Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a women with lust you have committed adultery with her in your heart.
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Does this concern you? The Bible teaches despise the value of your eye compared to the value of your soul. would u sell your eye for a million dollars? And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. needgod.com
Sodium Borate [aka boric acid] is most emphatically NOT rat poison. A simple search for rodenticide will yield a list of agents used for the purpose, most commonly arsenic, warfarin, and strychnine.
@DemePoole Boric acid is the name given to Diatomaceous earth--the calcium carbonate penetrates the shells of insects and causes them to dehydrate...it does not kill per se, nor is it harmful. It is commonly used as a buffering agent to render solutions chemically neutral. it is also the principal ingredient in Tums and Rolaids.
I have a question,please answer. So i got the first dose last year and what happens if I refuse the oher three doses?After extensive research I have decided to refuse the shots. Im 13 so i reaaly neeed an answer to this problem
You admit HPV is not necessary, but then say it causes some cancer. You list no proof, no studies supporting such a thought
Now you imply i should be cautious about stating women who smoke or drink are causing cancer themselves. This is more nonsense. I didn't decide what co-factors are. Merck & FDA state the co-factors required for cervical cancer to develop
Immune problems (co-factors) are necessary for CC to develop. That alone allows cancer to develop. HPV is UNNECESSARY
There are MANY more. Gardasil & Cervarix are a waste of time & money. Any lawsuits for damage caused by these vaccines should be allowed to be filed in state courts rather than in DC in the Vaccine Court. Merck & Glaxo have lied
Did you know that Rupert Murdoch's son James Murdoch, who manages the UK paper Sunday Times, is on the board of GlaxoSmithKLine? Sir Nigel Davis, the High Court judge that denied parents of children treated by Dr. Wakefield the right to have their claims against vaccine manufacturers heard in a real court? Davis' brother, who is an executive board member of Elsevier, the group that publishes the Lancet, is also on the board of GlaxoSmithKline. EthanHuff at NaturalNews*cm.
I was born with hpv and iam still a vergin, idk what to do u want to get the vaccine but iam scared of what it can do to my body."I wish i was born pure" but iam afraid of being that one death or just geting a minor side effect, what do i do :(
@batigol47 Batty is a practiced liar. It is a common belief pregnancy supresses a mother's immune system. I would not have known there is a question about this if batty didn't lie about pregnancy's association with cervical cancer. Thanks batty for your lies, which I investigate to find truth
Mainstream medicine/science declares HPV is "necessary but not sufficient" to cause cervical cancer. In current studies 20% of CC does not have HPV, this PROVES HPV is not necessary for CC to develop
@michael0156 as someone who has extensively studied microbiology and immunology I can tell that you don't understand the basic pathology/causality of virally caused/associated cancers (eg. kaposi's sarcoma, Burkit's lymphoma, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, adult T-cell leukemia, hairy-cell leukemia). All of the those cancers are now known to be caused by viruses, so HPV is not alone. I can tell by the language you use you are not a scientist. Dead give-away...using the phrase "this PROVES"
Mayo Clinic - Hairy Cell Leukemia - "Doctors don't know what causes [it]" - Risk factors are "exposure to radiation [chemicals or sawdust]", virus not mentioned
Kaposi's sarcoma is "associated" with herpes virus, not caused by it. Kaposi's occurs only in immunocompromised. Originally only the elderly (70+) got it & it NEVER killed them. Then chemically immune suppressed transplant patients got it, then AIDS patients
Why do you lie?
HPV is "not sufficient" & cervical cancer happens w/o HPV
Mayo Clinic - Hairy Cell Leukemia - "Doctors don't know what causes [it]" - Risk factors are "exposure to radiation [chemicals or sawdust]", virus not mentioned
Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is "associated" with herpes virus & HIV, not caused by it.
KS, Burkitt's occurs only in immunocompromised
Why do you lie?
HPV is "not sufficient" & cervical cancer happens w/o HPV. 20-54% of cervical cancer doesn't have any HPV. this proves HPV IS NOT NECESSARY. Compormised immunity IS NECESSARY
@batigol47 Batty, unable to contradict truth w/ evidence, just says I'm wrong
FDA/CDC agree HPV, alone, is not sufficient to cause cervical cancer (CC). NOT SUFFICIENT. Something has to be wrong with the immune system in order for CC to appear
But the FDA/CDC also say HPV is NECESSARY & cervical cancer CANNOT exist w/o HPV. Pubmed studies disagree detailing 1000's of CCs w/o HPV
HPV is the most common STD & it's not in all cervical cancers- this proves HPV is not necessary
There are MANY more. Gardasil & Cervarix are a waste of time & money. Any lawsuits for damage caused by these vaccines should be allowed to be filed in state courts rather than in DC in the Vaccine Court. Merck & Glaxo have lied
@michael0156 1.) SOMETHING is wrong with everyone's immune system. 2.) Your arguments are disingenuous and/or straw man 3.) You have been shown wrong on numerous occasions. I simply don't spam the same comment like you. Everything you have said has been addressed. Then you fade away for a bit and come back to repost when things have died down to make it look as though no one has replied to you. Now how many women have to get sick and even die before you think it is worthwhile to combat?
HPV doesn't cause cancer. Batty claims to have addressed everything I have said, he lies. On this page I have again listed studies which prove HPV is not needed for cervical cancer to happen. They prove HPV is not necessary
Studies finding cervical cancer (CC) w/o HPV (Year & % of CC w/o HPV)
@michael0156 CC cancer happens without HPV this is true, but that does not mean HPV does not cause CC. Squamous Cell Cancer is also found in the Anus, the penis, the vulva, and the throat and HPV infection has been associated with these tissues.
Your analogy is like stating that a stroke can happen without an embolus and therefore is not necessary to cause a stroke. Which is just a true statement, but means nothing in the context of your debate.
@batigol - Batty says I'm wrong, disingenuous & I spam. I use info from studies as listed here. Batty has the chance to address them, he doesn't. Instead he resorts to insults & lies
Finally he says "how many have to get sick & die before you think it is worthwhile to combat"
Of course cancer is worth fighting. but Gardasil doesn't fight cancer. Cancer is not caused by HPV
Even Merck says "HPV is not sufficient to cause cancer", part of a for-profit smokescreen which requires immune problems
@michael0156 Proves that it is not necessary, BUT DOES NOT prove that HPV causes CC. There are more than one way to get CC with HPV being one of them.
The immune system waxes and wanes with health, nutrition and the toxins we put in our body. I am not about to state that its the womans fault for getting CC be smoking or having a glass of wine. Do you really want to state that?
when you cite the safety data on exposures to chemicals and you list the dangers associated with bathing in the substances and try to equate that to the effects of these minutely present (if at all) chemicals/metals it is misleading and inflammatory. and irresponsible. And yes, HPV does cause cancer. Every single day the science just gets stronger and more detailed. As a health professional (if in fact you are) you should know that.
@mendel7543210 there is not one study or piece of science that proves HPV causes cervical cancer.
CDC/FDA/Merck all admit HPV is "not sufficient" to cause cervical cancer or any cancer. Cervical cancer occurs in immune compromised individuals. Chronic HPV infection is one indicator that your immune system is not functioning properly
HPV is not found in all cervical cancers, just most. An average of 20% of cervical cancers don't have any HPV. This proves it is not necessary
the levels of aluminum that might possibly be 'left-over' in a vaccine after multiple levels of production come nowhere close to the normal amount of aluminum that is coursing through a newborn. Same goes for formaldehyde (which is also used in some vaccines in pre-production).....form/hyde is a naturally formed in the body as an intermediary in our metabolism. The small amount that might be leftover in vaccines is about 10x less than the amount in a newborns bloodstream.
um....aluminum is one of the most abundant metals on earth and we are exposed to HUGE amounts of aluminum in our foods every single day. Check the aluminum content of baby formula....it's everywhere. And it has been used in the very early stages of production of vaccines/IV fluids for decades (almost 70 years, I think). It has a very long history of study and safety. The reason it was added...before they added it, vaccines/IV fluid production could become contaminated with microorganisms
Cancer is controlled by a healthy immune system (IS)
PMID 12445659 - 165 cervical cancer(CC) samples 87 had NO HPV
19574785 - HPV in CC 93.5% - HSIL 92.6% - LSIL 63.4%
11588128 - 99 women with CIN 2 or 3 - 23% w/o HPV
EVERY STUDY EVER DONE shows some CC does not have HPV. The average is 20%. This PROVES HPV is not necessary!!
FDA/CDC also say "HPV is not sufficient to cause CC". A cofactor impairing the IS or showing the IS is impaired is NECESSARY, like smoking or oral contraceptives
The statement now recognized by everyone from the FDA to Merck and Glaxo Smith Kline is "HPV is necessary but not sufficient to cause cancer"
What does this mean? HPV does not cause cancer on its own. Having HPV cannot cause cancer. This is what FDA/CDC officials are saying.
So why do they say HPV causes cancer when the scientific community says it does not? Because the FDA/CDC bureaucrats are helping to sell the most expensive vaccines ever created by making you fear HPV...
"Necessary but not sufficient". A confusing unsupportble non-scientific statement. They also state "co-factors are required" which also means "a co-factor is NECESSARY" (smoking oral contraceptives, parity)
Every study on HPV prevalence shows some adeno/squamous cell carcinoma, dysplasia, condyloma, WITHOUT HPV. Cancers WITHOUT HPV range from a low of 7% to a high of 56% with most studies showing 20% of CC WITHOUT HPV.
EVERYONE gets cancer, but most immune systems destroy it before it is detectable
Batty ignores what everyone now admits - HPV CANNOT CAUSE CANCER BY ITSELF
if you have chronic HPV infection your immune system is damaged. It takes additional injury (smoking, birth control pills etc) for cancer to develop to a diagnosable stage
Gardasil & Cervarix are a waste of money & cause side effects, sometimes very serious. Batty, as usual, lies to defend drug profits & hurt kids
The damage to your immune system (IS) caused/indicated by "co-factors" (smoking, birth control pills, chronic STD infection other than HPV, etc) is the reason your IS doesn't destroy the cervical cancers (CC)every woman gets. In spite of this damage CC is still rare
HPV is called a "necessary" cause of CC as a result of fraudulent studies such as Walboomers designed to raise the % of HPV linked cancers. This fraud is exposed, but not yet recognized/admitted by most
@michael0156 The biggest cofactor for CC and HPV according to the research? Being pregnant. Not smoking, not bc, not sexual partners or other stds. I guess being pregnant destroys a woman's IS. Odd considering IS diseases like SLE and RA tend to improve during pregnancy.
Again, what exactly is it that you have against women? Your own half baked analysis recognizes HPV's involvement in CC, but you argue numbers. Just how many women need to die before it is worthwhile to you?
batty misquotes me & attributes ideas to me I have never supported
Batty says I "recognize HPV's involvement in cervical cancer (CC)", but all I recognize is the drug industry's propaganda/backpeddle that HPV is "necessary, but not sufficient" for CC to develop. My position has always been that HPV doesn't cause cancer of any type. Batty knows this but lies anyway
Once again I have reduced batty to ad hominem & fear mongering. Batty shows his sociopathic disdain for human life, especially kids
@michael0156 Your claim is simply ignorant. There is no getting around HPV's involvement in CC and there is no getting around the fact that eliminating HPV will reduce CC deaths. I also didn't say your claim. I know that you do not have the ability to draw accurate conclusions. I stated your analysis recognizes it. Every paper you cite recognizes it. It is your failure that you do not.
Recognize the irony in accusing me of ad hom and then engaging in " I know you are but what am I?". Typical.
A careful read of PMID 12445659 & 17935171 reveals they say HPV is necessary for cervical cancer (CC) to develop, but show CC occurs w/o HPV
Batty says my claim is ignorant & I can't draw accurate conclusions. This would be ad hominem if I was ignorant or unable to think, as Batty doesn't use evidence to show I am wrong, he just says I am wrong
After using 2 studies to prove my point & show Batty is a liar, I commented only a sociopath would expose kids to harm by lying. Not ad hom, just truth
@michael0156 You just reiterated my point. I have addressed you specifically as to your failings with examples. You choose to pretend that the last post is the only one I have made. Notice how you have attempted to drown out the comments you sunk yourself with concerning multiple pregnancies? Typical.
@michael0156 To quote yourself: "I suggest you stop reading epidemiological studies, the medical text equivalent of comic books, and read some university level material" - not that this is true but. I just want to call you a hypocrite. It'd be nice if you came up with research that actually states your point and not just vaguely implies something close.
I'd like to point out that viral infection of a cell always has the possibility of causing cancer due to genetic alteration of the cell.
In 2008 Dr Bernadine Healy in a CBS News interview declared "Vaccines may cause autism & it's inexcusable the proper research has NOT been done" Dr Healy graduated Harvard Med cum laude, former NIH Director, Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins,Cleveland Clinic's Chair of The Research Institute. Her opinion is expert & relevant
Regarding your alluding to a virus causing cancer, you are a liar hiding behind an unproved hypothesis. NO PROOF EXISTS that virus cause cancer
@Kershbob- Merck & Elsevier have proved you cannot rely on peer reviewed journals. In 2007 Australian litigation revealed Elsevier was publishing/planning 9/13 FAKE peer reviewed journals. How many more have been printed? Only Elsevier knows for sure
Marcia Angell, 1st woman Chief Editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, has been revealing her disgust with ghost written journal articles & scientists. doctors, researchers lying for industry sponsored studies. Bob is the hpocrite
Batty, exposed as a liar in the HPV/Gardasil scandal, resorts to deflection by bringing up Dr Andrew Wakefield & lying about him
No court of law has proven Dr Wakefield dishonest. The General Medical Council of England lied about which ethical clearances applied to his 1998 paper (12 co-authors), disputed the necessity of routine procedures & called drawing blood at his child's birthday party (with parent & child consent) "callous disregard" for kids' pain
@michael0156 Notice you left out the bit about him nearly getting one of the kids killed with an unnecessary colonoscopy?
Nevertheless, YOU were commenting on the reliability of journals and how this was proven conclusively in litigation, not the HPV scandal. I simply followed your lead. You are perfectly willing to appeal to authority when it suits your purpose and discredit it when it does not.
Batty shows he will lie & continue to hurt kids & now pregnant mothers without blinking either of his sociopathic eyes
Pregnancy supresses a woman's immune system to avoid rejecting the fetus. This opens a woman to a variety of infections, HPV & CT among them., but not cervical cancer. Multiple pregnancies are associted slightly with CC risk, but so is a woman's age. Multiple pregnancies means multiple exposures to more STD (generally) & getting older
@michael0156 Multiple pregnancies is THE highest cofactor with HPV for CC. Yet again you dismiss it as slight while spooning out a litany of other cofactors which are far less prevalent. Further, if your argument is that IS suppression causes CC and that pregnancy causes IS suppression, then how do you figure that pregnancy does not open a woman to cervical cancer? You are a work in abject failure.
2002 PMID 12445659 - About HPV & cervical cancer (CC) Bosch et al say;
1. HPV alone can't cause cancer
2. only a small fraction of women with oncogenic HPV progress to high-grade lesions or CC
3. parity, long-term OC use, smoking, & co-infection with other STD are the most consistently identified co-factors (Pregnacy is not mentioned)
Batty lies again. I never said suppressed IS causes CC. I said everyone gets cancer, the IS destroys it, but some IS impairments allow CC to proliferate
@michael0156 Just keep on dancing. Do you think anyone is fooled by your semantics? If everyone gets cancer then the cause is irrelevant. If suppressing the immune system allows the proliferation of cancer, as you claim, then multiple pregnancies, which you claim suppress the IS, allows for the proliferation of cancer.
Your argument remains one of cost. When will the lives of women be worth it to you?
Batty says "if everyone gets cancer then the cause is irrelevant". How does this help your argument that HPV causes cancer?
Batty says "multiple pregnancies... allows... cancer" due to immune suppression. Immune suppression in pregnancy is a disputed theory. It is thought to occur with humoral immunity (blood-borne defense) not cell mediated (cancer defense). Unimpaired CMI will stop cervical cancer
@michael0156 It was not intended to help my argument. What it does is undermine YOURS by setting logical conditions.
Notice you backstepped from your statement "Pregnancy supresses a woman's immune system to avoid rejecting the fetus...not CC". If you dont agree with this "disputed theory" then were back to HPV as a causative agent rather than IS issues, because again Multiple pregnancies is the highest cofactor. Remission of disorders like SLE and RA in pregnancy also disputes your claim re:HI.
why so many people living with STD, herpes? I recently found that i have this gift. I am so lonly and feel being rejected or discriminated? am at stdloving site, any one here want to be friends with me?
the "clinical trials" done with this vaccine were pathetically inadequate and improperly supervised and documented. the vast majority of the ***3%*** of women who die from cervical cancer die because they don't get their pap tests done - tests which you still have to get even with the vaccine. the vaccine changes nothing - just adds more toxins to your bloodstream, more overload on your immune system.
@threenorns3 So you are arguing that the 5-6000 women who die of a preventable condition annually in North America are not a worthwhile endeavor. A brave position to take.
@batigol47 338 women died of cervical cancer in 2004. without getting pap tests done, vaccinated women will still die if they develop cervical cancer and discover it too late. it's more likely, too, because it will be very easy for women to become complacent - "i'm vaccinated - i can't get cervical cancer".
stop shilling for Big Pharma and find yourself a proper case to champion - try obesity in children; it's FAR more serious than cancer.
@threenorns3 338 is the number in Canada. The argument that vaccination makes them complacent is simply asinine. You are still arguing solely on the idea that these women are not worth it. The fact is that it is a near impossibility to have cc without HPV. Reducing HPV infection will inherently lower that number. That it does not negate the value of the pap smear is irrelevant. Smoking increases chances of breast cancer but even if a women does not smoke she should get mammograms.
@threenorns3 batigol47 is an industry shill. His posts are pharma propaganda & he is unable to defend any of it. He has no training in medicine or science, possessing a liberal arts degree from an exclusive liberal arts college, his "education" probably paid for by mom or dad's money earned from the pharmaceutical industry. He claims to work with adult autistics but has referred to them as "retarded". His alleged wife stumpyouch also shills for drug corps & has ridiculed parents & autistic kids
@michael0156 Oh ye of limitless gall, so jealous of education. I find it amusing that you believe so much of what I say and yet insist that everything I say that obviously contradicts your predisposition is a lie. Might I detect a pattern? You are tiresome and I am running out of novel ways to respond to your continued spamming of inanity. Now it is your turn to retort with the same disingenuous tripe and outright lies. Don't forget to jump accounts and make it look like you have support.
The oficial taly of serious adverse events (ie. Guillain-Barre Syndrome) & deaths resulting from inoculation w Gardasil & Cervarix curently stands ‘3.34/100,000 doses distributed’, almst dble the avrage death rate frm cervical cancer (2.4/100,000 women). The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) confirmed, as of November 3, 2010, a total of 20,575 adverse reactions, including 352 reports of abnormal pap smears post vaccination& 89 reported deaths associatedGardisil&Cervarix
There are now over 15,000 signatures on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) Investigate Gardasil Vaccine Risks NOW! You can view the petition. wwwdotnvicdotorg/Petitiondotaspx.
I'm guessing the person who posted this video is one of those religious freaks that also promotes abstinence and fails to educate people about birth control.
YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF YOU SICK F*** !!!! HOW DARE YOU!
There is no proof that the vaccine has caused the deaths you speak of. You are not considering the other factors. For example one of the girls was on birth control pills. Birth control pills sometimes causes blood clots. No death has been directly linked to this vaccine.
3) by the identification of transforming properties of these genes, 4) by the requirement for E6 and E7 expression for maintaining the malignant phenotype of cervical carcinoma cell lines, 5) by the interaction of viral oncoproteins with growth-regulating host-cell proteins, and 6) by epidemiologic studies pointing to these HPV infections
The role of these virus infections has been established 1) by the regular presence of HPV DNA in the respective tumor biopsy specimens, 2) by the demonstration of viral oncogene expression (E6 and E7) in tumor material,
Micheal repeats again and again about how HPV does not cause CC. Yet does state the ones who cannot clear the HPV and CC are those who are immunodeficient. Either HPV does or does not cause CC. Which is it?
O-Lyin continues to misquote & protect the drug industry from truth
Only 1 out of 100 women who are chronically infected with HPV go on to develop cervical cancer (CC). That is not a cause & effect relationship
The FDA/CDC/researchers backpeddle saying HPV is necessary BUT NOT SUFFICIENT for CC to develop. Other NECESSARY co-factors are smoking, nutritional deficiency, oral contraceptives... ALL of which affect the immune system. Still, the majority of women who fit this profile don't get CC
@michael0156 Doesn't change the fact that you again just repeated yourself and I have refuted this statement literally three to four times. Your statement doesn't change the fact that women are still dying from CC and there are many article that highly correlate cc with HPV. Not just CC, but anal-rectal, esophageal and vulva cancer as well. Maybe you should start refuting those cancers too. Please go to college so your at least worth my time.
@michael0156 Only 1 out 150 car crashes ends with a fatality. Does that mean there is no cause and effect relationship? You are entirely disingenuous. If HPV is necessary (MUST BE PRESENT) for cc to develop then removing HPV from the equation means NO cc. Not one single other co-factor is necessary. Women who don't smoke get cc. Women who dont take bc get cc. Women who have proper nutrition get cc. Women who don't have HPV DONT GET CC.
Batty lies again to protect drug industry profits no matter the harm/death/financial cost for those medications or vaccines that are useless/harmful/deadly
Only 1 researcher says cervical cancer (CC) occurs MOSTLY in the presence of HPV (99.7%), Walboomers. All others show CC occuring WITHOUT HPV 7% - 24% of the time
Poor cell mediated immunity allows chronic HPV infection, 1 in 100 of those get diagnosable CC. That is not cause & effect, just coincidence of a common infection & a rare cancer
@michael0156 Walboomer's study is the most recent with the most specific test. It was a retest that corrected the numbers of the second stat you list. Of course you already know this. It is just another of your disingenuous ploys.
@michael0156 PMID: 9705418 0% rate of false negative on PCR.
You also act as though they only ran one PCR test and all PCR tests are the same. Both of those statements are false. They used three different tests and only 4% (2 cases) of the positives were only positive on one test.
I also wonder how you think they were able to figure out to exclude only negative samples because of inadequate material. Mostly it appears that you have no concept of what a PCR involves.
HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer (CC) or ANY cancer. It is a common skin/soft tissue infection which coincidentally is present with some cancers. Coincidence/correlation is not proof of causation just as batty says of the autism/vaccine link
Studies finding CC w/o HPV - (Year & % of CC w/o HPV)
HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer (CC) or ANY cancer. It is a common skin/soft tissue infection which coincidentally is present with some cancers. Coincidence/correlation is not proof of causation just as batty says of the autism/vaccine link
Studies finding CC w/o HPV - (Year & % of CC w/o HPV)
@michael0156 PMID 21387088 states: "HPV was detected in 118/130 patients (90.8%) with abnormal cervical cytology." and in 97.8% of squamous cell carcinomas. They were not studying just CANCER. So much for your research skills.
PMID 17935171 did not make the distinction between adenocarcinomas and SCC.
Do you really expect that no one will check to see that you are an idiot? You remain disingenuous in arguing for exceptions.
In PMID 21387088 there were 5 categories of "abnormal cytology" not just SCC. SCC had the highest HPV %, but HPV % ranged from 97.8-66.6%, up to 33.1% abnormal cervical samples WITHOUT HPV. Batty focuses on 1 of 5, but even that 1 shows 2.2% WITHOUT HPV & no HPV in 20% of cervical adenocarcinoma
In PMID 17935171 whether adeno/squamous cancer is irrelevant. Only 47.3% of cervical cancer were HPV positive
HPV ALONE CAN'T CAUSE CANCER, a fact batty ignores
@michael0156 Abnormal cytology and cancer are not interchangeable terms, dolt. Here again you remind us that you do not understand the precepts of the science. Let us also be clear that SCC represents over 80% of all cervical cancers. You continue to base your argument on the exception. And to what purpose? No matter how you try to shape it, preventing HPV infection through vaccination will inherently decrease the number of cases of cervical cancer. What do you have against women?
@michael0156 PMID 17935171: It is absolutely relevant, as we have established that SCC is by far the most common type and HPV is found in nearly every case of it.
This also ignores the fact that this study is an absolute outlier, with no other study even remotely as low. Yet even that number is higher than the risk from smoking.
What do you think causes cancer? Fact is nothing causes cancer by itself, because we do not live in a 1 variable bubble. It remains that you are deflecting. Why?
CDC/FDA both agree, HPV is not sufficient to cause cervical cancer (CC). In addition to an already damaged immune system (IS) allowing chronic HPV infection, further injury to a woman's IS is needed before diagnosable CC happens. There has never been a study where all cervical cancer has HPV, & many studies where 20% or more CC has no HPV
In PMID 17935171 out of 165 CC only 78 had HPV, significant & a death knell for batty's claims HPV causes all cervical cancer, he simply won't admit it
There is plenty of cervical cancer (CC) that occurs without HPV. When the FDA/CDC declare that HPV is "necessary but not sufficient for [CC] to develop" it certainly is a backpeddle from the original stance that "HPV causes all CC"
Of course batty ignores the phrase "HPV... is not sufficient to cause CC" One cofactor (smoking, oral contraceptives, parity etc) is also NECESSARY. The cofactors all hurt the immune system, which is what I have said, Immune problems allow chronic HPV & unchecked CC
I like that it was posted as the whole thing is a scam-and dangerous and will lead to cancer in about 46% of women who have already been exposed to HPV and take the vaccine. Even their own info says: "It MAY help those who are then exposed to HPV to prevent cancer." MAY....IOW it may do nothing, it may may you permanently damaged, it may make you sterile, it may help, you could still get it, and the other thing they try to not publish too much-it may kill you.There is no proof HPV causes it
Andersson, S., E. Rylander, B. Larsson, A. Strand, C. Silfversvard, and E. Wilander. 2001. The role of human papillomavirus in cervical adenocarcinoma carcinogenesis. Eur. J. Cancer 37:246-250.[CrossRef][Medline]
I'm getting a biopsy this week; being a young male, I have not been taken too seriously by doctors when I mention the possibility that I have a hpv16 throat infection. I think I have been infected with this virus in my throat for 7 months.Nothing the docs tried have made even a slight difference. I am afraid I will be under the knife for cancer removal in my neck. Look out for these symptoms;starts with scratch in throat, never gets any better, feel rundown/unwell, pain seems to move down throat
@radguitar1 If you have a noticeable throat infection of HPV for 7 months you have immune system problems caused by genetics, toxic exposures, poor nutrition hygiene or sanitation
Vaccines cannot help someone with immune problems but a bad diet or chronic exposure to toxins affecting your immune system are things you can correct
Toxins can permanently damage immunity, as in the 1989 contaminated tryptophan poisoning or Gulf War Syndrome where squalene in vax is strongly suspected
@SayNoToGMO Do some more reasearch; hpv 16 takes 10 years to form botceable cervical cancer and 1 to 2 for throat infections. I do not have HIV, poor hygeine, or chronic exposure to toxins. I will have my reslults from my biopsy next week and I will let you know exactly whit it is that I have
@radguitar1 FDA/CDC state HPV are sorted as high, medium & low risk based on how often they are ASSOCIATED w/cancer. Association is not proof of causation. There is no proof that HPV causes cancer, just hypotheses (scientific GUESSES). FDA/CDC say over 90% clear HPV w/o vax, docs, or meds
You don't know if you have had toxic exposures which have affected your immune system. If you don't have a genetic problem then poor nutrition or toxins makes you unable to clear the infection. That is fact
Gosh, I wonder how so many women managed to contract cervical cancer and die from it before Gardasil existed? Maybe it was all just a BIG HOAX? Sure, why not! It's not like we need evidence to believe bad things about the big bad Big Government!
I lol about how retards have it so good today, that they can waste their time slandering the only thing that ensured they didnt have to live in a world with smallpox, polio, and other horrific deseases.
bacterial infections cause inflammation. The expression of Cox-2 reduces the cell mediated immunity and your body wont be able to kill off hpv. This is why people who get this like to reduce their Cox-2 with drugs or herbs. Anyways everybody go to pub med . gov and type in "aloe vera hpv" without the quotes and you will find that interferon injections with aloe vera propolis and b- complex cures cervical cancer as well as hpv itself. 100% of the time. B-complex is an anti-inflammatory.
Orionx30 again makes excuses instead of posting his 2 best studies showing HPV causes cancer
-
O-lyin then says "in 10 years the data will be conclusive"... A 14 yr study started in 2008 by Merck is testing Gardasil's effectiveness
-
Merck makes Gardasil. Merck is run by heinous people known to tamper with studies, bribe, threaten truthful scientists, publish fraudulently & kill their customers
-
What kind of results do you think Merck's study will yield in 2022?
Phrase 1 is out of context and grossly misleading!! Read the whole document people! It means identifying HPV-DNA ALONE cannot predict the PROBABILITY of getting cancer. The sentence was part of a 2 page report on using HPV DNA as a method of diagnosing cervical cancer. The point of the report was that this method cannot substitute the Pap test as the best method of detecting pre-cancerous lesions! Mind you this was 7 years ago!
As for all other arguments: Nobody claims Gardasil TREATS HPV/cancer if you already have either of them! But it PREVENTS you from getting HPV which causes cancer! That’s why it’s mostly given to 11-12 year olds who don’t have sex OR HPV.
Point of male vaccination: It prevents guys from getting HPV which they will then sexually transmit to women. HPV also causes genital warts and anogenital cancer, and the vaccine protects from both!
O-lyin continues to list fraudulent studies, refusing to stand behind any 2 as the best
-
He doesn't have truthful studies to rely on & threatens to post 100s instead of the 2 best, listing lead authors, conflicts, sponsors & key points
-
All O-lyin can do is lie & attempt to deceive
-
The info I have posted is from the CDC/FDA/Merck. I have also posted info from 2 oncologists, the Markovics, who have stated in their book that HPV is a disease associated with cervical cancer by coincidence
@michael0156 LOL hahaha, the information I get is from peer reviewed websites. You know...? the websites that the whole world uses for research. You put down two quacks as your references. HAHAHAAHA pathetic... That great Mikey you made today... HAHAHAAH
O-lying laughs about a serious issue taking BILLIONS of health care dollars to fight a fraudulent battle
-
He says peer reviewed studies PROVE HPV causes cancer, but cowards away from declaring the 2 best studies & posting them here to defend. Instead he declares his intention of posting study after study (100s if necessary) no matter how many I show are wrong or fraudulent
-
HPV is with cancer by coincidence. That O-lyin refuses to stand by 2 studies as best shows he knows he has none
@michael0156 You aren't qualified to show if they are wrong or Fraudulent. You have never given anything for me to suspect that you have the training or the mental capacity to even understand what is said in these studies. Lets start out with your training and we can go from there to see if you can even understand what is being said?
@michael0156 I posted the conflicts, I told you to look them up. You are just unable and unqualified to look up the studies I have posted. I feel sorry for your mother.
@Orionx30 the only thing you posted was a garbled attempt to refer to the Madsen study, which is a known manipulation of data to find the results the main sponsor wanted. they found "no evidence". Well no evidence is just that, no evidence.
-
Also you did not list lead authors, conflicts, all sponsors, no key points
-
You also did not declare this study to be one of the 2 best you can find
-
You don't follow directions well, but you sure know how to tap dance around this issue
I have a feeling that any study I post you are going to deny that the information is valid. So if the information gives evidence to the points I make its been "manipulated." If its a repeated correlation study I get, "correlation does not equal causation." Really Mike you have no idea what you are talking about. It really doesn't matter cause everyday people are getting the vaccine. In ten years the data will be conclusive... Either the rates of CC will go down or it will not. C U in 10 yrs...
tralfasian claims HPV causes cervical cancer w/o evidence.
-
He says vaccines don't cause cancer, but admits vaccine could reactivate a latent virus. If he believes the virus can cause cancer, then the vaccine is the trigger for activating the cancer causing virus
-
The carcinogenicty of HPV is not proved, it is just hypothesis
-
If tralfasian has PROOF I demand he post the 2 best studies here with lead authors, sponsors, conflicts, key points. I'll show they are wrong
"A vaccine given to a woman who already carries HPV may activate the virus." ( 1:24)
It's recommended by doctors to get the vaccine BEFORE you are sexually active, so that there is no risk of having been exposed to the virus prior to getting the shot.
"The HPV vaccine contains a live cancer virus." (Video description.)
No it doesn't. Why not? Because cancer IS NOT a virus, you fucking moron. You can't inject cancer into someone. Cancer is a mutation of the body's own cells, not viral.
Sir-Lyin is misinformed about the HPV issues or he is yet another shill
-
FDA is now recommending women as old as 26 get the vaccine as well as boys and men. So much for his claim people won't get the vaccine before they are exposed to HPV
-
Sir-Lyin says "Cancer is not a virus" & "Cancer is... not viral" - according to Merck CDC & FDA cervical cancer is caused by a virus. Merck doesn't say that on their website, but the FDA/CDC do. Merck implies it, or says someone else said it
@StopGMO This explains what exactly? You HAVE MADE NO SCIENTIFIC claims, you have given no other explanations, just a conspiracy theory and the possibility that MERCK or the FDA/CDC is lying based on past evidence. You of all should know that correlation DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Again, no alternate explanation, no science.... Just someone on a soapbox trying to explain away a problem.
@StopGMO Still no science to prove your claims just all accusations and lies. Your blatant disregard for the lives of others is sickening. What do you have to gain by putting young girls lives at risk by telling them false information? You should seriously look in the mirror and find it in yourself to stop.
Yes, most of them are epidemiological. Yes, HPV 16/18 show association with CC at 70%. This is not like you state where HPV is a common virus associated with a rare disease. These are two very specific strains of HPV that are associated with over 70% OF ALL CERVICAL CANCERS. If you even deny the importance of this I refuse to talk to you anymore. All you are doing at this point is repeating you 5 rehearsed facts. That are completely made up.
1. O-lyin continues to repeat HPV 16/18 are ASSOCIATED [correlated] with cervical cancer (CC) 70% of the time. Then says "this is not like you state where HPV is a common virus associated with a rare disease"... DUH!, that is EXACTLY the same thing AND association/correlation DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION
2. O-lyin claims he has met my challenge & posted 2 studies he stands by as the best he can find PROVING HPV causes CC. He has not & he won't. These studies do not exist
@michael0156 Again with the 7th grade knowledge of science. There are over 100 strains of HPV. Its kinda weird that two strains out of one hundred-plus are associated with cervical cancer 70% of the time. I am not going to REEXPLAIN to you, for the 3rd time, why we use association along with the scientific method to test the validity of a hypothesis.
He claims "WE use association with scientific method to test validity of the hypothesis" (as if he is involved in scientific study)
a. he ignores that there are over 100 "high risk" "medium risk" & "low risk" HPV, where "risk" means association with cancer. Merck & Glaxo Smith Kline & FDA/CDC allow us to wrongly interpret "association" as "cause"
b. A 14 year study started in 2008 will determine if Gardasil is effective
c. He won't declare 2 studies the best he can find
Answer what is the relevance of high, medium and low risk...? And the importance of allowing for the risk of de novo cervical cancer? How do scientists factor in this rarity?
I don't care about Gardasil nor do I defend it. If that 2008 study shows it to be ineffective and harmful to the public, obviously it needs to be pulled. BEFORE that 14 years is up.
2 studies declare them the best you can find list lead authors, sponsors, conflicts, key points. You haven't done that and you already declared that you won't
-
You threatened to post more studies for every one that I show is wrong or fraudulent
-
You are not interested in the truth, just baseless insults, lies deceipt and promoting Big Pharma's agenda of denial
-
2 studies O-lyin, declare them the best you can find and defend them when I expose the fraud. Stop cowardly avoiding
@michael0156 I have posted them you NEED to look them up... Or state that you are unable. I don't know how many times i need to say this.... Do your own research. I am not doing it for you. This is ridiculous.
O-lyin has NEVER posted 2 studies declaring them the best proving HPV causes cervical cancer (CC) listing lead authors etc
-
He copy'pastes fraudulent epidemiology claiming HPV is found in more than 80% of CC or hypotheses (scientific guesses) about how HPV causes cancer. NO ONE HAS ANYTHING MORE THAN A GUESS
-
O-lyin knows this, which is why he refuses to declare any studies his best & stand by them
-
He also childishly threatens to post 100s of studies if I prove any wrong
@michael0156 Repeat, repeat, repeat nothing new here. Just an uneducated, unqualified hack that is trying to scare people. Do you like scarying and hurting young girls?
@gyula789 - You shills refuse to follow instructions
-
2 studies, declare them the best you can find PROVING cervical cancer is caused by HPV. List lead authors, conflicts, sponsors, key points
-
Only your 2 best, you don't get to list fraudulent study after fraudulent study
-
An analysis of studies has someone collecting a set of studies. he picks and chooses what studies to review for his "meta-analysis". You can't get a more biased "study"
@michael0156 I hate big corporations as much as you do but science is (mostly) done independently, and not disclosing conflicts of interest can lead to the loss of a career. I'm sure most scientists wouldn't risk their jobs like that. Before calling papers we post fraudulent, read them first and then justify your accusations by pointing to weaknesses in the papers. Lead authors etc. can be found in the paper, I won't do that for you. Where are your studies disproving HPV as the cause of CC?
@gyula789 You aren't a scientist or you lie. Most science is not done independently as funding/facilities have to come from somewhere. Funding & sponsoring institutions are where conflicts can originate
-
i said studies declaring HPV oncogenic are fraudulent. Post 2 calling them the best you can find. Prove you don't copy/paste info by supplying requested info. I will show the fraud
-
A scientist would know you can't prove a negative (HPV doesn't cause cancer) & correlation is not causation
1. Clifford et al states "...studies have established HPV infection as the cause of cervical cancer [CC] (Walboomers et al, 1999)" Quoting Walboomers is not PROOF HPV causes CC
The Clifford study was a "Comparison of HPV types [in CC].." not a proof HPV causes CC. You knew & lied about it. You even misquote the title to deceive
2. Munoz et al also ASSUMES HPV oncogenicty, but says HPV alone CAN"T cause CC. Other factors are necessary
What's clear is you lie about the studies you mis-quote
True HPV genome in cancer tissue does not necessarily imply causation. The cause of cancer due to infection has to conform to stringent criteria. See how all criteria are fulfilled in this paper:
1. The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer
Read the references of these review papers as well:
2. Papillomaviruses in the causation of human cancers — a brief historical account.
3.Human papillomavirus oncoproteins: pathways to transformation
@gyula789 2 best truthful studies you can find proving HPV causes cancer. List lead authors, conflicts, sponsoring institutions. I will expose them for the frauds they are or show them to be wrong or irrelevant
Then post the best 2 truthful studies you can find proving gardasil or cervarix are effective at doing ANYTHING. I will similarly rip them apart
I don't have a degree, but using mainstream info can espose Merck & Glaxo as heinous & lying groups of people bent on profit, not health
O-lyin has NEVER posted 2 studies declaring them the best proving HPV causes cervical cancer (CC) listing lead authors etc
-
He copy'pastes fraudulent epidemiology claiming HPV is found in more than 80% of CC or hypotheses (scientific guesses) about how HPV causes cancer. NO ONE HAS ANYTHING MORE THAN A GUESS
-
O-lyin knows this, which is why he refuses to declare any studies his best & stand by them
-
He also childishly threatens to post 100s of studies if I prove any wrong
@Orionx30 If HPV is only in 80% of cervical cancers then you have a 20% discrepancy of cancer occurring without HPV. You cannot explain that with ANY hypothesis that has a prayer of withstanding scientific scrutiny
-
Stop wioth the insults, the threats, the deceipt and start posting the 2 best pieces of evidence you have, declare thm to be the best you can find, and defend them when I take them apart
-
the fact you don't do this and lie saying you have is telling
@michael0156 Like I said, do your own research. Then we can talk about the study as equals instead of me doing hours of research and you using some made up scientific nonsense or fallacy to "prove" me wrong. I am not doing hours of research until I know you are doing it with me. IF you want to have an honest debate. I suggest you get on the same page.
The other 20% is a handful of other high risk strains and de novo cervical cancer. I don't understand why you can't get this?
@michael0156 Yea thats the point I wanted to bring out. HPV 16/18 is in 70% of cervical cancers. The other 20% has other high risk strains associated with the Cervical cancer. It is TWO STRAINS out of over 100 that are associated with CC. ALL OVER THE WORLD the studies have been repeated again and again just to add evidence to the theory that HPV has a HIGH correspondence with CC.
Again I want to know you qualifications for making such claims. Since you dont seem to grasp simple concepts.
@StopGMO I said that cancer isn't a virus because IT'S NOT A VIRUS.
I never said that cancer couldn't be caused by a virus. CERTAIN TYPES of cervical cancer can be caused by variants of the HPV virus.
The description implied that you could "inject cancer" into someone. You can't.
I also didn't say that people couldn't get the vaccine before they're exposed, but that it is RECOMMENDED to get the vaccine before having any sexual contact. They won't disallow you to get it if you've had sex.
Orionx30 is a complete and incompetent shill and liar
-
I challenged him to present only his 2 best studies proving HPV causes cancer, listing lead authors, sponsors, conflicts & summary
-
He lies saying he did it, I tell him posting a quote from a study is not sufficient,
-
Then he says " I don't care what you asked for. I gave you the titles. Tell me why they are wrong. Then I give you 2 more. & we will do this until you disprove every article I pull"
@SayNoToGMO Still no science to prove your claims just all accusations and lies. Your blatant disregard for the lives of others is sickening. What do you have to gain by putting young girls lives at risk by telling them false information? You should seriously look in the mirror and find it in yourself to stop.
I will show truthful correlation is 80% or less & studies showing a higher # are manipulated by Merck or GSK to justify a VERY profitable vaccine program
-
Now O-lyin, we await your 2 best studies that show a STRONG correlation of HPV & CC. Once I show your 2 best are fraud, the rest can be ignored
-
Truthful studies correlate about 80% or less of CC to HPV. 20%+ of CC happening w/o HPV chows coincidence. 80% happens to be the well-reported lifetime risk of getting HPV
@SayNoToGMO No bitch, WE ARE NOW awaiting your two studies proving that HPV does not cause CC. Go fetch them for me and my friends here, we will wait for you... We are not going anywhere. Two studies that prove that HPV does not cause CC. I could post every study ever made and you will lie and cheat your way thru them. You are intellectually dishonest and it would be complette waste of time to post anything more.
Go find the two studies that prove HPV and CC have no link
1. O-lying has said in on this page that science can prove nothing. Of course that is a ridiculous statement, but I'll hold him to it
2. Then O-lyin wants 2 studies "that prove HPV doesn't cause cancer(CC)"
3. O-lyin says science cannot prove anything. Now O-lyin wants me to use science to prove something does NOT cause something else (which is a logical impossibility)
-
Olyin realizes HE HAS NO TRUTHFUL STUDIES to show HPV causes CC. That's why he won't stand by the 2 best, he has NONE
Wow, Micheal you real don't know the first thing about science huh? Did you even take a thing school science class? Pro tip: You can never prove anything true in science. But you can disprove something very easily. This is something I am not going to explain because you should know this already. But that is why I said it would be so easy for you to disprove the link. You have lost this argument completely.
SayNoToGMO states, HPV & CC are together by coincidence. Only 1 out of 100 chronic HPV infections leads to CC. That is not cause & effect.
Where is your source to this information? This needs to be referenced in a scientific journal. Out of anything you post the journal you found this in.
@SayNoToGMO One more question. If its is 80% of the population that has HPV what is the distribution of the HPV? Which one of those strains correlates the most with women who develop CC? Hack.
I said 80% of us get HPV infection in our lifetime. I did not say 80% of the population has HPV. If O-lyin had ANY knowledge on this issue, other than copy/paste, he wouldn't have made this simple, but gross, error
-
O-lying also ignores the significance of high medium & low risk labels for HPV. The "risk" is how often a strain is found with cervical cancer(CC).
-
Even in language big pharma tries to induce fear, "high risk", when there is NO PROOF it causes cancer
@SayNoToGMO Once again, Micheal uses pseudoscience and 7th grade understanding to trick to trick people into believing him. We can all see that you know nothing about this issue. We can all see that you are below the intelligence level needed to understand it. I have posted two studies and you have yet to look them up and revie them so we can have an adult educated discussion about this issue. Again read the two studies I posted.
O-lyin wants 2 studies that prove HPV doesn't cause cancer - No one can ever prove a negative. O-lyin knows this but makes the demand anyway. This shows how serious he ISN'T about finding the truth
woot i can cancel my guardasil prescription and keep screwing my girlfriend
eovogt 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you ready?
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a women with lust you have committed adultery with her in your heart.
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Does this concern you? The Bible teaches despise the value of your eye compared to the value of your soul. would u sell your eye for a million dollars? And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. needgod.com
standingontruth1 1 month ago in playlist Playlist: Depopulation Agenda, Various
This has been flagged as spam show
for hpv(papilloma virus) treatment use Cervugid. gerovital-gerovital.blogspot.com
cazarebusteni 2 months ago
Sodium Borate [aka boric acid] is most emphatically NOT rat poison. A simple search for rodenticide will yield a list of agents used for the purpose, most commonly arsenic, warfarin, and strychnine.
phineasbrobdignag 4 months ago
@phineasbrobdignag But, still, boric acid? That's what exterminators use to kill roaches! Is that some how better?
DemePoole 3 weeks ago
@DemePoole Boric acid is the name given to Diatomaceous earth--the calcium carbonate penetrates the shells of insects and causes them to dehydrate...it does not kill per se, nor is it harmful. It is commonly used as a buffering agent to render solutions chemically neutral. it is also the principal ingredient in Tums and Rolaids.
phineasbrobdignag 3 weeks ago
@phineasbrobdignag The sodium perborate is used as the agent that grinds away the chitin in the insect shells.
phineasbrobdignag 3 weeks ago
you're a fucking nutjob.
NormaDesmond1000 4 months ago
I have a question,please answer. So i got the first dose last year and what happens if I refuse the oher three doses?After extensive research I have decided to refuse the shots. Im 13 so i reaaly neeed an answer to this problem
torrentXofXdarkness 5 months ago
@Olyin-30x
You admit HPV is not necessary, but then say it causes some cancer. You list no proof, no studies supporting such a thought
Now you imply i should be cautious about stating women who smoke or drink are causing cancer themselves. This is more nonsense. I didn't decide what co-factors are. Merck & FDA state the co-factors required for cervical cancer to develop
Immune problems (co-factors) are necessary for CC to develop. That alone allows cancer to develop. HPV is UNNECESSARY
michael0156 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
justthetruth3 5 months ago
Studies finding cervical cancer (CC) w/o HPV (Year & % of CC w/o HPV)
Remove spaces from link
htt p://ww w.ncbi.nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 21133613 (2010 7%)
PMID 9428782 (1998 6.2% 9.1%)
PMID 21387088 (2011 2.4, 20.0, 6.9, 7.7, 33.4%)
PMID 17935171 (2007 52.7%)
There are MANY more. Gardasil & Cervarix are a waste of time & money. Any lawsuits for damage caused by these vaccines should be allowed to be filed in state courts rather than in DC in the Vaccine Court. Merck & Glaxo have lied
michael0156 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
justthetruth4 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did you know that Rupert Murdoch's son James Murdoch, who manages the UK paper Sunday Times, is on the board of GlaxoSmithKLine? Sir Nigel Davis, the High Court judge that denied parents of children treated by Dr. Wakefield the right to have their claims against vaccine manufacturers heard in a real court? Davis' brother, who is an executive board member of Elsevier, the group that publishes the Lancet, is also on the board of GlaxoSmithKline. EthanHuff at NaturalNews*cm.
promiseIsaih60 6 months ago
when it comes to stds,I hate how many people are using the word "end".It's not the end,start your new life ”herpesanddating,net"
MyAlice109 6 months ago
The fact that the video uploader mentions she's "trying to expose the Illuminati" kinda invalidates anything else she has to say.
The ILLUMINATI??
sweetalker79 7 months ago 2
I was born with hpv and iam still a vergin, idk what to do u want to get the vaccine but iam scared of what it can do to my body."I wish i was born pure" but iam afraid of being that one death or just geting a minor side effect, what do i do :(
azzenshiddenclips 8 months ago
@batigol47 Batty is a practiced liar. It is a common belief pregnancy supresses a mother's immune system. I would not have known there is a question about this if batty didn't lie about pregnancy's association with cervical cancer. Thanks batty for your lies, which I investigate to find truth
Mainstream medicine/science declares HPV is "necessary but not sufficient" to cause cervical cancer. In current studies 20% of CC does not have HPV, this PROVES HPV is not necessary for CC to develop
michael0156 8 months ago 3
@michael0156 as someone who has extensively studied microbiology and immunology I can tell that you don't understand the basic pathology/causality of virally caused/associated cancers (eg. kaposi's sarcoma, Burkit's lymphoma, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, adult T-cell leukemia, hairy-cell leukemia). All of the those cancers are now known to be caused by viruses, so HPV is not alone. I can tell by the language you use you are not a scientist. Dead give-away...using the phrase "this PROVES"
mendel7543210 8 months ago
Mayo Clinic - Hairy Cell Leukemia - "Doctors don't know what causes [it]" - Risk factors are "exposure to radiation [chemicals or sawdust]", virus not mentioned
Kaposi's sarcoma is "associated" with herpes virus, not caused by it. Kaposi's occurs only in immunocompromised. Originally only the elderly (70+) got it & it NEVER killed them. Then chemically immune suppressed transplant patients got it, then AIDS patients
Why do you lie?
HPV is "not sufficient" & cervical cancer happens w/o HPV
michael0156 8 months ago 3
@mendel7543210
Mayo Clinic - Hairy Cell Leukemia - "Doctors don't know what causes [it]" - Risk factors are "exposure to radiation [chemicals or sawdust]", virus not mentioned
Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is "associated" with herpes virus & HIV, not caused by it.
KS, Burkitt's occurs only in immunocompromised
Why do you lie?
HPV is "not sufficient" & cervical cancer happens w/o HPV. 20-54% of cervical cancer doesn't have any HPV. this proves HPV IS NOT NECESSARY. Compormised immunity IS NECESSARY
michael0156 7 months ago
@michael0156 I wonder how many tomes we could fill with information on these topics that you do not know...
batigol47 7 months ago
@batigol47 Batty, unable to contradict truth w/ evidence, just says I'm wrong
FDA/CDC agree HPV, alone, is not sufficient to cause cervical cancer (CC). NOT SUFFICIENT. Something has to be wrong with the immune system in order for CC to appear
But the FDA/CDC also say HPV is NECESSARY & cervical cancer CANNOT exist w/o HPV. Pubmed studies disagree detailing 1000's of CCs w/o HPV
HPV is the most common STD & it's not in all cervical cancers- this proves HPV is not necessary
michael0156 7 months ago 3
Studies finding cervical cancer (CC) w/o HPV (Year & % of CC without HPV)
Remove spaces from link
htt p://ww w.ncbi.nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 21133613 (2010 7%)
PMID 9428782 (1998 6.2% 9.1%)
PMID 21387088 (2011 2.4, 20.0, 6.9, 7.7, 33.4%)
PMID 17935171 (2007 52.7%)
There are MANY more. Gardasil & Cervarix are a waste of time & money. Any lawsuits for damage caused by these vaccines should be allowed to be filed in state courts rather than in DC in the Vaccine Court. Merck & Glaxo have lied
michael0156 7 months ago
@michael0156 1.) SOMETHING is wrong with everyone's immune system. 2.) Your arguments are disingenuous and/or straw man 3.) You have been shown wrong on numerous occasions. I simply don't spam the same comment like you. Everything you have said has been addressed. Then you fade away for a bit and come back to repost when things have died down to make it look as though no one has replied to you. Now how many women have to get sick and even die before you think it is worthwhile to combat?
batigol47 7 months ago
HPV doesn't cause cancer. Batty claims to have addressed everything I have said, he lies. On this page I have again listed studies which prove HPV is not needed for cervical cancer to happen. They prove HPV is not necessary
Studies finding cervical cancer (CC) w/o HPV (Year & % of CC w/o HPV)
ww w.ncbi.nlm. nih. gov/ pubmed/ 21133613 (2010 7%)
PMID 9428782 (1998 6.2% 9.1%)
PMID 21387088 (2011 2.4, 20.0, 6.9, 7.7, 33.4%)
PMID 17935171 (2007 52.7%)
michael0156 7 months ago
@michael0156 CC cancer happens without HPV this is true, but that does not mean HPV does not cause CC. Squamous Cell Cancer is also found in the Anus, the penis, the vulva, and the throat and HPV infection has been associated with these tissues.
Your analogy is like stating that a stroke can happen without an embolus and therefore is not necessary to cause a stroke. Which is just a true statement, but means nothing in the context of your debate.
Orionx30 5 months ago
@batigol - Batty says I'm wrong, disingenuous & I spam. I use info from studies as listed here. Batty has the chance to address them, he doesn't. Instead he resorts to insults & lies
Finally he says "how many have to get sick & die before you think it is worthwhile to combat"
Of course cancer is worth fighting. but Gardasil doesn't fight cancer. Cancer is not caused by HPV
Even Merck says "HPV is not sufficient to cause cancer", part of a for-profit smokescreen which requires immune problems
michael0156 5 months ago 5
@michael0156 Proves that it is not necessary, BUT DOES NOT prove that HPV causes CC. There are more than one way to get CC with HPV being one of them.
The immune system waxes and wanes with health, nutrition and the toxins we put in our body. I am not about to state that its the womans fault for getting CC be smoking or having a glass of wine. Do you really want to state that?
Orionx30 5 months ago
when you cite the safety data on exposures to chemicals and you list the dangers associated with bathing in the substances and try to equate that to the effects of these minutely present (if at all) chemicals/metals it is misleading and inflammatory. and irresponsible. And yes, HPV does cause cancer. Every single day the science just gets stronger and more detailed. As a health professional (if in fact you are) you should know that.
mendel7543210 8 months ago
@mendel7543210 there is not one study or piece of science that proves HPV causes cervical cancer.
CDC/FDA/Merck all admit HPV is "not sufficient" to cause cervical cancer or any cancer. Cervical cancer occurs in immune compromised individuals. Chronic HPV infection is one indicator that your immune system is not functioning properly
HPV is not found in all cervical cancers, just most. An average of 20% of cervical cancers don't have any HPV. This proves it is not necessary
Why do you lie?
michael0156 8 months ago
the levels of aluminum that might possibly be 'left-over' in a vaccine after multiple levels of production come nowhere close to the normal amount of aluminum that is coursing through a newborn. Same goes for formaldehyde (which is also used in some vaccines in pre-production).....form/hyde is a naturally formed in the body as an intermediary in our metabolism. The small amount that might be leftover in vaccines is about 10x less than the amount in a newborns bloodstream.
mendel7543210 8 months ago 3
um....aluminum is one of the most abundant metals on earth and we are exposed to HUGE amounts of aluminum in our foods every single day. Check the aluminum content of baby formula....it's everywhere. And it has been used in the very early stages of production of vaccines/IV fluids for decades (almost 70 years, I think). It has a very long history of study and safety. The reason it was added...before they added it, vaccines/IV fluid production could become contaminated with microorganisms
mendel7543210 8 months ago
Cancer is controlled by a healthy immune system (IS)
PMID 12445659 - 165 cervical cancer(CC) samples 87 had NO HPV
19574785 - HPV in CC 93.5% - HSIL 92.6% - LSIL 63.4%
11588128 - 99 women with CIN 2 or 3 - 23% w/o HPV
EVERY STUDY EVER DONE shows some CC does not have HPV. The average is 20%. This PROVES HPV is not necessary!!
FDA/CDC also say "HPV is not sufficient to cause CC". A cofactor impairing the IS or showing the IS is impaired is NECESSARY, like smoking or oral contraceptives
michael0156 10 months ago
The statement now recognized by everyone from the FDA to Merck and Glaxo Smith Kline is "HPV is necessary but not sufficient to cause cancer"
What does this mean? HPV does not cause cancer on its own. Having HPV cannot cause cancer. This is what FDA/CDC officials are saying.
So why do they say HPV causes cancer when the scientific community says it does not? Because the FDA/CDC bureaucrats are helping to sell the most expensive vaccines ever created by making you fear HPV...
continued
michael0156 10 months ago
continuation...
"Necessary but not sufficient". A confusing unsupportble non-scientific statement. They also state "co-factors are required" which also means "a co-factor is NECESSARY" (smoking oral contraceptives, parity)
Every study on HPV prevalence shows some adeno/squamous cell carcinoma, dysplasia, condyloma, WITHOUT HPV. Cancers WITHOUT HPV range from a low of 7% to a high of 56% with most studies showing 20% of CC WITHOUT HPV.
HPV IS NOT NECESSARY & doesn't cause cancer
michael0156 10 months ago
EVERYONE gets cancer, but most immune systems destroy it before it is detectable
Batty ignores what everyone now admits - HPV CANNOT CAUSE CANCER BY ITSELF
if you have chronic HPV infection your immune system is damaged. It takes additional injury (smoking, birth control pills etc) for cancer to develop to a diagnosable stage
Gardasil & Cervarix are a waste of money & cause side effects, sometimes very serious. Batty, as usual, lies to defend drug profits & hurt kids
michael0156 10 months ago 2
cont...
The damage to your immune system (IS) caused/indicated by "co-factors" (smoking, birth control pills, chronic STD infection other than HPV, etc) is the reason your IS doesn't destroy the cervical cancers (CC)every woman gets. In spite of this damage CC is still rare
HPV is called a "necessary" cause of CC as a result of fraudulent studies such as Walboomers designed to raise the % of HPV linked cancers. This fraud is exposed, but not yet recognized/admitted by most
michael0156 10 months ago
@michael0156 The biggest cofactor for CC and HPV according to the research? Being pregnant. Not smoking, not bc, not sexual partners or other stds. I guess being pregnant destroys a woman's IS. Odd considering IS diseases like SLE and RA tend to improve during pregnancy.
Again, what exactly is it that you have against women? Your own half baked analysis recognizes HPV's involvement in CC, but you argue numbers. Just how many women need to die before it is worthwhile to you?
batigol47 10 months ago
batty misquotes me & attributes ideas to me I have never supported
Batty says I "recognize HPV's involvement in cervical cancer (CC)", but all I recognize is the drug industry's propaganda/backpeddle that HPV is "necessary, but not sufficient" for CC to develop. My position has always been that HPV doesn't cause cancer of any type. Batty knows this but lies anyway
Once again I have reduced batty to ad hominem & fear mongering. Batty shows his sociopathic disdain for human life, especially kids
michael0156 10 months ago
@michael0156 Your claim is simply ignorant. There is no getting around HPV's involvement in CC and there is no getting around the fact that eliminating HPV will reduce CC deaths. I also didn't say your claim. I know that you do not have the ability to draw accurate conclusions. I stated your analysis recognizes it. Every paper you cite recognizes it. It is your failure that you do not.
Recognize the irony in accusing me of ad hom and then engaging in " I know you are but what am I?". Typical.
batigol47 10 months ago
A careful read of PMID 12445659 & 17935171 reveals they say HPV is necessary for cervical cancer (CC) to develop, but show CC occurs w/o HPV
Batty says my claim is ignorant & I can't draw accurate conclusions. This would be ad hominem if I was ignorant or unable to think, as Batty doesn't use evidence to show I am wrong, he just says I am wrong
After using 2 studies to prove my point & show Batty is a liar, I commented only a sociopath would expose kids to harm by lying. Not ad hom, just truth
michael0156 10 months ago
@michael0156 You just reiterated my point. I have addressed you specifically as to your failings with examples. You choose to pretend that the last post is the only one I have made. Notice how you have attempted to drown out the comments you sunk yourself with concerning multiple pregnancies? Typical.
batigol47 10 months ago
@michael0156 To quote yourself: "I suggest you stop reading epidemiological studies, the medical text equivalent of comic books, and read some university level material" - not that this is true but. I just want to call you a hypocrite. It'd be nice if you came up with research that actually states your point and not just vaguely implies something close.
I'd like to point out that viral infection of a cell always has the possibility of causing cancer due to genetic alteration of the cell.
Kershbob 9 months ago
continuation...
In 2008 Dr Bernadine Healy in a CBS News interview declared "Vaccines may cause autism & it's inexcusable the proper research has NOT been done" Dr Healy graduated Harvard Med cum laude, former NIH Director, Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins,Cleveland Clinic's Chair of The Research Institute. Her opinion is expert & relevant
Regarding your alluding to a virus causing cancer, you are a liar hiding behind an unproved hypothesis. NO PROOF EXISTS that virus cause cancer
michael0156 9 months ago
@Kershbob- Merck & Elsevier have proved you cannot rely on peer reviewed journals. In 2007 Australian litigation revealed Elsevier was publishing/planning 9/13 FAKE peer reviewed journals. How many more have been printed? Only Elsevier knows for sure
Marcia Angell, 1st woman Chief Editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, has been revealing her disgust with ghost written journal articles & scientists. doctors, researchers lying for industry sponsored studies. Bob is the hpocrite
continued
michael0156 9 months ago
@michael0156 You mean like courts have proven conclusively that you cannot trust Andrew Wakefield? You are a hypocrite.
batigol47 9 months ago
Batty, exposed as a liar in the HPV/Gardasil scandal, resorts to deflection by bringing up Dr Andrew Wakefield & lying about him
No court of law has proven Dr Wakefield dishonest. The General Medical Council of England lied about which ethical clearances applied to his 1998 paper (12 co-authors), disputed the necessity of routine procedures & called drawing blood at his child's birthday party (with parent & child consent) "callous disregard" for kids' pain
Batty lies to protect drug profits
michael0156 9 months ago
@michael0156 Notice you left out the bit about him nearly getting one of the kids killed with an unnecessary colonoscopy?
Nevertheless, YOU were commenting on the reliability of journals and how this was proven conclusively in litigation, not the HPV scandal. I simply followed your lead. You are perfectly willing to appeal to authority when it suits your purpose and discredit it when it does not.
batigol47 9 months ago 2
Batty shows he will lie & continue to hurt kids & now pregnant mothers without blinking either of his sociopathic eyes
Pregnancy supresses a woman's immune system to avoid rejecting the fetus. This opens a woman to a variety of infections, HPV & CT among them., but not cervical cancer. Multiple pregnancies are associted slightly with CC risk, but so is a woman's age. Multiple pregnancies means multiple exposures to more STD (generally) & getting older
You're too sleepy batty, give it up
michael0156 10 months ago
@michael0156 Multiple pregnancies is THE highest cofactor with HPV for CC. Yet again you dismiss it as slight while spooning out a litany of other cofactors which are far less prevalent. Further, if your argument is that IS suppression causes CC and that pregnancy causes IS suppression, then how do you figure that pregnancy does not open a woman to cervical cancer? You are a work in abject failure.
batigol47 10 months ago
2002 PMID 12445659 - About HPV & cervical cancer (CC) Bosch et al say;
1. HPV alone can't cause cancer
2. only a small fraction of women with oncogenic HPV progress to high-grade lesions or CC
3. parity, long-term OC use, smoking, & co-infection with other STD are the most consistently identified co-factors (Pregnacy is not mentioned)
Batty lies again. I never said suppressed IS causes CC. I said everyone gets cancer, the IS destroys it, but some IS impairments allow CC to proliferate
michael0156 10 months ago
@michael0156 Just keep on dancing. Do you think anyone is fooled by your semantics? If everyone gets cancer then the cause is irrelevant. If suppressing the immune system allows the proliferation of cancer, as you claim, then multiple pregnancies, which you claim suppress the IS, allows for the proliferation of cancer.
Your argument remains one of cost. When will the lives of women be worth it to you?
batigol47 10 months ago
I "dance" with facts, batty stumbles with lies
Batty says "if everyone gets cancer then the cause is irrelevant". How does this help your argument that HPV causes cancer?
Batty says "multiple pregnancies... allows... cancer" due to immune suppression. Immune suppression in pregnancy is a disputed theory. It is thought to occur with humoral immunity (blood-borne defense) not cell mediated (cancer defense). Unimpaired CMI will stop cervical cancer
Batty knows his "arguments" are smoke & mirrors
michael0156 9 months ago
@michael0156 It was not intended to help my argument. What it does is undermine YOURS by setting logical conditions.
Notice you backstepped from your statement "Pregnancy supresses a woman's immune system to avoid rejecting the fetus...not CC". If you dont agree with this "disputed theory" then were back to HPV as a causative agent rather than IS issues, because again Multiple pregnancies is the highest cofactor. Remission of disorders like SLE and RA in pregnancy also disputes your claim re:HI.
batigol47 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why so many people living with STD, herpes? I recently found that i have this gift. I am so lonly and feel being rejected or discriminated? am at stdloving site, any one here want to be friends with me?
kevintsang2011 10 months ago
the "clinical trials" done with this vaccine were pathetically inadequate and improperly supervised and documented. the vast majority of the ***3%*** of women who die from cervical cancer die because they don't get their pap tests done - tests which you still have to get even with the vaccine. the vaccine changes nothing - just adds more toxins to your bloodstream, more overload on your immune system.
threenorns3 11 months ago
@threenorns3 Sure would be nice if you bothered with reality.
batigol47 10 months ago
@batigol47 sorry, you're right - my number were way off.
according to public health canada: "In 2004 cervical cancer represented 1.2% (388) of all cancer deaths in women."
that's from the public health agency of canada.
my bad.
threenorns3 10 months ago
@threenorns3 So you are arguing that the 5-6000 women who die of a preventable condition annually in North America are not a worthwhile endeavor. A brave position to take.
batigol47 10 months ago
@batigol47 338 women died of cervical cancer in 2004. without getting pap tests done, vaccinated women will still die if they develop cervical cancer and discover it too late. it's more likely, too, because it will be very easy for women to become complacent - "i'm vaccinated - i can't get cervical cancer".
stop shilling for Big Pharma and find yourself a proper case to champion - try obesity in children; it's FAR more serious than cancer.
threenorns3 10 months ago
@threenorns3 338 is the number in Canada. The argument that vaccination makes them complacent is simply asinine. You are still arguing solely on the idea that these women are not worth it. The fact is that it is a near impossibility to have cc without HPV. Reducing HPV infection will inherently lower that number. That it does not negate the value of the pap smear is irrelevant. Smoking increases chances of breast cancer but even if a women does not smoke she should get mammograms.
batigol47 10 months ago
@threenorns3 batigol47 is an industry shill. His posts are pharma propaganda & he is unable to defend any of it. He has no training in medicine or science, possessing a liberal arts degree from an exclusive liberal arts college, his "education" probably paid for by mom or dad's money earned from the pharmaceutical industry. He claims to work with adult autistics but has referred to them as "retarded". His alleged wife stumpyouch also shills for drug corps & has ridiculed parents & autistic kids
michael0156 10 months ago
@michael0156 Oh ye of limitless gall, so jealous of education. I find it amusing that you believe so much of what I say and yet insist that everything I say that obviously contradicts your predisposition is a lie. Might I detect a pattern? You are tiresome and I am running out of novel ways to respond to your continued spamming of inanity. Now it is your turn to retort with the same disingenuous tripe and outright lies. Don't forget to jump accounts and make it look like you have support.
batigol47 10 months ago
@batigol47
batigol repeats insults, lies & deflections. No facts. No refutations of evidence I post (which comes from the CDC FDA Merck & NIH)
I post truth, regardless of where it leads. Batty protects drug profits, no matter how many kids suffer
FDA/Merck/CDC state HPV can't cause cervical cancer (CC) by itself & a co-factor is NECESSARY (smoking, oral contraceptives, chronic STD)
But MANY NIH studies show CC w/o HPV
This proves immune impairment, not HPV, is necessary for CC to develop
michael0156 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michael0156 LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, you have already been addressed at great length, why the necromancy?
batigol47 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The oficial taly of serious adverse events (ie. Guillain-Barre Syndrome) & deaths resulting from inoculation w Gardasil & Cervarix curently stands ‘3.34/100,000 doses distributed’, almst dble the avrage death rate frm cervical cancer (2.4/100,000 women). The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) confirmed, as of November 3, 2010, a total of 20,575 adverse reactions, including 352 reports of abnormal pap smears post vaccination& 89 reported deaths associatedGardisil&Cervarix
promiseIsaih60 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are now over 15,000 signatures on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) Investigate Gardasil Vaccine Risks NOW! You can view the petition. wwwdotnvicdotorg/Petitiondotaspx.
promiseIsaih60 11 months ago
I'm guessing the person who posted this video is one of those religious freaks that also promotes abstinence and fails to educate people about birth control.
YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF YOU SICK F*** !!!! HOW DARE YOU!
There is no proof that the vaccine has caused the deaths you speak of. You are not considering the other factors. For example one of the girls was on birth control pills. Birth control pills sometimes causes blood clots. No death has been directly linked to this vaccine.
mykellynn 11 months ago
Papillomaviruses causing cancer: evasion from host-cell control in early events in carcinogenesis.
Orionx30 11 months ago
3) by the identification of transforming properties of these genes, 4) by the requirement for E6 and E7 expression for maintaining the malignant phenotype of cervical carcinoma cell lines, 5) by the interaction of viral oncoproteins with growth-regulating host-cell proteins, and 6) by epidemiologic studies pointing to these HPV infections
Orionx30 11 months ago
The role of these virus infections has been established 1) by the regular presence of HPV DNA in the respective tumor biopsy specimens, 2) by the demonstration of viral oncogene expression (E6 and E7) in tumor material,
Orionx30 11 months ago
Micheal repeats again and again about how HPV does not cause CC. Yet does state the ones who cannot clear the HPV and CC are those who are immunodeficient. Either HPV does or does not cause CC. Which is it?
Orionx30 11 months ago
@Orionx30 I think that's pretty clear. Can't clear the virus is something common to the women getting CC.
RavenPrecept 11 months ago
O-Lyin continues to misquote & protect the drug industry from truth
Only 1 out of 100 women who are chronically infected with HPV go on to develop cervical cancer (CC). That is not a cause & effect relationship
The FDA/CDC/researchers backpeddle saying HPV is necessary BUT NOT SUFFICIENT for CC to develop. Other NECESSARY co-factors are smoking, nutritional deficiency, oral contraceptives... ALL of which affect the immune system. Still, the majority of women who fit this profile don't get CC
michael0156 10 months ago
@michael0156 Doesn't change the fact that you again just repeated yourself and I have refuted this statement literally three to four times. Your statement doesn't change the fact that women are still dying from CC and there are many article that highly correlate cc with HPV. Not just CC, but anal-rectal, esophageal and vulva cancer as well. Maybe you should start refuting those cancers too. Please go to college so your at least worth my time.
Orionx30 10 months ago
@michael0156 Only 1 out 150 car crashes ends with a fatality. Does that mean there is no cause and effect relationship? You are entirely disingenuous. If HPV is necessary (MUST BE PRESENT) for cc to develop then removing HPV from the equation means NO cc. Not one single other co-factor is necessary. Women who don't smoke get cc. Women who dont take bc get cc. Women who have proper nutrition get cc. Women who don't have HPV DONT GET CC.
And it is backpedal dimwit.
batigol47 10 months ago
Batty lies again to protect drug industry profits no matter the harm/death/financial cost for those medications or vaccines that are useless/harmful/deadly
Only 1 researcher says cervical cancer (CC) occurs MOSTLY in the presence of HPV (99.7%), Walboomers. All others show CC occuring WITHOUT HPV 7% - 24% of the time
Poor cell mediated immunity allows chronic HPV infection, 1 in 100 of those get diagnosable CC. That is not cause & effect, just coincidence of a common infection & a rare cancer
michael0156 10 months ago
@michael0156 Walboomer's study is the most recent with the most specific test. It was a retest that corrected the numbers of the second stat you list. Of course you already know this. It is just another of your disingenuous ploys.
batigol47 10 months ago
Walboomers is far from the most recent, being done in 1999 (retest of ONLY neg samples from 1995 Bosch study)
Walboomer's fraud
1. 32 samples declared inadequate or ignored, none recounted
2. Retested/recounted 34 of 66 , which had to be neg on 3 PCR's to be recounted neg. PCRs are notorious for false neg & pos
3. No HPV DNA retest of any pos samples, letting all those stand unchallenged
He changed 66 neg to 2neg & 32 pos in a simple unscientific fraud, promoting his sponsors' HPV test kit
michael0156 10 months ago
@michael0156 PMID: 9705418 0% rate of false negative on PCR.
You also act as though they only ran one PCR test and all PCR tests are the same. Both of those statements are false. They used three different tests and only 4% (2 cases) of the positives were only positive on one test.
I also wonder how you think they were able to figure out to exclude only negative samples because of inadequate material. Mostly it appears that you have no concept of what a PCR involves.
batigol47 10 months ago
HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer (CC) or ANY cancer. It is a common skin/soft tissue infection which coincidentally is present with some cancers. Coincidence/correlation is not proof of causation just as batty says of the autism/vaccine link
Studies finding CC w/o HPV - (Year & % of CC w/o HPV)
htt p://w ww.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/21133613 (2010 7%) & 9428782 (1998 6.2% & 9.1%) & 21387088 (2011 - 2.4, 20.0, 6.9, 7.7, 33.4%) & 17935171 (2007 - 52.7%)
So much cancer WITHOUT oncogenic HPV
michael0156 10 months ago
HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer (CC) or ANY cancer. It is a common skin/soft tissue infection which coincidentally is present with some cancers. Coincidence/correlation is not proof of causation just as batty says of the autism/vaccine link
Studies finding CC w/o HPV - (Year & % of CC w/o HPV)
htt p://w ww.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pubmed/21133613 (2010 7%) & 9428782 (1998 6.2% & 9.1%) & 21387088 (2011 - 2.4, 20.0, 6.9, 7.7, 33.4%) & 17935171 (2007 - 52.7%)
So much cancer WITHOUT oncogenic HPV
michael0156 10 months ago
@michael0156 PMID 21387088 states: "HPV was detected in 118/130 patients (90.8%) with abnormal cervical cytology." and in 97.8% of squamous cell carcinomas. They were not studying just CANCER. So much for your research skills.
PMID 17935171 did not make the distinction between adenocarcinomas and SCC.
Do you really expect that no one will check to see that you are an idiot? You remain disingenuous in arguing for exceptions.
FTR lets compare with smoking: 41% PMID: 19012698
batigol47 10 months ago
Batty deflects/deceives again
In PMID 21387088 there were 5 categories of "abnormal cytology" not just SCC. SCC had the highest HPV %, but HPV % ranged from 97.8-66.6%, up to 33.1% abnormal cervical samples WITHOUT HPV. Batty focuses on 1 of 5, but even that 1 shows 2.2% WITHOUT HPV & no HPV in 20% of cervical adenocarcinoma
In PMID 17935171 whether adeno/squamous cancer is irrelevant. Only 47.3% of cervical cancer were HPV positive
HPV ALONE CAN'T CAUSE CANCER, a fact batty ignores
michael0156 10 months ago
@michael0156 Abnormal cytology and cancer are not interchangeable terms, dolt. Here again you remind us that you do not understand the precepts of the science. Let us also be clear that SCC represents over 80% of all cervical cancers. You continue to base your argument on the exception. And to what purpose? No matter how you try to shape it, preventing HPV infection through vaccination will inherently decrease the number of cases of cervical cancer. What do you have against women?
batigol47 10 months ago
@michael0156 PMID 17935171: It is absolutely relevant, as we have established that SCC is by far the most common type and HPV is found in nearly every case of it.
This also ignores the fact that this study is an absolute outlier, with no other study even remotely as low. Yet even that number is higher than the risk from smoking.
What do you think causes cancer? Fact is nothing causes cancer by itself, because we do not live in a 1 variable bubble. It remains that you are deflecting. Why?
batigol47 10 months ago
CDC/FDA both agree, HPV is not sufficient to cause cervical cancer (CC). In addition to an already damaged immune system (IS) allowing chronic HPV infection, further injury to a woman's IS is needed before diagnosable CC happens. There has never been a study where all cervical cancer has HPV, & many studies where 20% or more CC has no HPV
In PMID 17935171 out of 165 CC only 78 had HPV, significant & a death knell for batty's claims HPV causes all cervical cancer, he simply won't admit it
michael0156 10 months ago
There is plenty of cervical cancer (CC) that occurs without HPV. When the FDA/CDC declare that HPV is "necessary but not sufficient for [CC] to develop" it certainly is a backpeddle from the original stance that "HPV causes all CC"
Of course batty ignores the phrase "HPV... is not sufficient to cause CC" One cofactor (smoking, oral contraceptives, parity etc) is also NECESSARY. The cofactors all hurt the immune system, which is what I have said, Immune problems allow chronic HPV & unchecked CC
michael0156 10 months ago
I like that it was posted as the whole thing is a scam-and dangerous and will lead to cancer in about 46% of women who have already been exposed to HPV and take the vaccine. Even their own info says: "It MAY help those who are then exposed to HPV to prevent cancer." MAY....IOW it may do nothing, it may may you permanently damaged, it may make you sterile, it may help, you could still get it, and the other thing they try to not publish too much-it may kill you.There is no proof HPV causes it
Giverney13 1 year ago
Comment removed
NebunLaCap 1 year ago
Comment removed
NebunLaCap 1 year ago
Andersson, S., E. Rylander, B. Larsson, A. Strand, C. Silfversvard, and E. Wilander. 2001. The role of human papillomavirus in cervical adenocarcinoma carcinogenesis. Eur. J. Cancer 37:246-250.[CrossRef][Medline]
larbike 1 year ago
@larbike You listed the Andersson/Rylander study but you didn't state if you think it supports or disputes the hypothesis that HPV causes cancer
Why did you post it?
SayNoToGMO 1 year ago
I'm getting a biopsy this week; being a young male, I have not been taken too seriously by doctors when I mention the possibility that I have a hpv16 throat infection. I think I have been infected with this virus in my throat for 7 months.Nothing the docs tried have made even a slight difference. I am afraid I will be under the knife for cancer removal in my neck. Look out for these symptoms;starts with scratch in throat, never gets any better, feel rundown/unwell, pain seems to move down throat
radguitar1 1 year ago
@radguitar1 If you have a noticeable throat infection of HPV for 7 months you have immune system problems caused by genetics, toxic exposures, poor nutrition hygiene or sanitation
Vaccines cannot help someone with immune problems but a bad diet or chronic exposure to toxins affecting your immune system are things you can correct
Toxins can permanently damage immunity, as in the 1989 contaminated tryptophan poisoning or Gulf War Syndrome where squalene in vax is strongly suspected
SayNoToGMO 1 year ago
@SayNoToGMO Do some more reasearch; hpv 16 takes 10 years to form botceable cervical cancer and 1 to 2 for throat infections. I do not have HIV, poor hygeine, or chronic exposure to toxins. I will have my reslults from my biopsy next week and I will let you know exactly whit it is that I have
radguitar1 1 year ago
@radguitar1 FDA/CDC state HPV are sorted as high, medium & low risk based on how often they are ASSOCIATED w/cancer. Association is not proof of causation. There is no proof that HPV causes cancer, just hypotheses (scientific GUESSES). FDA/CDC say over 90% clear HPV w/o vax, docs, or meds
You don't know if you have had toxic exposures which have affected your immune system. If you don't have a genetic problem then poor nutrition or toxins makes you unable to clear the infection. That is fact
michael0156 1 year ago
The doctor recommend me a HPV dating site named =====" HPVmatch, net" ===== .
pozlove 1 year ago
I have my injection today.
Oh gosh -/-.
loopinsx 1 year ago
Well done for producing this very important and life saving video!
HumanSayNo 1 year ago
Gosh, I wonder how so many women managed to contract cervical cancer and die from it before Gardasil existed? Maybe it was all just a BIG HOAX? Sure, why not! It's not like we need evidence to believe bad things about the big bad Big Government!
MsMirrorMirror 1 year ago
OMG I HAVE MY INJECTION IN 2 WEEKS!
Ilovetombraider12 1 year ago
I lol about how retards have it so good today, that they can waste their time slandering the only thing that ensured they didnt have to live in a world with smallpox, polio, and other horrific deseases.
boonw 1 year ago
FDA = Multinational corporations = UN = genocide
rodoxxs 1 year ago
bacterial infections cause inflammation. The expression of Cox-2 reduces the cell mediated immunity and your body wont be able to kill off hpv. This is why people who get this like to reduce their Cox-2 with drugs or herbs. Anyways everybody go to pub med . gov and type in "aloe vera hpv" without the quotes and you will find that interferon injections with aloe vera propolis and b- complex cures cervical cancer as well as hpv itself. 100% of the time. B-complex is an anti-inflammatory.
NebunLaCap 1 year ago
Orionx30 again makes excuses instead of posting his 2 best studies showing HPV causes cancer
-
O-lyin then says "in 10 years the data will be conclusive"... A 14 yr study started in 2008 by Merck is testing Gardasil's effectiveness
-
Merck makes Gardasil. Merck is run by heinous people known to tamper with studies, bribe, threaten truthful scientists, publish fraudulently & kill their customers
-
What kind of results do you think Merck's study will yield in 2022?
michael0156 1 year ago
Phrase 1 is out of context and grossly misleading!! Read the whole document people! It means identifying HPV-DNA ALONE cannot predict the PROBABILITY of getting cancer. The sentence was part of a 2 page report on using HPV DNA as a method of diagnosing cervical cancer. The point of the report was that this method cannot substitute the Pap test as the best method of detecting pre-cancerous lesions! Mind you this was 7 years ago!
gyula789 1 year ago
As for all other arguments: Nobody claims Gardasil TREATS HPV/cancer if you already have either of them! But it PREVENTS you from getting HPV which causes cancer! That’s why it’s mostly given to 11-12 year olds who don’t have sex OR HPV.
Point of male vaccination: It prevents guys from getting HPV which they will then sexually transmit to women. HPV also causes genital warts and anogenital cancer, and the vaccine protects from both!
gyula789 1 year ago
Comment removed
gyula789 1 year ago
O-lyin continues to list fraudulent studies, refusing to stand behind any 2 as the best
-
He doesn't have truthful studies to rely on & threatens to post 100s instead of the 2 best, listing lead authors, conflicts, sponsors & key points
-
All O-lyin can do is lie & attempt to deceive
-
The info I have posted is from the CDC/FDA/Merck. I have also posted info from 2 oncologists, the Markovics, who have stated in their book that HPV is a disease associated with cervical cancer by coincidence
michael0156 1 year ago
@michael0156 LOL hahaha, the information I get is from peer reviewed websites. You know...? the websites that the whole world uses for research. You put down two quacks as your references. HAHAHAAHA pathetic... That great Mikey you made today... HAHAHAAH
Orionx30 1 year ago
O-lying laughs about a serious issue taking BILLIONS of health care dollars to fight a fraudulent battle
-
He says peer reviewed studies PROVE HPV causes cancer, but cowards away from declaring the 2 best studies & posting them here to defend. Instead he declares his intention of posting study after study (100s if necessary) no matter how many I show are wrong or fraudulent
-
HPV is with cancer by coincidence. That O-lyin refuses to stand by 2 studies as best shows he knows he has none
michael0156 1 year ago
@michael0156 You aren't qualified to show if they are wrong or Fraudulent. You have never given anything for me to suspect that you have the training or the mental capacity to even understand what is said in these studies. Lets start out with your training and we can go from there to see if you can even understand what is being said?
Orionx30 1 year ago
Stop crying and post your studies O-lyin. List lead authors, conflicts, sponsors and key points
-
You claim to be well qualified to comment on these issues, but you are unabloe to post a simple proof that HPV causes cervical cancer?
-
You are lying. Your delays and excuses expose you for the liar you are
-
Stop Hurting Children and helping to rob health care dollars
michael0156 1 year ago
@michael0156 I posted the conflicts, I told you to look them up. You are just unable and unqualified to look up the studies I have posted. I feel sorry for your mother.
Orionx30 1 year ago
@Orionx30 the only thing you posted was a garbled attempt to refer to the Madsen study, which is a known manipulation of data to find the results the main sponsor wanted. they found "no evidence". Well no evidence is just that, no evidence.
-
Also you did not list lead authors, conflicts, all sponsors, no key points
-
You also did not declare this study to be one of the 2 best you can find
-
You don't follow directions well, but you sure know how to tap dance around this issue
michael0156 1 year ago
I have a feeling that any study I post you are going to deny that the information is valid. So if the information gives evidence to the points I make its been "manipulated." If its a repeated correlation study I get, "correlation does not equal causation." Really Mike you have no idea what you are talking about. It really doesn't matter cause everyday people are getting the vaccine. In ten years the data will be conclusive... Either the rates of CC will go down or it will not. C U in 10 yrs...
Orionx30 1 year ago
Human Papilloma Virus prevalence and type-specific relative contribution in invasive cervical cancer specimens from Italy.
[Study on the distribution of human papillomavirus types in cervix among Chinese women: a meta-analysis]
Association between high-risk HPV types, HLA DRB1* and DQB1* alleles and cervical cancer in British women
A meta-analysis of human papillomavirus type-distribution in women from South Asia: implications for vaccination.
More studies for you to look up champ.
Orionx30 1 year ago
tralfasian claims HPV causes cervical cancer w/o evidence.
-
He says vaccines don't cause cancer, but admits vaccine could reactivate a latent virus. If he believes the virus can cause cancer, then the vaccine is the trigger for activating the cancer causing virus
-
The carcinogenicty of HPV is not proved, it is just hypothesis
-
If tralfasian has PROOF I demand he post the 2 best studies here with lead authors, sponsors, conflicts, key points. I'll show they are wrong
SayNoToGMO 1 year ago
"A vaccine given to a woman who already carries HPV may activate the virus." ( 1:24)
It's recommended by doctors to get the vaccine BEFORE you are sexually active, so that there is no risk of having been exposed to the virus prior to getting the shot.
"The HPV vaccine contains a live cancer virus." (Video description.)
No it doesn't. Why not? Because cancer IS NOT a virus, you fucking moron. You can't inject cancer into someone. Cancer is a mutation of the body's own cells, not viral.
SirLionelLeo 1 year ago
Sir-Lyin is misinformed about the HPV issues or he is yet another shill
-
FDA is now recommending women as old as 26 get the vaccine as well as boys and men. So much for his claim people won't get the vaccine before they are exposed to HPV
-
Sir-Lyin says "Cancer is not a virus" & "Cancer is... not viral" - according to Merck CDC & FDA cervical cancer is caused by a virus. Merck doesn't say that on their website, but the FDA/CDC do. Merck implies it, or says someone else said it
StopGMO 1 year ago
@StopGMO This explains what exactly? You HAVE MADE NO SCIENTIFIC claims, you have given no other explanations, just a conspiracy theory and the possibility that MERCK or the FDA/CDC is lying based on past evidence. You of all should know that correlation DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Again, no alternate explanation, no science.... Just someone on a soapbox trying to explain away a problem.
Orionx30 1 year ago
O-lyin uses ad hominem & lies ("conspiracy theory", "someone on a soapbox", "no alternate explanation")
He refuses to post 2 studies proving HPV causes cervical cancer (CC), declare them the best he can find & list lead authors, etc
He knows all studies declaring HPV causes CC are epidemiological or hypothesis & honest epidemiology shows COINCIDENCE of 80% or less
FDA/CDC/Merck cannot justify a vaccine unless HPV causes ALL CC so the Walboomers FRAUDULENT study was created to show 99.7%
StopGMO 1 year ago
@StopGMO Still no science to prove your claims just all accusations and lies. Your blatant disregard for the lives of others is sickening. What do you have to gain by putting young girls lives at risk by telling them false information? You should seriously look in the mirror and find it in yourself to stop.
Orionx30 1 year ago
Yes, most of them are epidemiological. Yes, HPV 16/18 show association with CC at 70%. This is not like you state where HPV is a common virus associated with a rare disease. These are two very specific strains of HPV that are associated with over 70% OF ALL CERVICAL CANCERS. If you even deny the importance of this I refuse to talk to you anymore. All you are doing at this point is repeating you 5 rehearsed facts. That are completely made up.
Orionx30 1 year ago
O-lyin's most recent lies
1. O-lyin continues to repeat HPV 16/18 are ASSOCIATED [correlated] with cervical cancer (CC) 70% of the time. Then says "this is not like you state where HPV is a common virus associated with a rare disease"... DUH!, that is EXACTLY the same thing AND association/correlation DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION
2. O-lyin claims he has met my challenge & posted 2 studies he stands by as the best he can find PROVING HPV causes CC. He has not & he won't. These studies do not exist
michael0156 1 year ago
@michael0156 Again with the 7th grade knowledge of science. There are over 100 strains of HPV. Its kinda weird that two strains out of one hundred-plus are associated with cervical cancer 70% of the time. I am not going to REEXPLAIN to you, for the 3rd time, why we use association along with the scientific method to test the validity of a hypothesis.
Orionx30 1 year ago
O-lyin has more lies
He claims "WE use association with scientific method to test validity of the hypothesis" (as if he is involved in scientific study)
a. he ignores that there are over 100 "high risk" "medium risk" & "low risk" HPV, where "risk" means association with cancer. Merck & Glaxo Smith Kline & FDA/CDC allow us to wrongly interpret "association" as "cause"
b. A 14 year study started in 2008 will determine if Gardasil is effective
c. He won't declare 2 studies the best he can find
michael0156 1 year ago
@michael0156
Answer what is the relevance of high, medium and low risk...? And the importance of allowing for the risk of de novo cervical cancer? How do scientists factor in this rarity?
I don't care about Gardasil nor do I defend it. If that 2008 study shows it to be ineffective and harmful to the public, obviously it needs to be pulled. BEFORE that 14 years is up.
I gave you studies you need to look them up.
You wanna start debating for reals yet?
Orionx30 1 year ago
2 studies declare them the best you can find list lead authors, sponsors, conflicts, key points. You haven't done that and you already declared that you won't
-
You threatened to post more studies for every one that I show is wrong or fraudulent
-
You are not interested in the truth, just baseless insults, lies deceipt and promoting Big Pharma's agenda of denial
-
2 studies O-lyin, declare them the best you can find and defend them when I expose the fraud. Stop cowardly avoiding
michael0156 1 year ago
@michael0156 I have posted them you NEED to look them up... Or state that you are unable. I don't know how many times i need to say this.... Do your own research. I am not doing it for you. This is ridiculous.
Orionx30 1 year ago
O-lyin has NEVER posted 2 studies declaring them the best proving HPV causes cervical cancer (CC) listing lead authors etc
-
He copy'pastes fraudulent epidemiology claiming HPV is found in more than 80% of CC or hypotheses (scientific guesses) about how HPV causes cancer. NO ONE HAS ANYTHING MORE THAN A GUESS
-
O-lyin knows this, which is why he refuses to declare any studies his best & stand by them
-
He also childishly threatens to post 100s of studies if I prove any wrong
michael0156 1 year ago
@michael0156 Repeat, repeat, repeat nothing new here. Just an uneducated, unqualified hack that is trying to scare people. Do you like scarying and hurting young girls?
Orionx30 1 year ago
1.Human papillomavirus types in invasive cervical cancer worldwide: a meta-analysis. Clifford et al. Br Journal of cancer 2003
A meta-analysis is a method of pooling together tens of studies and giving a single answer. In one paper not 2 but 85 studies!
2. Chapter 1: HPV in the etiology of human cancer. Munoz et al Vaccine 2003
If you can't get access to them please let me know I can send them in pdf.
gyula789 1 year ago
@gyula789 - You shills refuse to follow instructions
-
2 studies, declare them the best you can find PROVING cervical cancer is caused by HPV. List lead authors, conflicts, sponsors, key points
-
Only your 2 best, you don't get to list fraudulent study after fraudulent study
-
An analysis of studies has someone collecting a set of studies. he picks and chooses what studies to review for his "meta-analysis". You can't get a more biased "study"
-
Whatever you list declare them your 2 best
michael0156 1 year ago
@michael0156 I hate big corporations as much as you do but science is (mostly) done independently, and not disclosing conflicts of interest can lead to the loss of a career. I'm sure most scientists wouldn't risk their jobs like that. Before calling papers we post fraudulent, read them first and then justify your accusations by pointing to weaknesses in the papers. Lead authors etc. can be found in the paper, I won't do that for you. Where are your studies disproving HPV as the cause of CC?
gyula789 1 year ago
@gyula789 You aren't a scientist or you lie. Most science is not done independently as funding/facilities have to come from somewhere. Funding & sponsoring institutions are where conflicts can originate
-
i said studies declaring HPV oncogenic are fraudulent. Post 2 calling them the best you can find. Prove you don't copy/paste info by supplying requested info. I will show the fraud
-
A scientist would know you can't prove a negative (HPV doesn't cause cancer) & correlation is not causation
michael0156 1 year ago
1. Clifford et al states "...studies have established HPV infection as the cause of cervical cancer [CC] (Walboomers et al, 1999)" Quoting Walboomers is not PROOF HPV causes CC
The Clifford study was a "Comparison of HPV types [in CC].." not a proof HPV causes CC. You knew & lied about it. You even misquote the title to deceive
2. Munoz et al also ASSUMES HPV oncogenicty, but says HPV alone CAN"T cause CC. Other factors are necessary
What's clear is you lie about the studies you mis-quote
SayNoToGMO 1 year ago
@SayNoToGMO
True HPV genome in cancer tissue does not necessarily imply causation. The cause of cancer due to infection has to conform to stringent criteria. See how all criteria are fulfilled in this paper:
1. The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer
Read the references of these review papers as well:
2. Papillomaviruses in the causation of human cancers — a brief historical account.
3.Human papillomavirus oncoproteins: pathways to transformation
gyula789 1 year ago
@gyula789 2 best truthful studies you can find proving HPV causes cancer. List lead authors, conflicts, sponsoring institutions. I will expose them for the frauds they are or show them to be wrong or irrelevant
Then post the best 2 truthful studies you can find proving gardasil or cervarix are effective at doing ANYTHING. I will similarly rip them apart
I don't have a degree, but using mainstream info can espose Merck & Glaxo as heinous & lying groups of people bent on profit, not health
SayNoToGMO 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
O-lyin has NEVER posted 2 studies declaring them the best proving HPV causes cervical cancer (CC) listing lead authors etc
-
He copy'pastes fraudulent epidemiology claiming HPV is found in more than 80% of CC or hypotheses (scientific guesses) about how HPV causes cancer. NO ONE HAS ANYTHING MORE THAN A GUESS
-
O-lyin knows this, which is why he refuses to declare any studies his best & stand by them
-
He also childishly threatens to post 100s of studies if I prove any wrong
michael0156 1 year ago
@Orionx30 If HPV is only in 80% of cervical cancers then you have a 20% discrepancy of cancer occurring without HPV. You cannot explain that with ANY hypothesis that has a prayer of withstanding scientific scrutiny
-
Stop wioth the insults, the threats, the deceipt and start posting the 2 best pieces of evidence you have, declare thm to be the best you can find, and defend them when I take them apart
-
the fact you don't do this and lie saying you have is telling
michael0156 1 year ago
@michael0156 Like I said, do your own research. Then we can talk about the study as equals instead of me doing hours of research and you using some made up scientific nonsense or fallacy to "prove" me wrong. I am not doing hours of research until I know you are doing it with me. IF you want to have an honest debate. I suggest you get on the same page.
The other 20% is a handful of other high risk strains and de novo cervical cancer. I don't understand why you can't get this?
Orionx30 1 year ago
@michael0156 Yea thats the point I wanted to bring out. HPV 16/18 is in 70% of cervical cancers. The other 20% has other high risk strains associated with the Cervical cancer. It is TWO STRAINS out of over 100 that are associated with CC. ALL OVER THE WORLD the studies have been repeated again and again just to add evidence to the theory that HPV has a HIGH correspondence with CC.
Again I want to know you qualifications for making such claims. Since you dont seem to grasp simple concepts.
Orionx30 1 year ago
@StopGMO I said that cancer isn't a virus because IT'S NOT A VIRUS.
I never said that cancer couldn't be caused by a virus. CERTAIN TYPES of cervical cancer can be caused by variants of the HPV virus.
The description implied that you could "inject cancer" into someone. You can't.
I also didn't say that people couldn't get the vaccine before they're exposed, but that it is RECOMMENDED to get the vaccine before having any sexual contact. They won't disallow you to get it if you've had sex.
SirLionelLeo 1 year ago
Well with all the genetic engineering going on soon boys will be developing cervixes.
mmaaxx1198 1 year ago
Orionx30 is a complete and incompetent shill and liar
-
I challenged him to present only his 2 best studies proving HPV causes cancer, listing lead authors, sponsors, conflicts & summary
-
He lies saying he did it, I tell him posting a quote from a study is not sufficient,
-
Then he says " I don't care what you asked for. I gave you the titles. Tell me why they are wrong. Then I give you 2 more. & we will do this until you disprove every article I pull"
-
A shill w/o intellectual ammo
SayNoToGMO 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are a liar who has a problem with repeating yourself. All this you have said before. Its tired.
Orionx30 1 year ago
Cervical cancer(CC) is accompanied by HPV 80% or less of the time
-
Any studies showing a larger percent are small studies or manipulations of data
-
Merck claims CC is caused 70% of the time by HPV 16/18. That's not "almost always"
-
Then tralfasian admits vaccination may trigger reactivation of a latent virus, but discounts a woman developing cancer from the vax
-
That's not logical. If the vax reactivates latent HPV & this latent HPV causes cancer, THE VAX CAUSED THE CANCER
SayNoToGMO 1 year ago 11
@SayNoToGMO LOOK BOYS AND GIRLS MORE MADE UP Pseudoscience from mickey the smart pants. The guy who has never spent a day in a science class.
Orionx30 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SayNoToGMO Still no science to prove your claims just all accusations and lies. Your blatant disregard for the lives of others is sickening. What do you have to gain by putting young girls lives at risk by telling them false information? You should seriously look in the mirror and find it in yourself to stop.
Orionx30 1 year ago
I will show truthful correlation is 80% or less & studies showing a higher # are manipulated by Merck or GSK to justify a VERY profitable vaccine program
-
Now O-lyin, we await your 2 best studies that show a STRONG correlation of HPV & CC. Once I show your 2 best are fraud, the rest can be ignored
-
Truthful studies correlate about 80% or less of CC to HPV. 20%+ of CC happening w/o HPV chows coincidence. 80% happens to be the well-reported lifetime risk of getting HPV
SayNoToGMO 1 year ago
@SayNoToGMO No bitch, WE ARE NOW awaiting your two studies proving that HPV does not cause CC. Go fetch them for me and my friends here, we will wait for you... We are not going anywhere. Two studies that prove that HPV does not cause CC. I could post every study ever made and you will lie and cheat your way thru them. You are intellectually dishonest and it would be complette waste of time to post anything more.
Go find the two studies that prove HPV and CC have no link
Orionx30 1 year ago
1. O-lying has said in on this page that science can prove nothing. Of course that is a ridiculous statement, but I'll hold him to it
2. Then O-lyin wants 2 studies "that prove HPV doesn't cause cancer(CC)"
3. O-lyin says science cannot prove anything. Now O-lyin wants me to use science to prove something does NOT cause something else (which is a logical impossibility)
-
Olyin realizes HE HAS NO TRUTHFUL STUDIES to show HPV causes CC. That's why he won't stand by the 2 best, he has NONE
SayNoToGMO 1 year ago
Wow, Micheal you real don't know the first thing about science huh? Did you even take a thing school science class? Pro tip: You can never prove anything true in science. But you can disprove something very easily. This is something I am not going to explain because you should know this already. But that is why I said it would be so easy for you to disprove the link. You have lost this argument completely.
Orionx30 1 year ago
O-lyin uses ad hominem, says I am wrong w/o evidence, refuses to post 2 studies proving HPV causes cervical cancer (CC).
-
O-lyin clearly shows he works for big pharma, using lies/manipulation instead of honest reasoning & truth
-
HPV & CC are together by coincidence. Only 1 out of 100 chronic HPV infections leads to CC. That is not cause & effect
-
HPV, common, becomes chronic when your immune system doesn't work. CC, very rare, grows also when your immune system is not working properly
SayNoToGMO 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SayNoToGMO states, HPV & CC are together by coincidence. Only 1 out of 100 chronic HPV infections leads to CC. That is not cause & effect.
Where is your source to this information? This needs to be referenced in a scientific journal. Out of anything you post the journal you found this in.
Orionx30 1 year ago
@SayNoToGMO One more question. If its is 80% of the population that has HPV what is the distribution of the HPV? Which one of those strains correlates the most with women who develop CC? Hack.
Orionx30 1 year ago
I said 80% of us get HPV infection in our lifetime. I did not say 80% of the population has HPV. If O-lyin had ANY knowledge on this issue, other than copy/paste, he wouldn't have made this simple, but gross, error
-
O-lying also ignores the significance of high medium & low risk labels for HPV. The "risk" is how often a strain is found with cervical cancer(CC).
-
Even in language big pharma tries to induce fear, "high risk", when there is NO PROOF it causes cancer
-
2 studies O-lyin
SayNoToGMO 1 year ago
@SayNoToGMO Once again, Micheal uses pseudoscience and 7th grade understanding to trick to trick people into believing him. We can all see that you know nothing about this issue. We can all see that you are below the intelligence level needed to understand it. I have posted two studies and you have yet to look them up and revie them so we can have an adult educated discussion about this issue. Again read the two studies I posted.
Orionx30 1 year ago
@Orionx30 More ad hominem and no evidence
SayNoToGMO 1 year ago
@SayNoToGMO Two studies that prove HPV doesn't cause Cancer. We are waiting my uneducated friend.
Orionx30 1 year ago
O-lyin wants 2 studies that prove HPV doesn't cause cancer - No one can ever prove a negative. O-lyin knows this but makes the demand anyway. This shows how serious he ISN'T about finding the truth
-
And he again resorts to lying ad hom