@rozzanna1975 Yes, using condoms every time can cut HPV infection by 70% (pubmed 16790697), and it cuts other risks, too. But most people have trouble using a condom every time, so on average the protection is probably lower. That still leaves a lot of people vulnerable to cervical cancer. Better idea is to do all three: get vaccinated, use condoms, and get pap smears when you're supposed to.
I have personally seen Micheal post as multiple users. I have seen his tactics, which I think is trolling based on misinformation and magical thinking. He never states he has a degree in any science and boasts his two study argument to shut anyone up with a scientific background. Yet, he cannot post 2 studies refuting a link between HPV and CC. Micheal wins arguments not with intelligence or facts but threw attrition and repetition.
HPV has not only been linked to cervical cancer, but it has also been linked to vulva cancer, esophageal cancer and penile cancer. Anyone who states that a theory is only an unproven guess is not educated in science. Evolution is also a theory, go figure. A theory by definition is supported by "clear" evidence. One person who has no medical or scientific training can't refute the many who come here supporting hpv and its correlation with CC. Its just ridiculous.
Dank lies that I post as multiple users so he won't debate me. I don't
Dank is unable to refute the info I post about HPV & Gardasil & vaccines in general
I use info from the CDC FDA,Merck, National Institutes of Health studies... all of it shows HPV infection is insufficient to cause cervical cancer (CC)
They also say HPV & immune impairment is necessary. There are dozens of studies showing CC w/o HPV. This proves HPV is not necessary
Gardasil is a scam of billions of health care dollars
Merck lied to the FDA & publishers like NEJM to get Vioxx approved & have "peer reviewed" support. Merck execs & scientists knew Vioxx was killing BEFORE approval. This is murder (60,000+)
Merck scientist Alise Reicin threatened truthful peer reviewers while FDA ignored them
FDA bureaucrats went after their own Dr Graham who exposed Merck's fraud
During this time Merck created Gardasil, using fraud, lies & bribes for approval & mandates
Dank continues to list study after study, bending and twisting what is in the studies for the purpose of protecting Merck-Astrazeneca-Glaxo & Gardasil-Cervarix & the 100s of billions in profit they will all make from the most useless & the most expensive vaccine ever created
I challenge Dank to post the 2 best studies he can find that prove HPV causes cancer of any type. I will expose those 2 studies as frauds, wrong, irrelevant, misquoted by Dank or too conflicted to be believed
pubmed 2462058, "Immortalization of human foreskin keratinocytes by various human papillomavirus DNAs corresponds to their association with cervical carcinoma" (1989) said HPV 16, 18, 31, and 33 integrated into host DNA and immortalized cells; HPV 1a, 5, 6b, and 11 did not. It suggested that the virus-encoded immortalization function contributes to carcinogenesis.
This study predates Merck's HPV efforts by four years. As far as I know, the authors were not funded by a drug company.
@michael0156 pubmed 12556961 looked at 85 studies of HPV prevalence, and said "In SCC, HPV16 was the predominant type (46%-63%) followed by HPV18 (10%-14%)".
This suggests vaccinating against HPV 16 and 18 should prevent 56% to 77% of squalous cell cancers.
(Or a bit more; pubmed 19236279 says Gardasil "reduced the risk of CIN2-3/AIS associated with nonvaccine types responsible for approximately 20% of cervical cancers". pubmed 21942919 and 21307652 seem to back that up.)
Dank misleads & lies, again, showing he is not interested in truth, just promoting the most expensive vax ever created
In other posts Dank said some cervical cancer (CC) doesn't have HPV because researchers were not looking for all HPV types. Then goes on to say that ALL HPV types cause CC
This is ridiculous & he knows it
Here he says by vaccinating against HPV 16 & 18 some cancers can be reduced by up to 77%. But only if he ignores his idea that all HPV cause cancer
I'm still looking forward to hearing what you have to say about pubmed 2462058. It's pretty cool - it shows that high-risk HPV strains actually can immortalize human cells, but low-risk ones don't. And it was done before Merck got interested in HPV.
Dank now wants me to comment on a 1989 study claiming HPV DNA can immortalize cells. I'm waiting for dank to declare this is one of his 2 best truthful studies proving HPV causes cancer
Dank just wants to list study after study ignoring the fraud & manipulation, ignoring facts, and pretending he has made a point
I read 2462058. It does not prove HPV can cause cervical cancer. I will expose the problems with this study when Dank declares it to be one of the 2 best studies he can find
@dankegel Ahh Pubmed the gov and big pharma science medical journal.
Pubmed 7935079 polio vaccine from Merk five lines off txt on pubmed with evasive bullsht.
We hypothesize that the AIDS pandemic may have originated with a contaminated polio vaccine that was administered to inhabitants of Equatorial Africa from 1957 to 1959.
Lets talk about the 200 million of those vaccins used in usa and russia ok?
Search for : Vaccine pioneer admits adding cancer causing virus to Vaccine YouTube 1
@hslot4 avert.org's page "The Origin of AIDS and HIV and the First Cases of AIDS" has what looks like the best overview of that subject. It doesn't sound like the vaccine theory accounts for the diversity of AIDS types, nor does it sound like that theory is well accepted.
And vaccine technology has come a long way since the 1950s.
We're much more able to detect and prevent contamination.
@dankegel Im noit talking about some theorie get that thru your skull as a first ok.
Im talking about the genocidal proven fact that merck scientist Dr Maurice Hilleman confesses to deliberate knowingly develloping the vaccine wich contained 40 virus strains that cause cancer and Hiv.
And pubmed debunking it like a conspiracy theorie just like you trying to make it look like a theory Qoute (the vaccine theory )
Its been proven and admitted 200 million doses used in the usa and Ru
@michael0156 Say, somebody mentioned you go by the nicks sweetmikser and mykoolaidtastesfunny, too. The comments by those nicks do both sound like your comments. One posts about how atheists and apostate JW's are wrong; the other posts about how AIDS is not caused by HIV.
Which brings up an on-topic question: your opinion on HPV seems strong enough to spill over to other virii. How *do* you feel about the HIV/AIDS hypothesis?
@dank You again avoid facts I list in my posts & now resort to claiming others on youtube sound like me, believe things which you consider extreme & that I might be them. Smells desperate
Too bad you can't deal with the facts I post
Walboomers is a fraud which you cite as "the gold standard"
You believe all cervical cancer has HPV, we just haven't looked for all types. So you believe ALL HPV cause CC. If true, a vax against 4 HPV is useless, but now you ignore your own hypothesis
1- because the others were already shown to contain HPV
2- he tested for three different HPV genes (L1, E1 E7). HPV often loses the L1 gene when it integrates into host chromosome.
3- see #1
4- they rejected samples lacking tumor in the outer sections or that had no PCR-detectable beta-globin DNA in the inner section, which seems reasonable
5- pubmed 18852164 19339719 20089449 22177579 all show HPV screening very effective at detecting cancer
Thank you for the stimulating discussion; it made me review the HPV literature, and my notes ( kegel.com / hpv ) are starting to look like they cover the subject well enough.
I can't quite understand your animus, though; I'm just seeking the truth, like you.
I see that you've said "Peer review is dead". Not so! Scientists still keep each other on their toes. But see "Fast-track fees imperil journals’ reputation for fairness". Journals that indulge in that practice do worry me.
He claims all HPV types cause cervical cancer (contradicting ALL mainstream medicine & science)
He quotes me out of context ("Peer review is dead"), a trick of someone w/o facts or science
That was about Elsevier publishing & preparing 22 FAKE peer reviewed journals for over 30 large drug companies. Dank thinks fast-track publication is worse than fake journals
Dank says peer review will work, but Merck silenced most scientists telling the truth about Vioxx deaths, FDA ignored them
Gardasil was promoted w/ money & fraudulent studies just as Vioxx was
Dank again ignores the more terrible truth in Merck's fake journal. Elsevier is the largest publisher of peer reviewed journals in the world
ELSEVIER was, for years, preparing & publishing 22 fake journals (incl Merck's)
Peer review was/is for sale
Fast tracking requires money for expedited review & publication. Terrible in any form, this gives money a publicly prominent voice in what appears as reviewed scientific study
1-HPV DNA is not found in many cervical cancers (CC) because the cancerous cells "drop unneeded genes"
2-Non-oncogenic HPV types actually are oncogenic, but since they are not "high risk" no one looks for them & they cause CC where high risk types are not found
Non-scientific nonsense from a shill defending useless vaccination
If 100s of HPV cause cancer, as Dank says, a vaccine against 4 HPV is useless
The CDC admits THE VAST MAJORITY of women with oncogenic HPV do not get CC
HPV 16 and 18 cause the majority of cancers, so vaccinating against them is very useful.
The vast majority of people who drink and drive don't get into car accidents, but that doesn't mean drunk driving doesn't cause a lot of car crashes.
Same with HPV infection and cancer. Cervical cancer is uncommon, thank goodness, but when it happens, the evidence shows that 99+% these days is from HPV.
Smith's Appendix I is great, it lists the percentage for dozens of studies.
One of them has a low percentage, Lin 2001, found 64%. They wrote
"because of the advanced stages of cancer among many of the cervical carcinoma cases at the time of enrollment, several tissue samples were necrotic and may have been otherwise histologically inadequate for sampling and testing", among other ideas.
Walboomers is trusted by essentially the whole scientific community, hence the large number of references.
Dank quotes Smith 2007- "many studies did not type for a broad range of HPV types". Why would they not test for all oncogenic HPV? Why have questionable results?
Dank-the-shill explains "HPV is always there, they only look for high risk types"
What does "high risk" mean? If all HPV cause cancer, then vaccination is useless
2004 study by Castle et al- "We considered HPV16 18 31 33 35 39 45 51 52 56 58 59 68 to be primary oncogenic types & others nononcogenic"
@michael0156 I have to admit I'm a bit out of my depth here; I shouldn't have tried to paraphrase Smith. Sorry!
pubmed 9652449 seems to suggest that rarer types account for 10% of high-grade lesions or cancer, so the list you quote from Castle may be incomplete.
It's been suggested that the L1 consensus sequence which is usually used to detect HPV may be missing in some advanced cancers. This is plausible, given cancer's tendancy to drop unneeded genes, and could result in false negatives.
@dank - Dank shows he is a complete shill. I already exposed the "gold standard", Walboomers 1999 fraud, for only PCR retesting negative samples from Bosch's 1995 study He 1st eleminated 33% of the negative samples because they were "histologically inadequate" (didn't look right)
In spite of fraudulent manipulation Dank continues to reference Walboomers
Additionally Walboomers' sponsors hold a patent on an HPV test kit. To justify replacing PAP w/ HPV tests, HPV must be in all cervical cancers
dank again ignores the fact that HPV is not proved to cause cancer & is not necessary for cervical cancer to develop. HPV is the most common of all human infections and 85% of women will be infected in their lifetimes
The FDA/CDC/Merck all agree over 90% of girls & women will clear the infection without doctors, medicines or vaccines
If a woman becomes chronically infected it is PROOF her immune system is impaired by toxins (incl those in vaccines, tobacco, legal drugs), genes or nutrition
HPV is not proved to cause cancer. E6-E7 & p53 involvement are all hypotheses (guesses) as to how HPV may cause cervical cancer (CC). Researchers & scientists make these hypotheses after ASSUMING HPV causes CC, not because it is proved
HPV is ASSOCIATED with CC. PubMed studies list coincidence of CC & HPV anywhere between 47% to 99.7%, with an average of 80%
The CDC admits most women with chronic infection of "oncogenic" HPV do not develop CC
Smith wrote "many studies did not type for a broad range of HPV types... Thus, the observed overall HPV DNA prevalence of 87% is lower than the 99.7% found by gold standard HPV detection."
i.e. HPV is always there, but some studies deliberately only look for high risk types.
Also, it really doesn't matter whether HPV causes 90%, 99%, or 100% of cervical cancer; if it only causes X%, then by vaccinating against HPV, we can potentially prevent X% of deaths. It would be great to be able to prevent even 60% of cancer deaths.
Also, you want me to cite a source?? Try EVERY current pathology textbook (Robbins pathology is great), Cancer.org, the CDC, the FDA, the AMA, EVERY accredited allopathic medical school in the US. You are telling me you are going to believe Mike Adams, a master quack with literally NO formal medical education? Get your shit together people.
Almost every illness has multiple causes that have been found. The goal is to try to prevent the MOST COMMON cause as well as prevent the cause that is most easily controlled/eliminated.
Furthermore, 4,200 women died last year in the US from cervical cancer. We can prevent 70% of those (with the other 30% being idiopathic). Cervical cancer is not ubiquitously caused by HPV but it IS the PRIMARY cause. You must realize that there are always idiopathic exceptions in medicine. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that a PRIMARY cause is invalid.
@JungleBucket - there is no proof that Gardasil is effective in preventing cervical cancer. Merck started a 14 year study in 2008 to see if Gardasil is effective. The youngest participants in the study will be 26 years old. MUCH TOO YOUNG to have developed the chronic infection with HV necessary to be associated with cervical cancer, much younger than the median age for development of cervical cancer.
by the time this irrelevant study is completed Merck will have made a trillion in profit
@michael0156 Dude, honestly, it's pretty clear that neither of us is getting through to you. Immune disruption and smoking are other risk factors for cervical cancer. Just because you have a harder time clearing HPV (leading to chronicity) doesn't mean you necessarily have clinical immune impairment. Everyone has unique HLA complexes that confer different antigen presentation abilities for various microbial/non-microbial antigens.
Again dank comes here and simply lies about what I have posted.
I did make a mistake though. In Pubmed 21133613 I posted that 93% of cervical cancer samples had HPV DNA... it's actually 90.8% - Abstarct quote - "HPV was detected in 674 of the 742 specimens (90.8%)". So this study admits it was unable to find any HPV DNA in 1 out of 11 samples... again showing HPV is not necessary for cervical cancer to become diagnosable... Immune impairment is ABSOLUTELY necessary
...to hear you guys rail against these vaccines that have save millions upon millions of lives. Google image search "Congenital Rubella Syndrome" In 1966, there were 200,000 cases of this a year in the US. Now, no more than 10, all resulting from mothers not being vaccinated. It is very real and very sad.
@michael0156 It doesn't matter that you got the data from the CDC. You are misinterpreting the results and/or taking them out of context to fit your conspiracy theory. There have been ~30 reports of bad reactions. But, in EVERY case there was a major underlying medical disorder that caused a reaction. To be able to interpret these results you need to first understand the science behind the study as well as the logic of the scientific method. Man to man, it makes me sad as a future doctor to hea
@Jungle- JB claims I misinterpret CDC info & he appears to be quoting CDC saying Gardasil has caused only 30 bad reactions. He offers no references
He might be misquoting CDC report UCM235891
Slade et al studied VAERS adverse events which lists THOUSANDS of hospitalizations linked to Gardasil, just in 2008-09. Actual events are estimated to be 10 to 100 times GREATER, because VAERS is voluntary
Why use voluntary reports on such an important issue?
@michael0156 JB might be misquoting "Reports of Health Concerns Following HPV Vaccination", which says:
"A death report is confirmed after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 34 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering ... that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine..."
You're right, can't really measure risk using VAERS reports, it's probably only useful as a source of possible problems to evaluate in more rigorous studies.
@michael0156 Look man. I'm a medical student. I don't have time to sort through all your paranoid, conpiracy theory garbage findings. Why don't you get involved instead of spending your whole day cooking up this bullshit. Good job pushing away physicians, the only advocates you have left in the health care industry. I'm done arguing with you.
"Don't argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
Post the 2 best studies you can find that HPV causes cervical cancer (CC). List lead authors, sponsors, conclusions. I will show they are frauds, irrelevant, too conflicted or simply wrong
Shills' "evidence" is tissue studies showing a high % of CC with HPV. Most infections are chronic
LESS THAN 1% of women w/ chronic HPV infection get CC. That is not a cause & effect relationship
HPV is our most common infection, over 80% of women get it, CC & HPV are together by coincidence
junglebucket & dank ignored the info I post which shows they lie & deceive
Nobel prize was bought by Astrazeneca Merck & Glaxo
CDC/FDA/Merck all say HPV is NOT SUFFICIENT to cause cervical cancer (CC). It also takes immune impairment. Dozens of studies show HPV is NOT NECESSARY for CC to develop, leaving immune impairment.
Vioxx killed 60,000 Americans in 5 years... Cervical cancer 20,000 (typically no health care & poor)
Don't listen to the shills. Don't waste your money on Gardasil
Also, you should be aware that the virologist who found the link of HPV to cervical cancer through 30 years of research won the Nobel Prize in 2008. The two scientists who discovered HIV were also awarded that same year.
You call it fear-mongering, but with 233,000 cervical cancer deaths per year worldwide, I would be pretty scared if I was a young female. Also, just because MOST people don't get cervical cancer from HPV does NOT mean that there aren't enough deaths to be concerned about. 2 HPV proteins, E6 and E7, affect two tumor-suppressor genes, p53 and Rb, in infected mucosal cells. I applaud you bringing up your concerns, but you are not qualified to make these statements to an wide audience.
Also, there is a push for boys to get vaccines not only because they can get genital warts from HPV, but also because they can SPREAD it to girls even without having symptoms. Not to mention, if a male has sex with males, there is a serious risk of HPV infection and anal cancer. This is SCIENCE. No one pays me to give you this information. In fact, I pay my school $45,000 per year so that I can learn this stuff and educate the public.
Cool man. Thanks for deleting my comment about how this absolute garbage. I'm a medical student. I study these things for a living. Please don't spread these lies about a Gardasil "scam." Chronic HPV infection has been found in nearly 100% of cervical cancers diagnosed. GET VACCINATED.
FDA/CDC/Merck state "HPV is necessary, but not sufficient, to cause cervical cancer (CC)"
Cofactors are necessary. Just having HPV can't cause cancer
These positions are contradictory, show the weakness of HPV/CC link & expose the vaccination fraud
ACIP report to the CDC in 2007 - ww w.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm
"[HPV} is considered necessary for development of CC, it is not sufficient because the majority of women with high-risk HPV infection do not develop cancer"
NECESSARY co-factors are smoking, oral contraceptive use, chronic infection with HPV & another STD.. others
All co-factors impair immunity (smoking, oral contraceptives) OR are evidence a woman's immune system is impaired (chronic STD infection - over 90% of girls & women clear ALL HPV w/o doctors, medicine or vaccine)
The vast majority of Pubmed studies show 7%-49% of cervical cancer doesn't have HPV
All of this is CLEAR evidence that HPV is NOT necessary, but immune impairment is
@michael0156 All but one pubmed studies I've looked at all found 90% or higher HPV in cervical cancer. I've asked you repeatedly for pubmed id's to back up your claims, but IIRC you could only give that one.
One more bit of evidence that HPV causes cervical cancer: many studies (e.g. pubmed 18852164, 19339719, 20089449) have shown that screening for HPV is as good or better than pap smears at detecting cancer.
I'm starting to suspect you have a conflict of interest.
HPV has not only been linked to cervical cancer, but it has also been linked to vulva cancer, esophageal cancer and penile cancer. Anyone who states that a theory is only an unproven guess is not educated in science. Evolution is also a theory, go figure. A theory by definition is supported by "clear" evidence. One person who has no medical or scientific training can't refute the many who come here supporting hpv and its correlation with CC. Its just ridiculous.
Are you really going to refute what millions of medically trained physicians and researchers have found scientifically and believe a random conspiracy theorist in a jean jacket who calls himself the Health Ranger?!
The HPV vaccine prevents 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts.
Dank claims "zur Hausen got the 2008 Nobel in Medicine for proving HPV can cause cervical cancer" & quotes PubMed 22043949
PubMed 22043949- "[zur Hausen] hypothesized cervical cancer was caused by papillomaviruses". zur Hausen did not prove HPV causes cancer... to date NO ONE HAS
It is still an hypothesis, a guess, not supported by the clear evidence in multiple studies showing HPV is not in all cervical cancer
Why does Dank continue to lie about this serious issue?
It does not prove HPV causes cancer, but assumes it does
Quote - "This review covers recent developments in understanding mechanisms of HPV carcinogenesis" - "The etiology of cancer of the cervix has been LINKED to HPV" - "epidemiologic studies POINT to HPV infections as the major RISK FACTOR for cervical cancer"
Zur Hausen opens with the phrase "HPVs cause cancers", then talks links, risk factors NOT PROOF
@dank Merck lied in data/conclusions to the FDA/NEJM about Vioxx safety & distributed a FAKE journal promoting Vioxx with fake studies... while Vioxx users died
You blame marketing staff which could not have committed these acts
Merck execs tried to get Cleveland Clinic's Eric Topol fired
Top Merck scientist/researcher Alise Reicin threatened Topol, Nissen & other peer reviewers
Merck execs & scientists use fraudulent research, lies & bribes to promote Gardasil
@michael0156 pubmed 20162413 says "Merck... sponsored the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which looked like a peer reviewed medical journal but was only a marketing tool". So yup, it was marketing.
For the record: I live in California. Australia comes up simply because they are the only country I know of with both a good pap smear registry and a universal hpv vaccination program (well, for girls, anyway).
While Merck was deliberately murdering 100,000+ with Vioxx the same executives & scientists marketed Gardasil with bribes & lies
CDC/FDA/Merck say "HPV is necessary, but not sufficient, to cause cervical cancer (CC)" At least one co-factor is NECESSARY (smoking, oral contraceptives, chronic STD infection
All co-factors either impair immunity or show immunity is impaired
ALL studies show some CC has NO trace of HPV
THIS PROVES IMPAIRED IMMUNITY IS NECESSARY TO DEVELOP CERVICAL CANCER, NOT HPV
@michael0156 Harald zur Hausen got the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for proving that HPV can cause cervical cancer; see pubmed 22043949 for an interview.
Dr. zur Hausen started looking at cervical cancer in the early '70's. By the early '80's,
he had isolated HPV in cancers, and wrote "HPV-16 DNA was present in about 50% of cervical cancer biopsies, HPV-18 in our early experiments in slightly more than 20%."
Fun fact: Rabbit papillomavirus was known to be carcinogenic as early as 1935!
@dankegel If you carefully read the info about Zur Hausen you will see headlines declare he discovered HPV causes cervical cancer, but reading the science it says HPV is associated with cervical cancer
Astrazeneca runs the Nobel/Karolinska website & makes 100s of millions from Merck & GSK on patents for HPV vax
Google- Wigzell Sage Merck -to see further ties to the tampered Nobel process
HPV is not sufficient to cause cervical cancer. That's the truth. Impaired immunity lets cancer develop
@michael0156 The top hit in Google Scholar for 'Zur Hausen hpv carcinogenesis' is his paper "Papillomaviruses causing cancer: evasion from host-cell control in early events in carcinogenesis." in 2000; it was cited by 900 other papers, which indicates it is highly trusted by scientists.
The evidence is crushingly clear and trustworthy: HPV causes most cervical cancer.
dank claims to live in Australia, yet doesn't know anything about the biggest scandal to rock peer review & Merck that came out of Australian Vioxx lawsuits
Merck was exposed threatening peer review researchers who warned us about Vioxx
Merck & Elsevier (world's largest publisher of peer reviewed journals) conspired & published a fake journal for Merck. Elsevier, under subpoena, admitted to creating or publishing 21 other FAKE journals made to look like legitimate peer reviewed publications
The threats you're talking about were described by NPR, search for "Part 1: Documents Suggest Merck Tried to Censor Vioxx Critics". Merck recruited a well-respected researcher to promote Vioxx, not to research it, and leaned heavily on him when he started asking publicly why Merck seemed to be hiding safety data. This, and the fake journals, were marketing misbehavior, not research misbehavior. One can trust Merck's papers in mainstream journals like NEJM.
pubmed 16682702 ("Dispute over Vioxx study plays out in New England journal") describes the only Vioxx-related research irregularity I've seen so far: the safety part of the Vioxx trial was one month shorter than the effectiveness part of the trial. This could be a gray area - it's not clear there was willful misbehavior here.
Another part of Merck's misbehavior was described by NPR, search for "Part 1: Documents Suggest Merck Tried to Censor Vioxx Critics". Merck recruited a well-respected researcher to promote Vioxx, not to research it, and leaned heavily on him when he started asking publicly why Merck seemed to be hiding safety data. Again, this was all marketing misbehavior.
Merck's misbehavior with Vioxx is described in Senator Henry Waxman's NEJM article, pubmed 15972862, which says " our committee also heard evidence of a broad disparity between the evidence-based perspective provided by scientific journals and expert committees, on the one hand, and the sales pitch used by the company's field staff."
i.e., one can trust Merck's publications in established, mainstream journals; one can't trust their sales department.
A Google Scholar search for "cervical cancer" lists "Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide" as the top result. It's been cited by 4285 papers, an astronomical number indicating widespread trust. IMHO it establishes HPV as the cause of most cervical cancer. Your objections have not been convincing.
Picking a #2 paper is harder - I'd like to see a solid reduction in national CIN3+ pap smears in Australia. Probably have to wait a year or two for that.
HPV is clearly not the only possible cause of cervical cancer; it's just the most common.
It's funny; the entire scientific community is satisfied that HPV causes most cervical cancer, but you evidently have some pretty tough criteria that studies have to meet. What *are* your criteria? I can guess at two:
- no conflicts of interest
- must not involve animal or in vitro models
Are there others? Perhaps one of your criteria is
- must show that vaccines are harmful or ineffective
@dankegel I see you cannot produce a single study that proves HPV causes cervical cancer, because surely you would have found it by now
The entire scientific community is not "satisfied" unless you can show that every researcher who did not find HPV in nearly all cervical cancer admits they must have been wrong, sloppy or accidentally selected 7%-47% of their samples that didn't have HPV... when ALL cervical cancer samples should show HPV DNA...
It looks like Gardasil is indeed preventing genital warts in youths!
An Auckland study said:
" under the age of 20 years, found genital warts in males decreased from 11.5% in 2007 to 6.9% in 2010 while in females the rates decreased from 13.7% to 5.1%"
A Melbourne study said:
"[genital warts] declined in women under 21 years from 18.6% to 1.9% and in heterosexual men under 21 years from 22.9% to 2.9%. "
Pubmed and direct links on all this at kegel dot com slash hpv if anyone's interested.
@dankegel As I have told you repeatedly. State for the record the 2 best studies from all of the research you have reviewed that proves HPV causes cancer. List lead authors, conflicts, sponsors, summary
I will show they are wrong, fraudulent, manipulated, too conflicted to be believed or irrelevant
You want to ignore everything I have shown that exposes Walboomers as a fraud. You want to ignore the fact cervical cancer happens w/o HPV, you want to ignore that immune impairment is NECESSARY
Google "Lies About Smoking and Cervical Cancer", and you'll find a page that assails the medical establishment for claiming that smoking causes cervical cancer. (Reminds me of michael0156 in reverse.)
That site is a litany of all the reasons smoking *doesn't* cause cancer. Its main page ends with "We must have REVENGE!".
But crazy as the author of that site may be, he did put together a big list of all sorts of HPV-and-cervical-cancer-related papers, which I'm starting to have a look at.
For those interested in the science, " Molecular Mechanisms of HPV-induced Carcinogenesis" in "IARC MONOGRAPHS VOLUME 90" has a nice broad overview of recent research.
@dankegel - 2 studies, the best you can find, proving HPV causes cancer. This should be simple for someone with your credentials. I will expose them as fraud or merely hypothesis
Then explain how cervical cancer happens without HPV, because it does. Even in Walboomers' study, it does
Immune compromises are necessary. The proof of immune impairment is chronic HPV infection which is said to be required before cervical cancer develops
All you are anyone else has is hypothesis (a guess)
pubmed 18632622 addresses the "HPV is neccessary, but not sufficient" comment; it shows that HPV plus the HRAS-G12V mutation suffices. (Funded by a drug company, alas :-)
Let's find a researcher who is free of drug company sponsorship. How about Paul F. Lambert at U of Wisconsin, is he clean?
(He has a mouse model of cervical cancer: splice the HPV E7 gene into mice; they then get cervical cancer if you give them lots of estrogen.
Or is that also too much of an extrapolation for you?)
I've never taken a dime from a drug company; I'm just an engineer with a biology degree (and a minor author of one biology paper, pubmed 3838781, out of the kindness of my advisor ). I have no particular axe to grind. I simply don't believe that sponsorship = corruption, as you seem to.
I'm astonished that you dismiss immortalization as unimportant or just a hypothesis; it's kind of a fundamental feature of cancer. Are you sure you understand what cancer is?
@dankegel You don't have to take money to be a shill. I dismiss an invitro experiment extrapolated as proof of oncogenesis. I am surprised you are so willing to accept Walboomers fraudulent non-scientific method data manipulation as genuine, instead of the self-serving piece of tripe that it is
I see you don't address the accusations I have leveled at you of lying about what testing had been done on the positive vs negative samples
Your unreasonable support of Walboomers marks you as a shill
@michael0156 Let's agree to disagree on whether Walboomers is a fraud, and look at other science, ok?
In "An in vitro multistep carcinogenesis model for human cervical cancer", pubmed 18632622, they scraped a few normal cervical cells from a donor, integrated HPV E6 and E7 genes into the cervical cells, added the HRAS-G12V mutation, and injected the cells into mice. The mice then develop tumors. (Doing the same without the HPV genes yields no tumors.)
@dankegel Listen sweetheart. I expose Walboomers' fraud you want to ignore it. I quote FDA/CDC incongruous statements like "HPV is necessary, but not sufficient, to cause cervical cancer" & NIH studies that show many samples of cervical cancer WITHOUT HPV, you want to ignore that also.
You pick your 2 best studies that prove HPV causes cervical cancer. I will show they are wrong, frauds, irrelevant or conflicted beyond belief
"HPV is believed to be the primary causal agent" - so? That's a fairly standard way of bringing in a hypothesis that is to be built upon and/or tested.
"besides expression of E6 & E7 genes, additional host genetic alterations are required for cancer development" - That's just how cancer works - it's a multistep process of genetic changes.
As for immunodeficient mice - Cancer is complex; it helps to simplify things as much as possible while studying one part. That's science.
@dankegel - Now you reveal you are not simply looking for the truth, but actively suppressing it. 2 studies, the best you can find, that prove HPV causes cancer
This should be a simple task, why can you not comply?
As I asked already, would you consider studies by Paul F. Lambert at U of Wisconsin sufficiently free of conflict of interest? That'd help me pick.
Cervical cancer can probably happen for all sorts of reasons (DES, for example), but HPV is probably the cause of somewhere above 90% of it these days, judging by the numbers in the papers I've mentioned.
Doesn't matter if that number isn't 100%; if we can prevent 90% or even 50% of cervical cancer with a vaccine, that'd be great.
@dankegel So you want me to pre-approve a specific scientist as truthful and unconflicted? You do the research, you are supporting the claim that HPV is the only cause of cervical cancer, yet you cannot find one study that proves it... let alone two
I have shown you that HPV is not found in all cervical cancer as Walboomers fraudulent study maintains. You want to move on to study after fraudluent study just eating up time and space. Cut the BS. Find your 2 best studies, post & defend them
@dankegel Paul Lambert - "A subset of HPVs... are now accepted to be the main cause of cervical cancer... with >99% of these cancers harboring HPV DNA."
He refers to Walboomers' fraud & his research is based on the assumption HPV causes all cervical cancer. How is that scientific method when the actual observation is, on average, 23% of cervical cancer does not have HPV?
You don't start research based on an outlier, but on a preponderance of the observations available
dankegel now reveals himself as a drug industry shill, ignoring the manipulation by Walboomers, lying about what testing was done, ignoring the obviously biased re-testing by PCR of only the negative samples of cervical cancer
Also dank ignores the 1000s of cervical cancer samples that do not have HPV. This proves HPV is not necessary
Regarding the immortilization of cell lines in vitro, that is an hypothesis for carcinogensis in women & ignores the immune reaction to infected cells
It occurs to me that big HMOs might be good places to study cervical cancer prevention. And sure enough, there are recent papers:
Pubmed 21973261 - 190,000 women vaccinated with Gardasil were followed for six months, looking for autoimmune problems. Found possible link to Hashimoto's disease, but they didn't think it was significant. Funded by Merck.
Pubmed 21907257 - 600,000 doses administered; five cases of venous thromboembolism confirmed, but all had other risk factors. Funded by CDC.
Here's more evidence that HPV's E6 and E7 genes can immortalize cells:
pubmed 8660952 ("HPV immortalization of human oral epithelial cells: a model for carcinogenesis"),
pubmed 10398276 ("Immortalization of human prostate epithelial cells by HPV 16 E6/E7 open reading frames"),
pubmed 11976323 ("HPV-16 E6/7 immortalization sensitizes human keratinocytes to ultraviolet B by altering the pathway from caspase-8 to caspase-9-dependent apoptosis").
More strong evidence that HPV has what it takes to cause cancer is the fact that a plasmid containing the HPV E6 and E7 genes can reliably immortalize cells in the lab (See "Create Your Own Immortalized Cell Lines".)
FDA/CDC/Merck/NIH support the line - "HPV is necessary, but not sufficient, to cause cervical cancer [CC]". A woman's immune system must be impaired as evidenced by AT LEAST 1 co-factor which is REQUIRED for CC to develop- smoking, oral contraceptives, parity, chronic STD etc
Every large NIH study (& most small ones) of HPV & CC show a significant % of CC WITHOUT HPV
If a woman has chronic HPV infection her immunity is impaired
Less than 1% of these women get CC, that is NOT cause & effect
Given the finding that E6 and E7 are the dangerous bits of HPV, one would expect researchers to be looking at E6/E7-based tests. And that does seem to be going on (e.g. "Human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA testing as a predictive marker for cervical carcinoma."). There is also evidence that vaccines against the E7 protein might help the body fight the cancer (e.g. pubmed 21816200).
It really sounds like medical science is starting to understand cervical cancer at a deep level.
Are you or someone you know a doctor? If not, I couldn't care less about what is on those sheets of paper! Also, is your website the only website that promotes your veiwpoint? Just so you know, I have been diagnosed with HPV earlier today.
Here are some papers from 2008 or before: 18661520 found HPV in 100% of (CIN3)/cervical cancer; 18282628 found HPV in 100% of those with high-grade lesions; 18200349 found HPV in the two cases (100%) of cervical cancer; 17257705 found HPV in 90%-100% of cervical cancers; 16371167 found HPV in 87.8% (n = 36/41) of the squamous cell carcinomas; 16048506 found HPV in 94.5% of HSIL samples.
I keep looking for studies showing low HPV in cancer samples, but I've only seen one so far (17935171).
@dankegel You ignore your own evidence that HPV is not in all cervical cancer in your previous post. This proves that HPV is NOT necessary. HPV is our most common infection. It's presence in cervical cancer is coincidence
What is NECESSARY is immune impairment, as anyone can see by looking at the co-factors required for cervical cancer to develop (smoking, oral contraceptives, high parity, chronic STD infection).
Why fight this simple truth based on the info from the FDA/CDC?
@michael0156 I'm still reading Walboomers et al ("Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide"), but here's what I gather from it. Most DNA tests for HPV look for the L1 gene... but there is evidence that maintaining malignancy requires not the L1 gene, but rather the E7 gene; the L1 gene can get lost along the way to cancer. That, plus samples that weren't really of cancer cells, explained most of the false negatives. It's a compelling narrative.
@dankegel You ignore the manipulation in Walboomers'. Without re-evaluating the same % of positive samples Walboomers simply manipulated out the negative samples
How many positive samples were "histologically inadequate"? No one knows
Your claim the samples were simply not cancer & that is why they were rejected is a lie. Walboomers tested even those "inadequate" samples. Why retest them if they were not canerous? The 21 re-tested "inadequate" samples were 62% negative for HPV on all 3 PCR's
@michael0156 Walboomers seemed to think your question was good, and he answered it like this: "The strongest evidence, however, is our striking observation that a large majority (87 per cent) of HPV-negative cases, but only a minority (20 per cent) of HPV-positive cases (Table III: p<0·001), were histologically inadequate, " Table 3 says he evaluated 40 HPV-positive samples. So there y'go.
I'm afraid your objections to his paper all come down to "but you can't trust him".
And you can actually buy kits containing the E6 and E7 genes from HPV to use to immortalize cells in the lab! See "Create Your Own Immortalized Cell Lines". (I'm not making this up!)
I checked seven papers from pubmed: 21133613, 9428782, 21387088, 21697680, and 21851773 found HPV in 90% or more of cervical cancers; 21987449, found it in 86%, 17935171 found it in 47%.
The evidence seems to strongly favor the "HPV causes cancer" hypothesis.
@dankegel 18661520 - You didn't notice the Digene and InnoGenetics conflicts in this paper? What is CDC's Meg Watson doing co-authoring? Start reading your "evidence" with an objective eye
HPV test kits are the big conflict here. The lead author, Kjaer, is a big proponent of blaming head, neck and anal cancers on HPV with scant evidence to back him up other than the coincidental association of our most common tissue infection with rare cancers appearing in already HPV-infected tissue
There's a great infographic showing the number of vaccinations and the number of adverse reactions at informationIsBeautiful (search for "IS THE HPV VACCINE SAFE? V 2.0")
Someone explain to me please, I got my first hpv vaccine a couple days ago, why is it bad? Everyone's saying that the Government is trying to reduce the population and all and some say that the vaccine will eventually kill us... tbh, the population one I can understand, if the population keeps growing humanity's gonna die quicker anyway. And if that was one of the side effects, I wouldn't really care but increasing chances of other cancers? Come on...
The best objections to universal Gardasil vaccination I've seen so far are in Marcia Yerman's article in the Huffington Post, titled "An Interview with Dr. Diane M. Harper, HPV Expert".
Dr. Harper's objections boil down to "we're not sure if the protection lasts long enough to be worth it".
The author of the video has a page "Why Vaccinations Harm Children". Picking the first verifiable claim that page makes, "23% of vaccinated children develop asthma compared to zero in unvaccinated children", I see his data came from "Is infant immunization a risk factor for childhood asthma or allergy?", Kemp et al, Epidemiology. 1997, which only studied 23 unvaccinated children, not enough to draw conclusions from. "Vaccination and Allergic Disease: A Birth Cohort Study" found no such effect.
It looks like Bosch FX, et al., "The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer," Journal of Clinical Pathology 55: 244-65, 2002 is the paper that convinced the remaining skeptical public health agencies that it was time to stop debating and start fighting HPV. (The full text can be found by searching for the title on google.)
It's ok to worry about vaccine safety, but saying HPV isn't causing cancer is like saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS at this point.
Bosch published a followup in 2003 ("Epidemiologic Classification of Human Papillomavirus Types Associated with Cervical Cancer", N Engl J Med 2003; 348:518-527, full text online) which found HPV DNA in 91% to 97% of the cancer patients depending on which test was used, and in 13% to 16% of people without cancer.
His July 2008 interview in Sciencewatch gives interesting background; he co-authored the paper with Walbloomer; Walbloomer's new test just raised the detection rate from 93% to 100.
Some viral infections can persist in otherwise healthy individuals (lots of people with warts are otherwise ok).
As to whether HPV causes cancer: "Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide," (Walboomers JMM, et al., Journal of Pathology 189:12-19, 1999) says that virtually 100% of cervical cancer samples had HPV DNA.
From there it's an easy leap to "No HPV -> no cancer" and "vaccination will probably save lives". And that's why I'm vaccinating my son.
@dankegel Walboomers is a fraud. They restudied only negative (-) samples from a study by Bosch et al in 1995. They eliminated 34 (-)samples because they "didn't look right". Restested (-) samples were required to be (-) on 3 PCR assays. Any ambiguous or + result was counted +. Only 2 cancer samples remained negative
If you search HPV studies on Pubmed most show 23% or more cervical cancer WITHOUT HPV, proving HPV is not necessary
The study's sponsors patented an HPV test kit- OBVIOUS conflict
Don't bother. The people you are dealing with live in a complete fantasy world. I say, if they don't want to use medicine, let them get sick and die.
I know (reviewing your exchanges with him, he really doesn't seem to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient), but as long as I was reading up on the subject, I figured it couldn't hurt to reply with pointers to the key papers and their key findings.
During the first 2 1/2 years of Gardasil's use (23 million doses), the FDA received 20 credible reports of death [Slade et al. JAMA. 2009;302(7):750-757].
It's not even clear the vaccine caused those, but assuming it did, that's a one in a million risk, about as dangerous as taking a ride in a motorcycle or canoe (source: wikipedia 'micromort'), and a good bet compared to the 70 in a million risk of getting cervical cancer (site: wikipedia 'Cervical_cancer').
@dankegel Gardasil is useless. HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer or any cancer
A prerequisite for cervical cancer, according to mainstream pharmaceutical BS, is chronic infection with HPV
But if you have a chronic HPV infection that is PROOF your immune system is not working properly & it is the same part of your immune system that fights tissue infections like cancer, Cell Mediated Immunity
Gardasil & Cervarix & HPV causing cancer are a hoax to promote our most expensive & useless vaccine
@18wheeler76 I bet you've been vaccinated for several diseases. I suppose you're angry with your parents for that, and that you'd prefer to get sick from the bugs those vaccines protect against? And I suppose you'd prefer that women go through childbirth without anesthesia, as the good Lord intended?
To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a vaccine is just a vaccine, not a conspiracy.
The NY Times today (2011/10/04/health/research/04hpv.html) said
"Researchers tested tumor samples from 271 patients with certain types of throat cancer diagnosed from 1984 to 2004. The virus was found in only 16 percent of the samples from the 1980s — but in 72 percent of those collected after 2000."
It's a growing, real problem, and idiots like you are going to cause more women to die by convincing them to not get vaccinated.
@dankegel YEA CUZ IF THEY GET THE VACCINE THEY WILL NEVER DIE,IDIOT.EVERYONE IS GONNA DIE,ID RATHER DIE WHEN ITS MY TIME WITHOUT HAVING FORIENG CHEMICALS IN MY BODY.WHY DO YOU THINK PEOPLE LIVE SO LONG,SO PHARMA CAN MAKE MONEY OFF THE 10 PILLS GRANNY HAS TO TAKE FOR 20 YRS.DA
@18wheeler76 WOOOHOOO!!! I applaud what you've done & it's definetely THE Right thing!! I'm so glad you told me!! You're children will be SO MUCH STRONGER without all those dangerous chemicals in their system!! YES!! WE ARE WINNING THE VACCINE INFO WARS!!! WOOOHOOOO!!!
As anyone can see from his nic, h8uall has problems. Unable to argue effectively against any of the info I posted from the CDC, FDA & Merck he simply lies about what it means, contradicts himself, & calls me names.
Gardasil is ineffective, stimulating the wrong part of our immunity
HPV doesn't cause cancer
The FDA CDC & Merck all admit "HPV... is NOT SUFFICIENT to cause cancer" They say "HPV is necessary" but state immune problems are also "necessary". Lies, used to steal money
Vax, in part thanks to Bachmann & Perry bringing attention to them, will 1 day (soon I hope) go the way of bloodletting, lobotomies, trepanation. Bloodletting has a long history so musta been peer reviewed & scientifically proven huh? And then there was Antonio Egnaz Moniz, who won Nobel Prize in 1949 for his lobotomies. Really- modern medicine prescribing Coumadin/Warfarin rat poison has little to be proud of. What don't they understand about life being in the blood? Don't waste or pollute it!
"As well to consult a butcher on value of vegetarianism as a doctor on worth of vaccinations" "At present, intelligent people don't have their children vaccinated, nor does law compel them to. Result is not as Jennerians prophesied, extermination of human race by small pox; on contrary more people now killed by vaxs than small pox" "Every doctor will allow a colleague to decimate a whole country side sooner than violate the bond of professional etiquette by giving them away". George Bernard Shaw
I just want to tell the people that you are not alone even when you have an STD! There are so many people who have the same situation as you.
Also, there are many online communities for you to find support and dating! I recommend you to read the STD inspirational stories on the largest STD support and dating site STDslove. com. Hope that you find the stories helpful and informative.
HPV Gardasil Vaccine Proves Lethal - 47 Girls Now Dead - YouTube-1.flv
Gardasil - The Damage is Done: From A Best Friend's View
SV40, AIDS and Cancer Viruses in Vaccines: Merck Scientist Admit Presence
Merck Vaccines created in 1941 US Biological Weapons Program!
Vax Inc. Discovers Potential Biohazard Contaminant in Merck's Gardasil™ HPV 4 Vaccine
Bushed by Merck Vaccine Passport Revealed Sunni's are Waking
Happy debunking this with your pubmed articles dankegel Pubmed.gov right?
hslot4 6 days ago
@hslot4 I don't think you should be getting your proof from youtube. Just saying.
Orionx30 5 days ago
@Orionx30 well if you got anny good tips like :main stream media the what was its name again( News of the world).
The pubmed docs (gov) or shall i ask the in govs pocket bought and paid for red cross.
Redcross.mil
oh i cant ask them else they lose their funding.
let see.
I got it the killed women and children that been bombed to pieces in libya the peace mission that was all over the news wasnt it ?
Or lets ask the 4500 children that die thru sanctions each week in irak
just saying
hslot4 5 days ago
@hslot4 The English is so bad I have no idea what you are trying to convey to me.
Orionx30 4 days ago
@Orionx30 Oh well i heared that some trolls have that disability lmao
hslot4 4 days ago
@hslot4 I am being serious, I am not trying to troll you.
Orionx30 4 days ago
How about this, use condoms, and get a pap. Its safer.
rozzanna1975 1 week ago
@rozzanna1975 Yes, using condoms every time can cut HPV infection by 70% (pubmed 16790697), and it cuts other risks, too. But most people have trouble using a condom every time, so on average the protection is probably lower. That still leaves a lot of people vulnerable to cervical cancer. Better idea is to do all three: get vaccinated, use condoms, and get pap smears when you're supposed to.
dankegel 6 days ago
People will buy into anything. Like sheep led to the slaughter. That is why people suffer.
FortitudeOfHeaven 2 weeks ago
Molecular virology and epidemiology of human papillomavirus and cervical cancer.
Palefsky JM, Holly EA
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1995;4(4):415.
Here's my three best.
Orionx30 2 weeks ago
The E6 and E7 genes of the human papillomavirus type 16 together are necessary and sufficient for transformation of primary human keratinocytes.
Münger K, Phelps WC, Bubb V, Howley PM, Schlegel R
J Virol. 1989;63(10):4417.
Papillomaviruses causing cancer: evasion from host-cell control in early events in carcinogenesis.
AU
zur Hausen H
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(9):690.
Orionx30 2 weeks ago
I have personally seen Micheal post as multiple users. I have seen his tactics, which I think is trolling based on misinformation and magical thinking. He never states he has a degree in any science and boasts his two study argument to shut anyone up with a scientific background. Yet, he cannot post 2 studies refuting a link between HPV and CC. Micheal wins arguments not with intelligence or facts but threw attrition and repetition.
Orionx30 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HPV has not only been linked to cervical cancer, but it has also been linked to vulva cancer, esophageal cancer and penile cancer. Anyone who states that a theory is only an unproven guess is not educated in science. Evolution is also a theory, go figure. A theory by definition is supported by "clear" evidence. One person who has no medical or scientific training can't refute the many who come here supporting hpv and its correlation with CC. Its just ridiculous.
Orionx30 2 weeks ago
The FDA/pharmaceutical industry/medical establishment is a genocidal global criminal enterprise.
youngdones 3 weeks ago
Thanks
abeldanger(dot)net
OttoLund 3 weeks ago
Dank lies that I post as multiple users so he won't debate me. I don't
Dank is unable to refute the info I post about HPV & Gardasil & vaccines in general
I use info from the CDC FDA,Merck, National Institutes of Health studies... all of it shows HPV infection is insufficient to cause cervical cancer (CC)
They also say HPV & immune impairment is necessary. There are dozens of studies showing CC w/o HPV. This proves HPV is not necessary
Gardasil is a scam of billions of health care dollars
michael0156 4 weeks ago
I'd be happy to discuss HPV issues with real people. Griefers who hide behind multiple pseudonyms, not so much.
dankegel 4 weeks ago
Dank won't stand behind the 2 best studies proving HPV causes cancer
He contradicts himself, ignores heinous behaviors of Merck & Elsevier preparing & publishing 22 fake "peer reviewed" journals, ignores Merck execs/scientists lying to FDA & journals about Vioxx safety (killing 60,000 Americans, maiming 120,000 others - MORE worldwide)
While Merck murdered with Vioxx the same people at Merck created Gardasil, lying & bribing for approval & mandates
Science, safety & effectivity are irrelevant
michael0156 1 month ago
Merck lied to the FDA & publishers like NEJM to get Vioxx approved & have "peer reviewed" support. Merck execs & scientists knew Vioxx was killing BEFORE approval. This is murder (60,000+)
Merck scientist Alise Reicin threatened truthful peer reviewers while FDA ignored them
FDA bureaucrats went after their own Dr Graham who exposed Merck's fraud
During this time Merck created Gardasil, using fraud, lies & bribes for approval & mandates
Merck execs can't be trusted. Gardasil is useless
michael0156 1 month ago
Dank continues to list study after study, bending and twisting what is in the studies for the purpose of protecting Merck-Astrazeneca-Glaxo & Gardasil-Cervarix & the 100s of billions in profit they will all make from the most useless & the most expensive vaccine ever created
I challenge Dank to post the 2 best studies he can find that prove HPV causes cancer of any type. I will expose those 2 studies as frauds, wrong, irrelevant, misquoted by Dank or too conflicted to be believed
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156 Nah. Your responses confirm that you are a griefer. Feeding griefers is not a good idea.
dankegel 1 month ago
pubmed 2462058, "Immortalization of human foreskin keratinocytes by various human papillomavirus DNAs corresponds to their association with cervical carcinoma" (1989) said HPV 16, 18, 31, and 33 integrated into host DNA and immortalized cells; HPV 1a, 5, 6b, and 11 did not. It suggested that the virus-encoded immortalization function contributes to carcinogenesis.
This study predates Merck's HPV efforts by four years. As far as I know, the authors were not funded by a drug company.
dankegel 1 month ago
And again all Dank has is lies and deceptions
He says all HPV causes cervical cancer (CC) If that is the case then vaccinating against 4 HPV types out of 100s will be completely ineffective
He has never cited any proof that HPV causes CC, only hypotheses (guesses) as to how it could
That so much CC has no HPV DNA proves HPV is not necessary for cervical cancer to develop
An ACIP report to the CDC admits MOST women with "oncogenic" HPV do not develop cancer. They are together by COINCIDENCE
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156 pubmed 12556961 looked at 85 studies of HPV prevalence, and said "In SCC, HPV16 was the predominant type (46%-63%) followed by HPV18 (10%-14%)".
This suggests vaccinating against HPV 16 and 18 should prevent 56% to 77% of squalous cell cancers.
(Or a bit more; pubmed 19236279 says Gardasil "reduced the risk of CIN2-3/AIS associated with nonvaccine types responsible for approximately 20% of cervical cancers". pubmed 21942919 and 21307652 seem to back that up.)
dankegel 1 month ago
Dank misleads & lies, again, showing he is not interested in truth, just promoting the most expensive vax ever created
In other posts Dank said some cervical cancer (CC) doesn't have HPV because researchers were not looking for all HPV types. Then goes on to say that ALL HPV types cause CC
This is ridiculous & he knows it
Here he says by vaccinating against HPV 16 & 18 some cancers can be reduced by up to 77%. But only if he ignores his idea that all HPV cause cancer
1 lie after another
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156
I'm still looking forward to hearing what you have to say about pubmed 2462058. It's pretty cool - it shows that high-risk HPV strains actually can immortalize human cells, but low-risk ones don't. And it was done before Merck got interested in HPV.
dankegel 1 month ago
@dankegel 2 studies, the best you can find, proving HPV cause cancer. List lead authors sponsors conflicts short summary
I will show they are fraud, wrong, irrelevant, too conflicted to be believed or manipulated
If I can't then I will apologize
I have shown you HPV is not necessary for cervical cancer (CC) to develop, but immune impairment is
I cited the ACIP report to the CDC stating most women with chronic "oncogenic" HPV do not develop CC
You ignore both facts
2 best studies
michael0156 1 month ago
Dank now wants me to comment on a 1989 study claiming HPV DNA can immortalize cells. I'm waiting for dank to declare this is one of his 2 best truthful studies proving HPV causes cancer
Dank just wants to list study after study ignoring the fraud & manipulation, ignoring facts, and pretending he has made a point
I read 2462058. It does not prove HPV can cause cervical cancer. I will expose the problems with this study when Dank declares it to be one of the 2 best studies he can find
michael0156 1 month ago
@dankegel Ahh Pubmed the gov and big pharma science medical journal.
Pubmed 7935079 polio vaccine from Merk five lines off txt on pubmed with evasive bullsht.
We hypothesize that the AIDS pandemic may have originated with a contaminated polio vaccine that was administered to inhabitants of Equatorial Africa from 1957 to 1959.
Lets talk about the 200 million of those vaccins used in usa and russia ok?
Search for : Vaccine pioneer admits adding cancer causing virus to Vaccine YouTube 1
hslot4 6 days ago
@hslot4 avert.org's page "The Origin of AIDS and HIV and the First Cases of AIDS" has what looks like the best overview of that subject. It doesn't sound like the vaccine theory accounts for the diversity of AIDS types, nor does it sound like that theory is well accepted.
And vaccine technology has come a long way since the 1950s.
We're much more able to detect and prevent contamination.
dankegel 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dankegel Im noit talking about some theorie get that thru your skull as a first ok.
Im talking about the genocidal proven fact that merck scientist Dr Maurice Hilleman confesses to deliberate knowingly develloping the vaccine wich contained 40 virus strains that cause cancer and Hiv.
And pubmed debunking it like a conspiracy theorie just like you trying to make it look like a theory Qoute (the vaccine theory )
Its been proven and admitted 200 million doses used in the usa and Ru
hslot4 6 days ago
@michael0156 Say, somebody mentioned you go by the nicks sweetmikser and mykoolaidtastesfunny, too. The comments by those nicks do both sound like your comments. One posts about how atheists and apostate JW's are wrong; the other posts about how AIDS is not caused by HIV.
Which brings up an on-topic question: your opinion on HPV seems strong enough to spill over to other virii. How *do* you feel about the HIV/AIDS hypothesis?
dankegel 1 month ago
@dank You again avoid facts I list in my posts & now resort to claiming others on youtube sound like me, believe things which you consider extreme & that I might be them. Smells desperate
Too bad you can't deal with the facts I post
Walboomers is a fraud which you cite as "the gold standard"
You believe all cervical cancer has HPV, we just haven't looked for all types. So you believe ALL HPV cause CC. If true, a vax against 4 HPV is useless, but now you ignore your own hypothesis
michael0156 1 month ago
Comment removed
michael0156 1 month ago
AGAIN Dank defends the 1999 Walboomers study & ignores facts
1 only negative samples from a 1995 study were PCR retested
2 each negative sample had to be negative on 3 different PCR tests to be recounted negative
3 no positive samples were subjected to PCR retesting
4 33% of the negative samples were not counted because they didn't look right
5 Walboomers' sponsors have an HPV-test-kit patent. Replacing PAP with their HPV test requires HPV to be present in all cervical cancer
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156
1- because the others were already shown to contain HPV
2- he tested for three different HPV genes (L1, E1 E7). HPV often loses the L1 gene when it integrates into host chromosome.
3- see #1
4- they rejected samples lacking tumor in the outer sections or that had no PCR-detectable beta-globin DNA in the inner section, which seems reasonable
5- pubmed 18852164 19339719 20089449 22177579 all show HPV screening very effective at detecting cancer
dankegel 1 month ago
@michael0156
Thank you for the stimulating discussion; it made me review the HPV literature, and my notes ( kegel.com / hpv ) are starting to look like they cover the subject well enough.
I can't quite understand your animus, though; I'm just seeking the truth, like you.
I see that you've said "Peer review is dead". Not so! Scientists still keep each other on their toes. But see "Fast-track fees imperil journals’ reputation for fairness". Journals that indulge in that practice do worry me.
dankegel 1 month ago
Dank lies
He claims all HPV types cause cervical cancer (contradicting ALL mainstream medicine & science)
He quotes me out of context ("Peer review is dead"), a trick of someone w/o facts or science
That was about Elsevier publishing & preparing 22 FAKE peer reviewed journals for over 30 large drug companies. Dank thinks fast-track publication is worse than fake journals
Dank says peer review will work, but Merck silenced most scientists telling the truth about Vioxx deaths, FDA ignored them
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156
It does sound like you think peer review doesn't work, so why was my quote inappropriate?
Fake journals are terrible perversions. Merck should have paid a huge fine for that bit of sleaze.
Fast track review is only potentially bad, haven't seen any abuse of it yet.
dankegel 1 month ago
Gardasil was promoted w/ money & fraudulent studies just as Vioxx was
Dank again ignores the more terrible truth in Merck's fake journal. Elsevier is the largest publisher of peer reviewed journals in the world
ELSEVIER was, for years, preparing & publishing 22 fake journals (incl Merck's)
Peer review was/is for sale
Fast tracking requires money for expedited review & publication. Terrible in any form, this gives money a publicly prominent voice in what appears as reviewed scientific study
michael0156 1 month ago
Dank says
1-HPV DNA is not found in many cervical cancers (CC) because the cancerous cells "drop unneeded genes"
2-Non-oncogenic HPV types actually are oncogenic, but since they are not "high risk" no one looks for them & they cause CC where high risk types are not found
Non-scientific nonsense from a shill defending useless vaccination
If 100s of HPV cause cancer, as Dank says, a vaccine against 4 HPV is useless
The CDC admits THE VAST MAJORITY of women with oncogenic HPV do not get CC
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156
HPV 16 and 18 cause the majority of cancers, so vaccinating against them is very useful.
The vast majority of people who drink and drive don't get into car accidents, but that doesn't mean drunk driving doesn't cause a lot of car crashes.
Same with HPV infection and cancer. Cervical cancer is uncommon, thank goodness, but when it happens, the evidence shows that 99+% these days is from HPV.
dankegel 1 month ago
Smith's Appendix I is great, it lists the percentage for dozens of studies.
One of them has a low percentage, Lin 2001, found 64%. They wrote
"because of the advanced stages of cancer among many of the cervical carcinoma cases at the time of enrollment, several tissue samples were necrotic and may have been otherwise histologically inadequate for sampling and testing", among other ideas.
Walboomers is trusted by essentially the whole scientific community, hence the large number of references.
dankegel 1 month ago
Dank quotes Smith 2007- "many studies did not type for a broad range of HPV types". Why would they not test for all oncogenic HPV? Why have questionable results?
Dank-the-shill explains "HPV is always there, they only look for high risk types"
What does "high risk" mean? If all HPV cause cancer, then vaccination is useless
2004 study by Castle et al- "We considered HPV16 18 31 33 35 39 45 51 52 56 58 59 68 to be primary oncogenic types & others nononcogenic"
Dank lies for drug profiteering
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156 I have to admit I'm a bit out of my depth here; I shouldn't have tried to paraphrase Smith. Sorry!
pubmed 9652449 seems to suggest that rarer types account for 10% of high-grade lesions or cancer, so the list you quote from Castle may be incomplete.
It's been suggested that the L1 consensus sequence which is usually used to detect HPV may be missing in some advanced cancers. This is plausible, given cancer's tendancy to drop unneeded genes, and could result in false negatives.
dankegel 1 month ago
@dank - Dank shows he is a complete shill. I already exposed the "gold standard", Walboomers 1999 fraud, for only PCR retesting negative samples from Bosch's 1995 study He 1st eleminated 33% of the negative samples because they were "histologically inadequate" (didn't look right)
In spite of fraudulent manipulation Dank continues to reference Walboomers
Additionally Walboomers' sponsors hold a patent on an HPV test kit. To justify replacing PAP w/ HPV tests, HPV must be in all cervical cancers
michael0156 1 month ago
dank again ignores the fact that HPV is not proved to cause cancer & is not necessary for cervical cancer to develop. HPV is the most common of all human infections and 85% of women will be infected in their lifetimes
The FDA/CDC/Merck all agree over 90% of girls & women will clear the infection without doctors, medicines or vaccines
If a woman becomes chronically infected it is PROOF her immune system is impaired by toxins (incl those in vaccines, tobacco, legal drugs), genes or nutrition
michael0156 1 month ago
HPV is not proved to cause cancer. E6-E7 & p53 involvement are all hypotheses (guesses) as to how HPV may cause cervical cancer (CC). Researchers & scientists make these hypotheses after ASSUMING HPV causes CC, not because it is proved
HPV is ASSOCIATED with CC. PubMed studies list coincidence of CC & HPV anywhere between 47% to 99.7%, with an average of 80%
The CDC admits most women with chronic infection of "oncogenic" HPV do not develop CC
Immune impairment is necessary, HPV is not
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156 Google Scholar for cervical carcinoma hpv prevalence finds squalous cell carcinoma HPV in: 99.7% (Walboomers '99) , 93% (Bosch '95), 87.6% (Clifford '03), 87.3% (Clifford '03), 87% (for ICC, Smith '07).
Smith wrote "many studies did not type for a broad range of HPV types... Thus, the observed overall HPV DNA prevalence of 87% is lower than the 99.7% found by gold standard HPV detection."
i.e. HPV is always there, but some studies deliberately only look for high risk types.
dankegel 1 month ago
Also, it really doesn't matter whether HPV causes 90%, 99%, or 100% of cervical cancer; if it only causes X%, then by vaccinating against HPV, we can potentially prevent X% of deaths. It would be great to be able to prevent even 60% of cancer deaths.
dankegel 1 month ago
Also, you want me to cite a source?? Try EVERY current pathology textbook (Robbins pathology is great), Cancer.org, the CDC, the FDA, the AMA, EVERY accredited allopathic medical school in the US. You are telling me you are going to believe Mike Adams, a master quack with literally NO formal medical education? Get your shit together people.
JungleBucketStudios 1 month ago
Almost every illness has multiple causes that have been found. The goal is to try to prevent the MOST COMMON cause as well as prevent the cause that is most easily controlled/eliminated.
JungleBucketStudios 1 month ago
Furthermore, 4,200 women died last year in the US from cervical cancer. We can prevent 70% of those (with the other 30% being idiopathic). Cervical cancer is not ubiquitously caused by HPV but it IS the PRIMARY cause. You must realize that there are always idiopathic exceptions in medicine. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that a PRIMARY cause is invalid.
JungleBucketStudios 1 month ago
@JungleBucket - there is no proof that Gardasil is effective in preventing cervical cancer. Merck started a 14 year study in 2008 to see if Gardasil is effective. The youngest participants in the study will be 26 years old. MUCH TOO YOUNG to have developed the chronic infection with HV necessary to be associated with cervical cancer, much younger than the median age for development of cervical cancer.
by the time this irrelevant study is completed Merck will have made a trillion in profit
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156 naturalnews(dot)com/vaccines(dot)html
just scroll down there's a bunch of updates by Mike, this was Dec 2007
annalenacrying 1 month ago
@michael0156 Dude, honestly, it's pretty clear that neither of us is getting through to you. Immune disruption and smoking are other risk factors for cervical cancer. Just because you have a harder time clearing HPV (leading to chronicity) doesn't mean you necessarily have clinical immune impairment. Everyone has unique HLA complexes that confer different antigen presentation abilities for various microbial/non-microbial antigens.
JungleBucketStudios 1 month ago
@Dank
Again dank comes here and simply lies about what I have posted.
I did make a mistake though. In Pubmed 21133613 I posted that 93% of cervical cancer samples had HPV DNA... it's actually 90.8% - Abstarct quote - "HPV was detected in 674 of the 742 specimens (90.8%)". So this study admits it was unable to find any HPV DNA in 1 out of 11 samples... again showing HPV is not necessary for cervical cancer to become diagnosable... Immune impairment is ABSOLUTELY necessary
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156 Apologies - I misread your post, I see now you wrote "% withOUT hpv" instead of "% with hpv".
I think it's clear the vast majority of studies find HPV in about 90% of cervical cancers. The question is, why isn't it 100%?
pubmed 7751355 and 16435043 show that HPV tests only agree 85%-90% of the time.
pubmed 10088620 mentions several possible sources of error.
So measurements of 90% may be consistent with actual value of 100%, and HPV may cause practically all cervical cancer.
dankegel 1 month ago
...to hear you guys rail against these vaccines that have save millions upon millions of lives. Google image search "Congenital Rubella Syndrome" In 1966, there were 200,000 cases of this a year in the US. Now, no more than 10, all resulting from mothers not being vaccinated. It is very real and very sad.
JungleBucketStudios 1 month ago
@michael0156 It doesn't matter that you got the data from the CDC. You are misinterpreting the results and/or taking them out of context to fit your conspiracy theory. There have been ~30 reports of bad reactions. But, in EVERY case there was a major underlying medical disorder that caused a reaction. To be able to interpret these results you need to first understand the science behind the study as well as the logic of the scientific method. Man to man, it makes me sad as a future doctor to hea
JungleBucketStudios 1 month ago
@Jungle- JB claims I misinterpret CDC info & he appears to be quoting CDC saying Gardasil has caused only 30 bad reactions. He offers no references
He might be misquoting CDC report UCM235891
Slade et al studied VAERS adverse events which lists THOUSANDS of hospitalizations linked to Gardasil, just in 2008-09. Actual events are estimated to be 10 to 100 times GREATER, because VAERS is voluntary
Why use voluntary reports on such an important issue?
Why does JB "misinterpret" those reports?
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156 JB might be misquoting "Reports of Health Concerns Following HPV Vaccination", which says:
"A death report is confirmed after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 34 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering ... that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine..."
You're right, can't really measure risk using VAERS reports, it's probably only useful as a source of possible problems to evaluate in more rigorous studies.
dankegel 1 month ago
@michael0156 Look man. I'm a medical student. I don't have time to sort through all your paranoid, conpiracy theory garbage findings. Why don't you get involved instead of spending your whole day cooking up this bullshit. Good job pushing away physicians, the only advocates you have left in the health care industry. I'm done arguing with you.
"Don't argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
JungleBucketStudios 1 month ago
@JungleBucket Again you have the chance to post info which counters what I post... you don't
Instead you baselessly say I am a paranoid conspiracy theorist
The info you call "bullshit" is from the FDA, CDC, HRSA, Merck & NIH posted studies (all of it publicly available)
If I am a paranoid conspiracy theorist then so are the people who created the peer-reviewed research I quote
Search for "MMR package insert" or "Vaccine Injury Table"
Try using some facts instead of just insults
michael0156 1 month ago
Shills-
Post the 2 best studies you can find that HPV causes cervical cancer (CC). List lead authors, sponsors, conclusions. I will show they are frauds, irrelevant, too conflicted or simply wrong
Shills' "evidence" is tissue studies showing a high % of CC with HPV. Most infections are chronic
LESS THAN 1% of women w/ chronic HPV infection get CC. That is not a cause & effect relationship
HPV is our most common infection, over 80% of women get it, CC & HPV are together by coincidence
michael0156 1 month ago
Studies showing cervical cancer(CC) without HPV
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%)
There are MANY more. HPV is not necessary
Zur Hausen did not prove HPV causes cancer. He showed HPV was present in 80% of CC
junglebucket knows that E6/E7 involvement is an hypothesis (a guess). Scientsts first assume HPV causes cancer then GUESS how that can happen
That is not scientific method
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156 You must be reading those studies wrong.
(21133613 does not seem to be a valid pubmed paper, can you check that number?)
9428782 found 93.8% of squamous cell carcinomas had HPV.
21387088 found 97.6% of squamous cell carcinomas had HPV.
17935171 is the only paper you have ever quoted with less than about 90%.
It seems you have an allergy to facts.
dankegel 1 month ago
junglebucket & dank ignored the info I post which shows they lie & deceive
Nobel prize was bought by Astrazeneca Merck & Glaxo
CDC/FDA/Merck all say HPV is NOT SUFFICIENT to cause cervical cancer (CC). It also takes immune impairment. Dozens of studies show HPV is NOT NECESSARY for CC to develop, leaving immune impairment.
Vioxx killed 60,000 Americans in 5 years... Cervical cancer 20,000 (typically no health care & poor)
Don't listen to the shills. Don't waste your money on Gardasil
michael0156 1 month ago
Also, you should be aware that the virologist who found the link of HPV to cervical cancer through 30 years of research won the Nobel Prize in 2008. The two scientists who discovered HIV were also awarded that same year.
JungleBucketStudios 1 month ago
You call it fear-mongering, but with 233,000 cervical cancer deaths per year worldwide, I would be pretty scared if I was a young female. Also, just because MOST people don't get cervical cancer from HPV does NOT mean that there aren't enough deaths to be concerned about. 2 HPV proteins, E6 and E7, affect two tumor-suppressor genes, p53 and Rb, in infected mucosal cells. I applaud you bringing up your concerns, but you are not qualified to make these statements to an wide audience.
JungleBucketStudios 1 month ago
Polio, MMR, Hepatitis vaccines--yes
HPV and flu vaccines--no way in hell.
Far too many people have had documented severe reactions to Gardasil.
351460 1 month ago
@351460
Pubmed 21907257 - 600,000 doses administered; five cases of venous thromboembolism confirmed, but all had other risk factors. Funded by CDC.
That's 1 serious event per 40,000 girls, all likely not caused by the vaccine.
I'm just not seeing the risk you're seeing.
dankegel 1 month ago
Also, there is a push for boys to get vaccines not only because they can get genital warts from HPV, but also because they can SPREAD it to girls even without having symptoms. Not to mention, if a male has sex with males, there is a serious risk of HPV infection and anal cancer. This is SCIENCE. No one pays me to give you this information. In fact, I pay my school $45,000 per year so that I can learn this stuff and educate the public.
JungleBucketStudios 1 month ago
Cool man. Thanks for deleting my comment about how this absolute garbage. I'm a medical student. I study these things for a living. Please don't spread these lies about a Gardasil "scam." Chronic HPV infection has been found in nearly 100% of cervical cancers diagnosed. GET VACCINATED.
JungleBucketStudios 1 month ago
FDA/CDC/Merck state "HPV is necessary, but not sufficient, to cause cervical cancer (CC)"
Cofactors are necessary. Just having HPV can't cause cancer
These positions are contradictory, show the weakness of HPV/CC link & expose the vaccination fraud
ACIP report to the CDC in 2007 - ww w.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm
"[HPV} is considered necessary for development of CC, it is not sufficient because the majority of women with high-risk HPV infection do not develop cancer"
michael0156 1 month ago
NECESSARY co-factors are smoking, oral contraceptive use, chronic infection with HPV & another STD.. others
All co-factors impair immunity (smoking, oral contraceptives) OR are evidence a woman's immune system is impaired (chronic STD infection - over 90% of girls & women clear ALL HPV w/o doctors, medicine or vaccine)
The vast majority of Pubmed studies show 7%-49% of cervical cancer doesn't have HPV
All of this is CLEAR evidence that HPV is NOT necessary, but immune impairment is
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156 All but one pubmed studies I've looked at all found 90% or higher HPV in cervical cancer. I've asked you repeatedly for pubmed id's to back up your claims, but IIRC you could only give that one.
One more bit of evidence that HPV causes cervical cancer: many studies (e.g. pubmed 18852164, 19339719, 20089449) have shown that screening for HPV is as good or better than pap smears at detecting cancer.
I'm starting to suspect you have a conflict of interest.
dankegel 1 month ago
HPV has not only been linked to cervical cancer, but it has also been linked to vulva cancer, esophageal cancer and penile cancer. Anyone who states that a theory is only an unproven guess is not educated in science. Evolution is also a theory, go figure. A theory by definition is supported by "clear" evidence. One person who has no medical or scientific training can't refute the many who come here supporting hpv and its correlation with CC. Its just ridiculous.
Orionx30 1 month ago
Are you really going to refute what millions of medically trained physicians and researchers have found scientifically and believe a random conspiracy theorist in a jean jacket who calls himself the Health Ranger?!
The HPV vaccine prevents 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts.
JungleBucketStudios 1 month ago
@dank
Dank claims "zur Hausen got the 2008 Nobel in Medicine for proving HPV can cause cervical cancer" & quotes PubMed 22043949
PubMed 22043949- "[zur Hausen] hypothesized cervical cancer was caused by papillomaviruses". zur Hausen did not prove HPV causes cancer... to date NO ONE HAS
It is still an hypothesis, a guess, not supported by the clear evidence in multiple studies showing HPV is not in all cervical cancer
Why does Dank continue to lie about this serious issue?
Why would anyone?
michael0156 1 month ago
@dank
Dank cites PMID:10793105 by zur Hausen
This is not a study but a review
It does not prove HPV causes cancer, but assumes it does
Quote - "This review covers recent developments in understanding mechanisms of HPV carcinogenesis" - "The etiology of cancer of the cervix has been LINKED to HPV" - "epidemiologic studies POINT to HPV infections as the major RISK FACTOR for cervical cancer"
Zur Hausen opens with the phrase "HPVs cause cancers", then talks links, risk factors NOT PROOF
michael0156 1 month ago
@dank
Dank again ignores the clear evidence at the NIH which shows HPV is not necessary for cervical cancer (CC) to develop
Studies showing CC without HPV (Year & % of CC w/o HPV)
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%)
There are MANY more studies which show CC w/o HPV. This proves HPV is not necessary
Zur Hausen DID NOT PROVE HPV CAUSES CANCER. He showed HPV was present in 80% of CC
michael0156 1 month ago
@dank Merck lied in data/conclusions to the FDA/NEJM about Vioxx safety & distributed a FAKE journal promoting Vioxx with fake studies... while Vioxx users died
You blame marketing staff which could not have committed these acts
Merck execs tried to get Cleveland Clinic's Eric Topol fired
Top Merck scientist/researcher Alise Reicin threatened Topol, Nissen & other peer reviewers
Merck execs & scientists use fraudulent research, lies & bribes to promote Gardasil
They simply can't be trusted
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156 pubmed 20162413 says "Merck... sponsored the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which looked like a peer reviewed medical journal but was only a marketing tool". So yup, it was marketing.
dankegel 1 month ago
For the record: I live in California. Australia comes up simply because they are the only country I know of with both a good pap smear registry and a universal hpv vaccination program (well, for girls, anyway).
dankegel 1 month ago
While Merck was deliberately murdering 100,000+ with Vioxx the same executives & scientists marketed Gardasil with bribes & lies
CDC/FDA/Merck say "HPV is necessary, but not sufficient, to cause cervical cancer (CC)" At least one co-factor is NECESSARY (smoking, oral contraceptives, chronic STD infection
All co-factors either impair immunity or show immunity is impaired
ALL studies show some CC has NO trace of HPV
THIS PROVES IMPAIRED IMMUNITY IS NECESSARY TO DEVELOP CERVICAL CANCER, NOT HPV
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156 Harald zur Hausen got the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for proving that HPV can cause cervical cancer; see pubmed 22043949 for an interview.
Dr. zur Hausen started looking at cervical cancer in the early '70's. By the early '80's,
he had isolated HPV in cancers, and wrote "HPV-16 DNA was present in about 50% of cervical cancer biopsies, HPV-18 in our early experiments in slightly more than 20%."
Fun fact: Rabbit papillomavirus was known to be carcinogenic as early as 1935!
dankegel 1 month ago
@dankegel If you carefully read the info about Zur Hausen you will see headlines declare he discovered HPV causes cervical cancer, but reading the science it says HPV is associated with cervical cancer
Astrazeneca runs the Nobel/Karolinska website & makes 100s of millions from Merck & GSK on patents for HPV vax
Google- Wigzell Sage Merck -to see further ties to the tampered Nobel process
HPV is not sufficient to cause cervical cancer. That's the truth. Impaired immunity lets cancer develop
michael0156 1 month ago
@michael0156 The top hit in Google Scholar for 'Zur Hausen hpv carcinogenesis' is his paper "Papillomaviruses causing cancer: evasion from host-cell control in early events in carcinogenesis." in 2000; it was cited by 900 other papers, which indicates it is highly trusted by scientists.
The evidence is crushingly clear and trustworthy: HPV causes most cervical cancer.
dankegel 1 month ago
dank claims to live in Australia, yet doesn't know anything about the biggest scandal to rock peer review & Merck that came out of Australian Vioxx lawsuits
Merck was exposed threatening peer review researchers who warned us about Vioxx
Merck & Elsevier (world's largest publisher of peer reviewed journals) conspired & published a fake journal for Merck. Elsevier, under subpoena, admitted to creating or publishing 21 other FAKE journals made to look like legitimate peer reviewed publications
michael0156 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michael0156
The threats you're talking about were described by NPR, search for "Part 1: Documents Suggest Merck Tried to Censor Vioxx Critics". Merck recruited a well-respected researcher to promote Vioxx, not to research it, and leaned heavily on him when he started asking publicly why Merck seemed to be hiding safety data. This, and the fake journals, were marketing misbehavior, not research misbehavior. One can trust Merck's papers in mainstream journals like NEJM.
dankegel 1 month ago
pubmed 16682702 ("Dispute over Vioxx study plays out in New England journal") describes the only Vioxx-related research irregularity I've seen so far: the safety part of the Vioxx trial was one month shorter than the effectiveness part of the trial. This could be a gray area - it's not clear there was willful misbehavior here.
dankegel 2 months ago
Another part of Merck's misbehavior was described by NPR, search for "Part 1: Documents Suggest Merck Tried to Censor Vioxx Critics". Merck recruited a well-respected researcher to promote Vioxx, not to research it, and leaned heavily on him when he started asking publicly why Merck seemed to be hiding safety data. Again, this was all marketing misbehavior.
dankegel 2 months ago
Merck's misbehavior with Vioxx is described in Senator Henry Waxman's NEJM article, pubmed 15972862, which says " our committee also heard evidence of a broad disparity between the evidence-based perspective provided by scientific journals and expert committees, on the one hand, and the sales pitch used by the company's field staff."
i.e., one can trust Merck's publications in established, mainstream journals; one can't trust their sales department.
Thus one can trust Walboomers paper.
dankegel 2 months ago
A Google Scholar search for "cervical cancer" lists "Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide" as the top result. It's been cited by 4285 papers, an astronomical number indicating widespread trust. IMHO it establishes HPV as the cause of most cervical cancer. Your objections have not been convincing.
Picking a #2 paper is harder - I'd like to see a solid reduction in national CIN3+ pap smears in Australia. Probably have to wait a year or two for that.
dankegel 2 months ago
@dank No proof of HPV oncogenicity, AGAIN
As an Australian you should be familiar with Merck execs & scientists being sued in Australia for the Vioxx murders
Your courts revealed Merck executives/scientists
1- interfered with peer review threatening researchers who warned of Vioxx deaths
2- paid Elsevier to publish a FAKE peer review journal
3- lied to FDA & NEJM about vioxx safety
4- gave false data to journals
All while developing Gardasil, using lies & bribes to promote it
michael0156 2 months ago
HPV is clearly not the only possible cause of cervical cancer; it's just the most common.
It's funny; the entire scientific community is satisfied that HPV causes most cervical cancer, but you evidently have some pretty tough criteria that studies have to meet. What *are* your criteria? I can guess at two:
- no conflicts of interest
- must not involve animal or in vitro models
Are there others? Perhaps one of your criteria is
- must show that vaccines are harmful or ineffective
:-)
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel I see you cannot produce a single study that proves HPV causes cervical cancer, because surely you would have found it by now
The entire scientific community is not "satisfied" unless you can show that every researcher who did not find HPV in nearly all cervical cancer admits they must have been wrong, sloppy or accidentally selected 7%-47% of their samples that didn't have HPV... when ALL cervical cancer samples should show HPV DNA...
Of course that is preposterous
2 studies please
michael0156 2 months ago
It looks like Gardasil is indeed preventing genital warts in youths!
An Auckland study said:
" under the age of 20 years, found genital warts in males decreased from 11.5% in 2007 to 6.9% in 2010 while in females the rates decreased from 13.7% to 5.1%"
A Melbourne study said:
"[genital warts] declined in women under 21 years from 18.6% to 1.9% and in heterosexual men under 21 years from 22.9% to 2.9%. "
Pubmed and direct links on all this at kegel dot com slash hpv if anyone's interested.
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel As I have told you repeatedly. State for the record the 2 best studies from all of the research you have reviewed that proves HPV causes cancer. List lead authors, conflicts, sponsors, summary
I will show they are wrong, fraudulent, manipulated, too conflicted to be believed or irrelevant
You want to ignore everything I have shown that exposes Walboomers as a fraud. You want to ignore the fact cervical cancer happens w/o HPV, you want to ignore that immune impairment is NECESSARY
michael0156 2 months ago
Google "Lies About Smoking and Cervical Cancer", and you'll find a page that assails the medical establishment for claiming that smoking causes cervical cancer. (Reminds me of michael0156 in reverse.)
That site is a litany of all the reasons smoking *doesn't* cause cancer. Its main page ends with "We must have REVENGE!".
But crazy as the author of that site may be, he did put together a big list of all sorts of HPV-and-cervical-cancer-related papers, which I'm starting to have a look at.
dankegel 2 months ago
For those interested in the science, " Molecular Mechanisms of HPV-induced Carcinogenesis" in "IARC MONOGRAPHS VOLUME 90" has a nice broad overview of recent research.
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel - 2 studies, the best you can find, proving HPV causes cancer. This should be simple for someone with your credentials. I will expose them as fraud or merely hypothesis
Then explain how cervical cancer happens without HPV, because it does. Even in Walboomers' study, it does
Immune compromises are necessary. The proof of immune impairment is chronic HPV infection which is said to be required before cervical cancer develops
All you are anyone else has is hypothesis (a guess)
michael0156 2 months ago
pubmed 18632622 addresses the "HPV is neccessary, but not sufficient" comment; it shows that HPV plus the HRAS-G12V mutation suffices. (Funded by a drug company, alas :-)
Let's find a researcher who is free of drug company sponsorship. How about Paul F. Lambert at U of Wisconsin, is he clean?
(He has a mouse model of cervical cancer: splice the HPV E7 gene into mice; they then get cervical cancer if you give them lots of estrogen.
Or is that also too much of an extrapolation for you?)
dankegel 2 months ago
I've never taken a dime from a drug company; I'm just an engineer with a biology degree (and a minor author of one biology paper, pubmed 3838781, out of the kindness of my advisor ). I have no particular axe to grind. I simply don't believe that sponsorship = corruption, as you seem to.
I'm astonished that you dismiss immortalization as unimportant or just a hypothesis; it's kind of a fundamental feature of cancer. Are you sure you understand what cancer is?
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel You don't have to take money to be a shill. I dismiss an invitro experiment extrapolated as proof of oncogenesis. I am surprised you are so willing to accept Walboomers fraudulent non-scientific method data manipulation as genuine, instead of the self-serving piece of tripe that it is
I see you don't address the accusations I have leveled at you of lying about what testing had been done on the positive vs negative samples
Your unreasonable support of Walboomers marks you as a shill
michael0156 2 months ago
@michael0156 Let's agree to disagree on whether Walboomers is a fraud, and look at other science, ok?
In "An in vitro multistep carcinogenesis model for human cervical cancer", pubmed 18632622, they scraped a few normal cervical cells from a donor, integrated HPV E6 and E7 genes into the cervical cells, added the HRAS-G12V mutation, and injected the cells into mice. The mice then develop tumors. (Doing the same without the HPV genes yields no tumors.)
Is that too much of an extrapolation?
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel Listen sweetheart. I expose Walboomers' fraud you want to ignore it. I quote FDA/CDC incongruous statements like "HPV is necessary, but not sufficient, to cause cervical cancer" & NIH studies that show many samples of cervical cancer WITHOUT HPV, you want to ignore that also.
You pick your 2 best studies that prove HPV causes cervical cancer. I will show they are wrong, frauds, irrelevant or conflicted beyond belief
I am not going to take apart study after study
Post your best 2
michael0156 2 months ago
@dankegel
Quotes from 18632622 abstract
"Human papillomaviruses (HPV) are BELIEVED to be the primary causal agents for development of cervical cancer"
"besides expression of E6 & E7 genes, additional host genetic alterations are required for cancer development"
To top it off they used immune deficient mice & mutant changes using oncogenic substances
You consider this science that proves HPV causes cancer?
It simply repeats what I have been saying, immune deficiency is necessary, not HPV
michael0156 2 months ago
@michael0156
"HPV is believed to be the primary causal agent" - so? That's a fairly standard way of bringing in a hypothesis that is to be built upon and/or tested.
"besides expression of E6 & E7 genes, additional host genetic alterations are required for cancer development" - That's just how cancer works - it's a multistep process of genetic changes.
As for immunodeficient mice - Cancer is complex; it helps to simplify things as much as possible while studying one part. That's science.
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel - Now you reveal you are not simply looking for the truth, but actively suppressing it. 2 studies, the best you can find, that prove HPV causes cancer
This should be a simple task, why can you not comply?
michael0156 2 months ago
@michael0156
As I asked already, would you consider studies by Paul F. Lambert at U of Wisconsin sufficiently free of conflict of interest? That'd help me pick.
Cervical cancer can probably happen for all sorts of reasons (DES, for example), but HPV is probably the cause of somewhere above 90% of it these days, judging by the numbers in the papers I've mentioned.
Doesn't matter if that number isn't 100%; if we can prevent 90% or even 50% of cervical cancer with a vaccine, that'd be great.
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel So you want me to pre-approve a specific scientist as truthful and unconflicted? You do the research, you are supporting the claim that HPV is the only cause of cervical cancer, yet you cannot find one study that proves it... let alone two
I have shown you that HPV is not found in all cervical cancer as Walboomers fraudulent study maintains. You want to move on to study after fraudluent study just eating up time and space. Cut the BS. Find your 2 best studies, post & defend them
michael0156 2 months ago
@dankegel Paul Lambert - "A subset of HPVs... are now accepted to be the main cause of cervical cancer... with >99% of these cancers harboring HPV DNA."
He refers to Walboomers' fraud & his research is based on the assumption HPV causes all cervical cancer. How is that scientific method when the actual observation is, on average, 23% of cervical cancer does not have HPV?
You don't start research based on an outlier, but on a preponderance of the observations available
michael0156 2 months ago
dankegel now reveals himself as a drug industry shill, ignoring the manipulation by Walboomers, lying about what testing was done, ignoring the obviously biased re-testing by PCR of only the negative samples of cervical cancer
Also dank ignores the 1000s of cervical cancer samples that do not have HPV. This proves HPV is not necessary
Regarding the immortilization of cell lines in vitro, that is an hypothesis for carcinogensis in women & ignores the immune reaction to infected cells
michael0156 2 months ago
It occurs to me that big HMOs might be good places to study cervical cancer prevention. And sure enough, there are recent papers:
Pubmed 21973261 - 190,000 women vaccinated with Gardasil were followed for six months, looking for autoimmune problems. Found possible link to Hashimoto's disease, but they didn't think it was significant. Funded by Merck.
Pubmed 21907257 - 600,000 doses administered; five cases of venous thromboembolism confirmed, but all had other risk factors. Funded by CDC.
dankegel 2 months ago
Here's more evidence that HPV's E6 and E7 genes can immortalize cells:
pubmed 8660952 ("HPV immortalization of human oral epithelial cells: a model for carcinogenesis"),
pubmed 10398276 ("Immortalization of human prostate epithelial cells by HPV 16 E6/E7 open reading frames"),
pubmed 11976323 ("HPV-16 E6/7 immortalization sensitizes human keratinocytes to ultraviolet B by altering the pathway from caspase-8 to caspase-9-dependent apoptosis").
It's not news anymore; it's a routine tool.
dankegel 2 months ago
Comment removed
dankegel 2 months ago
More strong evidence that HPV has what it takes to cause cancer is the fact that a plasmid containing the HPV E6 and E7 genes can reliably immortalize cells in the lab (See "Create Your Own Immortalized Cell Lines".)
Do you doubt this, too?
dankegel 2 months ago
FDA/CDC/Merck/NIH support the line - "HPV is necessary, but not sufficient, to cause cervical cancer [CC]". A woman's immune system must be impaired as evidenced by AT LEAST 1 co-factor which is REQUIRED for CC to develop- smoking, oral contraceptives, parity, chronic STD etc
Every large NIH study (& most small ones) of HPV & CC show a significant % of CC WITHOUT HPV
If a woman has chronic HPV infection her immunity is impaired
Less than 1% of these women get CC, that is NOT cause & effect
michael0156 2 months ago
Given the finding that E6 and E7 are the dangerous bits of HPV, one would expect researchers to be looking at E6/E7-based tests. And that does seem to be going on (e.g. "Human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA testing as a predictive marker for cervical carcinoma."). There is also evidence that vaccines against the E7 protein might help the body fight the cancer (e.g. pubmed 21816200).
It really sounds like medical science is starting to understand cervical cancer at a deep level.
dankegel 2 months ago
Are you or someone you know a doctor? If not, I couldn't care less about what is on those sheets of paper! Also, is your website the only website that promotes your veiwpoint? Just so you know, I have been diagnosed with HPV earlier today.
Pernaetova21 2 months ago
@Pernaetova21 Did you have a positive pap smear, too?
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel I am makle so no pap smear.I have anogenital warts
Pernaetova21 2 months ago
Here are some papers from 2008 or before: 18661520 found HPV in 100% of (CIN3)/cervical cancer; 18282628 found HPV in 100% of those with high-grade lesions; 18200349 found HPV in the two cases (100%) of cervical cancer; 17257705 found HPV in 90%-100% of cervical cancers; 16371167 found HPV in 87.8% (n = 36/41) of the squamous cell carcinomas; 16048506 found HPV in 94.5% of HSIL samples.
I keep looking for studies showing low HPV in cancer samples, but I've only seen one so far (17935171).
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel You ignore your own evidence that HPV is not in all cervical cancer in your previous post. This proves that HPV is NOT necessary. HPV is our most common infection. It's presence in cervical cancer is coincidence
What is NECESSARY is immune impairment, as anyone can see by looking at the co-factors required for cervical cancer to develop (smoking, oral contraceptives, high parity, chronic STD infection).
Why fight this simple truth based on the info from the FDA/CDC?
michael0156 2 months ago
@michael0156 I'm still reading Walboomers et al ("Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide"), but here's what I gather from it. Most DNA tests for HPV look for the L1 gene... but there is evidence that maintaining malignancy requires not the L1 gene, but rather the E7 gene; the L1 gene can get lost along the way to cancer. That, plus samples that weren't really of cancer cells, explained most of the false negatives. It's a compelling narrative.
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel You ignore the manipulation in Walboomers'. Without re-evaluating the same % of positive samples Walboomers simply manipulated out the negative samples
How many positive samples were "histologically inadequate"? No one knows
Your claim the samples were simply not cancer & that is why they were rejected is a lie. Walboomers tested even those "inadequate" samples. Why retest them if they were not canerous? The 21 re-tested "inadequate" samples were 62% negative for HPV on all 3 PCR's
michael0156 2 months ago
@michael0156 Walboomers seemed to think your question was good, and he answered it like this: "The strongest evidence, however, is our striking observation that a large majority (87 per cent) of HPV-negative cases, but only a minority (20 per cent) of HPV-positive cases (Table III: p<0·001), were histologically inadequate, " Table 3 says he evaluated 40 HPV-positive samples. So there y'go.
I'm afraid your objections to his paper all come down to "but you can't trust him".
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel Again you ignore the conflicts Walboomers has with sponsors owning a patent on an HPV test kit
I do not think you have a problem understanding the study's comments about testing + samples, you are simply lying
He did serology tests for antibodies in 83% of negative samples & only 5% of positive
He DID NOT re-assay any + samples with PCR's for HPV DNA & require them to be + on all 3 PCR's before re-confirming them +
Walboomers manipulated out all but 2 negatives to get his 99.7%
michael0156 2 months ago
Pubmed 22056390 says E6 and E7 are required.
And you can actually buy kits containing the E6 and E7 genes from HPV to use to immortalize cells in the lab! See "Create Your Own Immortalized Cell Lines". (I'm not making this up!)
I checked seven papers from pubmed: 21133613, 9428782, 21387088, 21697680, and 21851773 found HPV in 90% or more of cervical cancers; 21987449, found it in 86%, 17935171 found it in 47%.
The evidence seems to strongly favor the "HPV causes cancer" hypothesis.
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel 18661520 - You didn't notice the Digene and InnoGenetics conflicts in this paper? What is CDC's Meg Watson doing co-authoring? Start reading your "evidence" with an objective eye
HPV test kits are the big conflict here. The lead author, Kjaer, is a big proponent of blaming head, neck and anal cancers on HPV with scant evidence to back him up other than the coincidental association of our most common tissue infection with rare cancers appearing in already HPV-infected tissue
michael0156 2 months ago
@michael0156 You wrote "18661520 - ... What is CDC's Meg Watson doing co-authoring?"
The full text article shows it's Michael Watson, not Meg Watson.
dankegel 2 months ago
There's a great infographic showing the number of vaccinations and the number of adverse reactions at informationIsBeautiful (search for "IS THE HPV VACCINE SAFE? V 2.0")
dankegel 2 months ago
Someone explain to me please, I got my first hpv vaccine a couple days ago, why is it bad? Everyone's saying that the Government is trying to reduce the population and all and some say that the vaccine will eventually kill us... tbh, the population one I can understand, if the population keeps growing humanity's gonna die quicker anyway. And if that was one of the side effects, I wouldn't really care but increasing chances of other cancers? Come on...
xXxMcAngelxXx 2 months ago
@xXxMcAngelxXx
I didn't watch the above video, because I'm not a fan of the healthranger.
But, just 26 months after the HPV vax was licensed, the FDA received more than 8,000 reports of injury or death.
I like thinktwice's presentation:
/watch?v=RZQEUd9Nc7E&feature=related
Abbywantscoupons 2 months ago
@xXxMcAngelxXx It's not bad. Anyone telling you it's killing people is confused or ill-informed.
dankegel 2 months ago
The best objections to universal Gardasil vaccination I've seen so far are in Marcia Yerman's article in the Huffington Post, titled "An Interview with Dr. Diane M. Harper, HPV Expert".
Dr. Harper's objections boil down to "we're not sure if the protection lasts long enough to be worth it".
dankegel 2 months ago
The author of the video has a page "Why Vaccinations Harm Children". Picking the first verifiable claim that page makes, "23% of vaccinated children develop asthma compared to zero in unvaccinated children", I see his data came from "Is infant immunization a risk factor for childhood asthma or allergy?", Kemp et al, Epidemiology. 1997, which only studied 23 unvaccinated children, not enough to draw conclusions from. "Vaccination and Allergic Disease: A Birth Cohort Study" found no such effect.
dankegel 2 months ago
It looks like Bosch FX, et al., "The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer," Journal of Clinical Pathology 55: 244-65, 2002 is the paper that convinced the remaining skeptical public health agencies that it was time to stop debating and start fighting HPV. (The full text can be found by searching for the title on google.)
It's ok to worry about vaccine safety, but saying HPV isn't causing cancer is like saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS at this point.
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel
Mike Adams DOES say HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Yes, that is the level of delusion you're dealing with when you talk to a Mike Adams supporter.
h8uall66 2 months ago
Bosch published a followup in 2003 ("Epidemiologic Classification of Human Papillomavirus Types Associated with Cervical Cancer", N Engl J Med 2003; 348:518-527, full text online) which found HPV DNA in 91% to 97% of the cancer patients depending on which test was used, and in 13% to 16% of people without cancer.
His July 2008 interview in Sciencewatch gives interesting background; he co-authored the paper with Walbloomer; Walbloomer's new test just raised the detection rate from 93% to 100.
dankegel 2 months ago
Some viral infections can persist in otherwise healthy individuals (lots of people with warts are otherwise ok).
As to whether HPV causes cancer: "Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide," (Walboomers JMM, et al., Journal of Pathology 189:12-19, 1999) says that virtually 100% of cervical cancer samples had HPV DNA.
From there it's an easy leap to "No HPV -> no cancer" and "vaccination will probably save lives". And that's why I'm vaccinating my son.
dankegel 2 months ago
@dankegel Walboomers is a fraud. They restudied only negative (-) samples from a study by Bosch et al in 1995. They eliminated 34 (-)samples because they "didn't look right". Restested (-) samples were required to be (-) on 3 PCR assays. Any ambiguous or + result was counted +. Only 2 cancer samples remained negative
If you search HPV studies on Pubmed most show 23% or more cervical cancer WITHOUT HPV, proving HPV is not necessary
The study's sponsors patented an HPV test kit- OBVIOUS conflict
michael0156 2 months ago
@dankegel
Don't bother. The people you are dealing with live in a complete fantasy world. I say, if they don't want to use medicine, let them get sick and die.
h8uall66 2 months ago
@h8uall66
I know (reviewing your exchanges with him, he really doesn't seem to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient), but as long as I was reading up on the subject, I figured it couldn't hurt to reply with pointers to the key papers and their key findings.
dankegel 2 months ago
During the first 2 1/2 years of Gardasil's use (23 million doses), the FDA received 20 credible reports of death [Slade et al. JAMA. 2009;302(7):750-757].
It's not even clear the vaccine caused those, but assuming it did, that's a one in a million risk, about as dangerous as taking a ride in a motorcycle or canoe (source: wikipedia 'micromort'), and a good bet compared to the 70 in a million risk of getting cervical cancer (site: wikipedia 'Cervical_cancer').
So, like, calm down, eh?
dankegel 3 months ago
@dankegel Gardasil is useless. HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer or any cancer
A prerequisite for cervical cancer, according to mainstream pharmaceutical BS, is chronic infection with HPV
But if you have a chronic HPV infection that is PROOF your immune system is not working properly & it is the same part of your immune system that fights tissue infections like cancer, Cell Mediated Immunity
Gardasil & Cervarix & HPV causing cancer are a hoax to promote our most expensive & useless vaccine
michael0156 2 months ago
Comment removed
dankegel 3 months ago
There is some evidence that vaccinating girls does in fact help.
The June 2011 study in the Lancet,
"Early effect of the HPV vaccination programme on cervical abnormalities in Victoria, Australia: an ecological study",
found that precancerous lesions were half as frequent after vaccination started.
More data is of course needed, but this is a promising start.
dankegel 3 months ago
@dankegel Have you not heard almost 100 kids have died from that vaccine.
MrIlhuitemoc 3 months ago
@18wheeler76 I bet you've been vaccinated for several diseases. I suppose you're angry with your parents for that, and that you'd prefer to get sick from the bugs those vaccines protect against? And I suppose you'd prefer that women go through childbirth without anesthesia, as the good Lord intended?
To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a vaccine is just a vaccine, not a conspiracy.
dankegel 3 months ago
@dankegel You have no facts so why should i listen to your indoctrinated nonsense.
NearDark87 3 months ago in playlist Liked
Comment removed
dankegel 3 months ago
The NY Times today (2011/10/04/health/research/04hpv.html) said
"Researchers tested tumor samples from 271 patients with certain types of throat cancer diagnosed from 1984 to 2004. The virus was found in only 16 percent of the samples from the 1980s — but in 72 percent of those collected after 2000."
It's a growing, real problem, and idiots like you are going to cause more women to die by convincing them to not get vaccinated.
dankegel 3 months ago
@dankegel YEA CUZ IF THEY GET THE VACCINE THEY WILL NEVER DIE,IDIOT.EVERYONE IS GONNA DIE,ID RATHER DIE WHEN ITS MY TIME WITHOUT HAVING FORIENG CHEMICALS IN MY BODY.WHY DO YOU THINK PEOPLE LIVE SO LONG,SO PHARMA CAN MAKE MONEY OFF THE 10 PILLS GRANNY HAS TO TAKE FOR 20 YRS.DA
18wheeler76 3 months ago
@18wheeler76 WOOOHOOO!!! I applaud what you've done & it's definetely THE Right thing!! I'm so glad you told me!! You're children will be SO MUCH STRONGER without all those dangerous chemicals in their system!! YES!! WE ARE WINNING THE VACCINE INFO WARS!!! WOOOHOOOO!!!
promiseIsaih60 3 months ago
@h8uall66
As anyone can see from his nic, h8uall has problems. Unable to argue effectively against any of the info I posted from the CDC, FDA & Merck he simply lies about what it means, contradicts himself, & calls me names.
Gardasil is ineffective, stimulating the wrong part of our immunity
HPV doesn't cause cancer
The FDA CDC & Merck all admit "HPV... is NOT SUFFICIENT to cause cancer" They say "HPV is necessary" but state immune problems are also "necessary". Lies, used to steal money
michael0156 3 months ago
You'd read one thing. Then you would translate it completely wrong. You're pretty dumb.
nexus1g 3 months ago
Vax, in part thanks to Bachmann & Perry bringing attention to them, will 1 day (soon I hope) go the way of bloodletting, lobotomies, trepanation. Bloodletting has a long history so musta been peer reviewed & scientifically proven huh? And then there was Antonio Egnaz Moniz, who won Nobel Prize in 1949 for his lobotomies. Really- modern medicine prescribing Coumadin/Warfarin rat poison has little to be proud of. What don't they understand about life being in the blood? Don't waste or pollute it!
2ndSamuel710 4 months ago
I like this guy! HE IS SO RIGHT!
ByGraceIGo 4 months ago in playlist Gardasil
This has been flagged as spam show
"As well to consult a butcher on value of vegetarianism as a doctor on worth of vaccinations" "At present, intelligent people don't have their children vaccinated, nor does law compel them to. Result is not as Jennerians prophesied, extermination of human race by small pox; on contrary more people now killed by vaxs than small pox" "Every doctor will allow a colleague to decimate a whole country side sooner than violate the bond of professional etiquette by giving them away". George Bernard Shaw
2ndSamuel710 5 months ago
I just want to tell the people that you are not alone even when you have an STD! There are so many people who have the same situation as you.
Also, there are many online communities for you to find support and dating! I recommend you to read the STD inspirational stories on the largest STD support and dating site STDslove. com. Hope that you find the stories helpful and informative.
normancxy 5 months ago in playlist The Dangers of the HPV Vaccine
Well then people who have taken this should put a law suit against the company who made it
abrcic1 5 months ago