the following statements:

Statistics are more important than my own experiences or those of my family and friends in helping me keep track of how the government is doing

My own experiences or those of my family and friends are more important than statistics in helping me keep track of how the government is doing.

Forty-six per cent chose the latter. Just nine per cent chose the former.

But how can anyone, using their own experience and those of the, say, 150 probably fairly similar people they regularly come into contact with, possibly gain any sort of insight into the effects government reforms of the NHS, or benefit cuts, or whatever, are having across a nation of tens of millions of people? (read all this post)

My reply:

Tom, you are probably not as deficient in maths and statistics as you think. If you could be more objective about anything that wears a “science” label I reckon you would do fine.

The trick is to be able to discriminate between what is a statistic and what is an interpretation.

Manchester United won 30 out of 37 matches played this so far season.

Chelsea won 22 out of 37 matches played so far.

These are statistics and are easily verifiable.

Now if we say (using mental arithmetic) Manchester United won 80% of games played this season while Chelsea won 60% we’re still OK but will alienate many people because percentages are used in statistics to deceive and deflect.

If however we come over all Brian Cox and say Manchester United win rate 80%, Chelsea win rate 60% therefore Manchester United are 20% (or 33% depending on how you calculate) better than Chelsea, that’s statistical bollocks and people are a lot more adept at seeing through it than media type, politicians and academics are willing to accept.

You see, statistics are not always numbers, more often they are interpretations of numbers. And when government or big business is involved they are interpretations that are deliberately skewed towards the outcome the sponsoring organisation wants.

Angelina Jolie did not have an eighty seven per cent chance of developing breast cancer, according to figures from the U S National Cancer Institute fact sheet she had a 12.4% chance of developing cancer. Or maybe an eighty seven per cent of twelve point four percent. Like candidates in a mathematics examination, scientists and big science shills should always be required to show their workings.

from U S National Cancer Institute
What is the average American woman’s risk of developing breast cancer during her lifetime?

Based on current incidence rates, 12.4 percent of women born in the United States today will develop breast cancer at some time during their lives (1). This estimate, from the most recent SEER Cancer Statistics Review (a report published annually by the National Cancer Institute’s [NCI] Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] Program), is based on breast cancer statistics for the years 2007 through 2009.

This estimate means that, if the current incidence rate stays the same, a woman born today has about a 1 in 8 chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer at some time during her life. On the other hand, the chance that she will never have breast cancer is 87.6 percent, or about 7 in 8.

In the 1970s, the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer in the United States was just under 10 percent (or about 1 in 10).

The last five annual SEER reports show the following estimates of lifetime risk of breast cancer, all very close to a lifetime risk of 1 in 8:

Someone close to me has recently undergone treatment for breast cancer. In her case neither her mother or her aunts or either grandmother ever had any sign of breast cancer, in spite of them all living beyond the average lifespan for their generation. Statistics mean nothing, reality is what counts.

So Angelina Jolie was caluclating that by having her tits off she had a one hundred per cent chance of grabbing front page headlines in ninety five per cent (I made that up) of the worlds print and broadcast media of she was so terrified of having an eighty seven and a half per cent chance of not developing breast cancer.

Or as many American experts are agreeing with a more sceptical view of the statistics that informed Angelina’s assault on her breast tissue that in fact her chanches of developing breast cancer based on the fact that she has two genes active that have been idientified in studies funded by the reconstructive surgery industry, she had a far smaller probability than my crude statistical calculations show. Did Angelina Jolie Make A Mistake By Acting On The breast Cancer Gene Theory

Here’s a teaser:
The ‘prophylactic’ removal of women’s breasts due to BRCA1/BRCA2 status has become a disturbingly popular trend, and increasingly it is being celebrated in the mainstream media and medical establishments as a reasonable choice. But does the scientific evidence itself refute this approach?

Angelina Jolie’s recent announcement in a New York Times op-ed that she had a ‘prophylactic’ double mastectomy due to her BRCA1/BRCA2 status has disturbing implications, some of which we covered late last year in connection with Allyn Rose, the 24-year old Miss America contestant who announced she would be undergoing a double mastectomy to “prevent” breast cancer.

Whatever, you can bet if there is a sudden rush to private clinics by rich, egotistical silly tarts wanting their tits off “like Angelina”, Ms. Jolie will be well, if indirectly rewarded for her sacrifice. In fact the publicity she has had already must be worth enough to pay for ten double mastectomies.

The irony is our forebears who did not have technology, modern medical techniques, designer drugs and all the rest and just had to catch what life threw at them and run with it seemed to suffer far less stress and anxiety than we do. I can’t help feeling that the plague of progress in the 20th century has robbed us of more than Angelina’s tits.

As for Tom Chivers, I hope his blind faith in statistics does not induce him to go and have his tits off.

RELATED POSTS:

St Angelina, save us from ourselves! – Brendan O’Neill, Spiked
The beatification of Angelina Jolie for writing about her mastectomy confirms that celebrity culture has reached new and hysterical heights

Celebrity Menu

MORE FROM THE GREENTEETH STABLE

Boggart AbroadDaily Stirrer homeGreenteeth BitesBoggart BlogGreenteeth LabyrinthAuthorGatherBubblewsAuthorsdenScribdLittle Nicky Machiavelli
Ian Thorpe at Facebook

Boggart Blog reveals Abraham Lincoln’s Secret

With the film Lincoln (starring Daniel Day Lewis and his effing left foot) loved by critics, showered with oscars, but getting clouted by Skyfall and Oz The Powerful at the box office we have decided to give the Hollywood film a boost by revealing President Abraham Lincoln’s great secret.

Yess, he had a penchant for silly beards and bad hats, yes he emancipated the slaves and …

YES HE WAS REALLY A WOMAN – see for yourselves.

abelincolnwoman

This explains a lot. And it also teaches us that not only is Daniel Day Lewis a lousy actor, a pretentious knob and a boring little tit, he’s a bad transvestite too.

I’m sure he used to be somebody funny.

Eddie Murphy has been named the most overpaid actor in Hollywood by business magazine Forbes. When we saw the headline everyone in the Boggart Blog office felt sure Eddie Murphy used to be someone who was funny before he disappeared up his own arse.

A number of significant flops, including ‘Imagine That’, ‘A Thousand Words’ and ‘Meet Dave’, have ushered him to the top of the list of stars who make back far less for their studios than they should considering their substantial pay cheques.

Is Eddie Murphy’s A Thousand Words the worst-reviewed film ever?

Over his last three films, Murphy made $2.30 (£1.40) at the box office for every $1 (62p) he was paid.

The ‘Shrek’ and ‘Beverly Hills Cop’ star beat last year’s winner of the dubious title, Drew Barrymore. Barrymore has now dropped out of the top 10 completely.

Will Ferrell, who has topped the list twice in the last four years, is also out of the top 10 this year.

Here is the list in full:

1. Eddie Murphy – made $2.30 at the box office for every $1 paid
2. Katherine Heigl – $3.40
3. Reese Witherspoon – $3.90
4. Sandra Bullock – $5
5. Jack Black – $5.20
6. Nicolas Cage – $6
7. Adam Sandler – $6.30
8. Denzel Washington – $6.30
9. Ben Stiller – $6.50
10. Sarah Jessica Parker – $7

As we reflected on who in this list might have become has beens before they had ever been, someone pointed out that a loist of overpaid footballers would be even longer.

Bloggers Who Stare At Goats

You have all seen adverts for the new Hollywood film release Men Who Stare At Goats. Well no need to waste your money to find out what it is all about. Boggart Blog were on the case of this story way back in February 2007.

The post, which concerns the activities of the US Army Psychological Warfare Department (which The Pentagon claims does not exist but they would say that wouldn’t they) and their efforts to exploit some crackpot hippie theories for military puroses. The post have moves to our archive now, find it under the title FORWARD PSYCHIC SOLDIERS.

More humour every day at Boggart Blog

American retard

Movie News. A new film from Hollywood, Tropic Thunder, starring the excellent Ben Stiller is in trouble with the Politically Correct Police. The film satirises Hollywood, American patriotism and religiosity, over-realistic special effects, and the off-limits to humourists status of black and disabled people. But as well as gross out visual jokes it features quite a lot of more subtle humour.

Sounds to me as if it could be like a less offensive version of Little Britain or The League of Gentlemen.

The reason Tropic Thunder has upset America’s self – appointed Politically Correct Censors is its use of the word retard which, they complain, is insulting and demeaning to people with learning difficulties.

Well as control freaks they would say that wouldn’t they?

But why the fuss? You would think that in America to call someone a retard is a compliment. After all they elected one as President twice.

Best humour on the web at Greenteeth Multi Media

Olympic Synchronised Pouting

Have you ever noticed how the Olympic Games , like the plot of a Hollywood RomCom turns into pink sugar as it nears its conclusion. Instead of going out with a bang (and there were plenty of those happening in the athletes accomodation block we hear) with the track relays, it all gets a bit silly. The crap events are saved for the last day.

This morning for example, as I eased into consciouness after celebrating my birthday last night, I noticed several good looking, scantily clad young women had taken the floor in the gymnastics hall and were posing, pouting and prancing about in what looked like a dodgy dance troupe’s audiion for Britain’s Got Talent.

Turned out it was the rhythmic gymnastics.

Since when did hula hooping count as gymnastics?

Perhaps for 2012 we should bring back some of those whacko events that brought us a record haul of medals in 1908. I’m talking about Deer Stalking, Grouse Shooting Fly Fishing and possibly even Servant Throwing.

Tom Cruise Wins Highest Honour of scientology

Boggart Blog’s long running campaign to bring to the attention of the public the leading role played by Hollywood Micro-megastar Tom Cruise (4’6”) in the sinister Church of Scientology cult is finally vindicated. Month’s ago we sent our undercover invisible investigative reporter Soft Mick to obtain evidence. Now we are frequently disappointed with the outcome of Mick’s assignments as he always gets the information but instead of bringing it back to the office to give us an exclusive but being a creature composed of electromagnetic echoes he gets caught up in an electrical storm or collides with a radio transmitter and the information is broadcast throughout the global communications networks. This time the story landed of You Tube. Still, if we employed humans, not only would they be at a disadvantage against the Thetans, the alien superbeings Scientologists believe themselves to be human manifestations of, they would also be prone to being lured into pubs. This is what happened to the BBC (Boggart Blog Cub) reporter last time we sent him on an assignment.
But enough of my complaining about the problems a blog editor has managing supernatural and human staff, back to the story.
The video footage that appeared on You Tube showed a filmed interview intended only for release to neophyte Scientologists in which Tom talks about the Freedom Medal of Valour, Scientology’s top award, which looks uncannily like one of those super hero medallions kids used to get free with chewing gum. Only eighty Scientologists have been awarded the medal which perhaps indicates a shortage of chewing gum. Strangely the recipients are mostly high profile celebrities from the world of sport, television or showbiz.
A spokesthetan for the Church of Scientology explained, “ The medal is awarded because Cruises’ humanitarian work reached a larger global population. Skipping over the obvious question “Which larger globe are we talking about?” we have to say that Scientologists are rather fetishistic about medals and awards. This all seems to stem from their founder L. Ron Hubbard feeling miffed because he did not get as many medals as he thought he should for service in the U.S. Military in WW2.
The puppyish excitement (how gay is that?) Cruise showed when speaking of his award reminded us of Muttley’s behaviour when given a medal by Dick Dastardly in that cartoon spin off from Whacky Races, Stop The Pigeon or something.
We must not forget however, as well as being a leading Scientologist Tom Cruise is still one of the most highly paid stars in the movies. Or was…
We hear his next film project is Mission Impossible 22 – Rescue Your Career

RELATED POSTS:
Find more on weird, superntural and just plain odd stories atn Greenteeth Labyrinth’s Weird and Supernatural Menu

MORE humour every day from boggart blog.

At Last! America Catches On To Halloween’s Pagan Origins.

In the wake of some televised footage from Hollywood Celebrity Halloween parties which paid close attention to the costumes outfits paraded by some female celebs, religious fundamentalists have found something new to get worked up about. Instead of ranting about the Satanic nature of Halloween and its corrosive effect on children’s souls or as you and me would put it, a dressing up party for kids, the fundies are now up in arms about the “sexualisation of Halloween.” Oh well sex is a million times worse than Satan.

The problem is Halloween, originally the pagan festival of Samhuinn was always sexy, long before Christianity invented Satan the pagans were celebrating the end of the agricultural year with five days of boozing, over – eating, games, music, dance and unrestrained shagging and throwing miserable buggers on bonfires.
All pagan festivals, Winter Solstice, Imbolc, Spring Equinox, Beltane, Summer Solstice, Lammas, Autumn Equinox and Samhuinn or Halloween tended to focus on boozing, over –eating, games, music, dance and unrestrained shagging (throwing miserable buggers on bonfires was optional at the other seven.)
When Christianity gained the ascendancy the dancing and shagging were right out, apparently God cannot tell the difference between the two so both offend him equally. Worse, only the priests got to booze and over eat, so the ordinary people were left with games (communal praying) and music (communal hymn singing.)

No wonder paganism is resurgent, because whatever else the pagans may be, you have to admit that each and every one of them knows one of the great necessities in life. They know how to throw a party.

Celebs Dressed Up
Sexy? Looks like a bunch of people getting rat arsed in fancy dress to me.

More great humour every day from Boggart Blog