One of the dirtiest tricks used to push these vaccines is statements along the lines of “HPV is the cause of 70% of all cervical cancers” because they detected fragments of HPV DNA or RNA in samples. Well as I repeatedly state – association does not prove causation. There is calcium in these samples too – how often do you hear “calcium – the cause of cancer”. Having HPV fragments detected by the notoriously inaccurate PCR does NOT mean you have ever had an actual infection. Actual warts demonstrate infection, not DNA/RNA fragments.

Kary Mullis invented RT-PCR and won a Nobel Prize for his brilliance, but he himself states it was not designed to detect fragments of DNA for disease diagnosis.

The fact is that the HPV vaccine has not in any way been demonstrated to “prevent” cervical cancer; it has only been shown (if you can believe Merck’s own data) to reduce epithelial genital lesions (posh medicine-speak for warts) and they are caused by 2 strains not associated with cervical cancer at all. It’s like saying “bananas prevent road traffic accidents in dogs” and extrapolating that to “apples prevent getting stuck up trees in cats”.

I was diagnosed with HPV 20 years ago.  I initially had cryo for it, then some kind of lotion, then laser surgery.  Eventually I had another bad PAP and the doc said we needed to do something more invasive - I was continuing to have ASCUS results.  I asked if I could try something like vitamins and then get retested.  So for three months I went on a vitamin binge and when I went back, viola, a clean pap smear.  When I asked the doc he said - 30% of these things resolve on their own. I also read that vitamin B deficiencies can show up as an ASCUS result on a PAP.  I never went back to him.  No one ever typed me so I don't know what type I have but since then, I have cleaned up my diet and take supplements.  I keep waiting for the bad pap so I can have it typed but it hasn't happened in over 10 years.  I have given birth to three children none of which show any signs of infection and neither does my husband.  When I was seeing a dermatologist for something unrelated, I asked about the HPV and he said that if you took samples of people's forarms, 90% of all people would show positive for some form of HPV. I can't tell you how steamed I get about these HPV vaccines. If I was to take a wild guess at why there is more oral cancer, I'd look no further than all the chemicals in our food and environment that we breathe, ingest, brush our teeth with etc.  I think it is the ultimate reason for all the increases in cancers.  We need to clean up the environment.  I just wish I knew how to stop the chemical madness.  

Anyone think that perhaps all this fear around HPV is manufactured to repress our sexuality?  A few years back, doctors and nurses told me HPV strains that cause cervical cancer are passed from male to female.  I asked if there was a test to see if a male was a carrier of the virus; they said, "No."  Then, when I asked if it could be passed even if a person never had unprotected sex, they said, "yes".  Seems like a scare tactic to trick healthy, young females into abstinence.

I find the picture of a young boy next to an article talking about oral sex and the Rise in Male Oral Cancer disturbing.

there is such a push for vaccinations right now it scares me.  The propaganda going on is amazing.

"98 percent of the time, HPV is not even a high risk of causing cervical cancer. And 97 percent of the time, the HPV virus that women get is one that Merck’s vaccine Gardasil does NOT prevent."

To top it off:

The NNT for Gardasil is 88 - 160.  Hmmmmmmmm.......

If anything, the increase in the use of cell phones is behind the increase in oral cancers among men.

So once again, they are blaming humans for their unsafe sex practices, when in fact the immune system is fully capable of fighting off all illness, whether the person in question is a philanderer or not, when it is not being bombarded 24/7 with dangerous electromagnetic and microwave radiation from things like cell phones and cell phone towers.

Some 70,000 chemicals are being dumped into our environment, 65,000 of which are potentially hazardous to our health. We live in a virtual sea of pollutants, and carry many of these toxins within us.

Is it any wonder why our immune system is not functioning properly.

I wonder what all is in that vaccine we are being recommended to give to our children?

www.sharethecause.com/reducetoxinsnow

" Every Chronic Disease Process is related to One Word: TOXICITY."

Dr. Buttar, Vice-Chairman of the American Board of Clinical Metal Toxicology

If not HPV, why is there an increase in mouth cancers?

In the UK, mouth cancer incidence has increased by 25% in the last 10 years.

Children are getting it when they never used to. It used to be a disease that old men got because of smoking and chewing tobacco, ie it was a slow developing cancer.

What has changed in the last 15 years?

Cell phones?

Never before have we put devices to our heads which pump out high levels of pulsed microwave radiation.

As well as being common sense  there is also research, which is showing a correlation with cell phone use, even though the Interphone research programme is funded by the industry!! They just play down the adverse results.

www.mastsanity.org/index.php

Israeli Interphone study on salivary gland tumours showed a 50% increased risk on the same side as the phone was held.

aje.oxfordjournals.org/.../kwm325v1

Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors Nationwide Case-Control Study Published 6th Dec 2007

"The time is past when it could be said that this technology does not cause damage; apparently it damages health," said Dr Sadetzki [iv] According to Sadetzki, director of the Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, current regulations do not relate to cancer as caused by radiation but to the health risks posed by the instrument heating up.Dr Sadetzki also called for children¹s use to be limited.

There was no press release about this Industry funded research presumably because it showed negative effects. However the large study was conducted in 16 countries and studied 466 patients and 1266 controls.

Also see:

www.powerwatch.org.uk/.../20080328_khurana_brain_tumours.asp

28/03/2008 - Brain Surgeon demonstrates clear brain tumour risk