View Single Post
Old 21-05-2018, 01:48 PM   #12
st jimmy
Senior Member
st jimmy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,497 (898 Posts)

HPV vaccines - cervical cancer

The official story on vaccination is something like: infecting somebody with a weaker (inactive) virus, makes you immune without the illness. Some logic shows that this theory contradicts itself.
When your immune system is deficient, you’re immune system wouldn’t be able even with the weak virus in the vaccine, so you wouldn’t become immune and you would still get ill.
For somebody with a well-functioning immune system, there’s no need for vaccination, as the immune system would be able to cope with the (normal) virus.
Whether your immune system is deficient or functions well, vaccines couldn’t have any positive effect.

Besides “normal” vaccines, there are even initiatives to poison us with:
Teeth vaccine:
Cancer vaccine:

This really shows that there is no limit on vaccines; unless of course we stop believe in the big pharma propaganda…

The rest of this post is about the controversial HPV vaccines (HPV: Human PapillomaVirus) have been marketed as cervical cancer prevention. These HPV vaccines supposedly prevent infections with viruses that in turn cause cancer.
There is no evidence that vaccines prevent infections with HPV, or even that HPV causes cervical cancer.

Regularly stories reach the media about the horrible effect of HPV vaccines. The teenager Jasmin Soriat from Vienna died after being poisoned with Gardasil (the most common HPV vaccine).
Johan Missliwetz was ordered by the court to perform a second autopsy on Soriat’s body, and concluded that the HPV vaccine could have been the cause of death. After Missliwetz reported his results to the drug regulation authorities, he received many calls from “senior members of the medical establishment”. They attempted to “intervene” and many professors asked him to stop talking about vaccination tests. Missliwetz has subsequently taken an “early retirement”.

The Independent published an article about 131 young women who suffered HPV vaccine injuries. Another 18 young women came forward only a week later.

According to Bernard Dalbergue, who worked directly with Gardasil’s manufacturer, Merck:
The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless. Diane Harper, a major opinion leader in the United States, was one of the first to blow the whistle, pointing out the fraud and scam of it all.
I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune!
In addition, decision-makers at all levels are aware of it! Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.
Dianne Harper is one of the very few specialists on HPV in the world; she explained:
the benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated.
According to Christian Fiala:
No-one has shown that the HPV vaccine actually reduces the rate of cervical cancer.
As long as we have no proof that cervical cancer is caused by HPV, it is fundamentally useless to vaccinate against HPV because the chances are the cancer will occur whether there is HPV or not.
Peter Duesberg, who was once a highly respected biochemist, before he became ridiculed for his views on HIV/AIDS, takes this a step further:
The [HPV] vaccine should be stopped until it’s proved that it protects against cancer… It has the highest number of side-effects ever of any vaccine.
In the US, it has more side-effects reported than all other vaccines combined. Since there is no scientific evidence that it will do anything else than occasionally cause warts, which will be eliminated by the immune system, there is no need for vaccination against this virus.
(archived here:

Big pharma hasn’t claimed that men can also get cervical cancers, but instead invented that oral sex leads to HPV infection, which can cause throat cancer in men instead.
This “explains” that men are 4 times more likely than women to be diagnosed with oral cancer. About 13,200 oral cancers are diagnosed in US men each year, compared with (only) 3,200 in women. It’s even called - HPV oral cancer.
HPV virus is now found in 70% of all new oral cancers.

They invented a bizarre explanation that lesbian women don’t have a higher risk on throat cancer…
HPV is usually wiped out without any symptoms in women, because an HPV infection usually sets off their immune system. Don’t connect the dots, or you’ll conclude that women wouldn’t need a vaccine...
Supposedly in men the immune system doesn’t protect against HPV - among 384 men, only 8% produced antibodies. For some reason the article doesn’t present the rate among women for comparison...

Because no early screening test exists for oral cancer, you’d never guess which solution is presented...
Poison all pubescent children – not only girls, but also boys – with HPV-vaccines.

I haven’t seen a good explanation for why HPV-related tumours have more than quadrupled over the last 20 years:

Statistics can easily be manipulated in relation with HPV vaccines. The theory that having sex and becoming infected with certain viruses causes cancer could be “scientifically” proven in the following hypothetical way...
If for example a large percentage of women in a trial are prostitutes, this could have the following consequences.
Prostitutes are known to have many sexual encounters. It is also known that prostitutes have a high risk for certain diseases. Furthermore a relatively large percentage of prostitutes are drug addicts.
If for example using hard drugs increases the risk of cancer, and combining this with certain diseases that often happen for prostitutes, this could already be used to create evidence...

Here’s the literature review M. Soohoo et al “Cervical HPV Infection in Female Sex Workers: A Global Perspective” (2013):

In this article the conclusion is drawn that “In female sex workers (FSWs), the risk of HPV infection and cervical cancer is especially high”.
The question is by what this is caused. My theory is that this is (or could be) caused by “recreational” drug abuse, but according to the state media this is caused by many sexual contacts.
To make the manipulation of statistics more obvious, we can see the bizarre conclusion that “One study saw that HPV prevalence was higher in 20-year-old or younger women compared to women over 20 years old”. If younger FSWs (prostitutes) have been infected more with HPV than older FSWs, this contradicts the theory that sex causes HPV infection. Obviously this was written to convince women that especially sex at a young age causes cancer…

It’s also mentioned that many FSWs are HIV-positive, so if you follow the theory that HIV causes immune deficiency (AIDS), you could also reach the conclusion that cervical cancer is caused by immune deficiency.
According to this literature review the median overall prevalence of HPV among HIV positive FSW is 73.3% (ranging from 32-87%). To manipulate the results, prostitutes with HIV infection were removed from the main analysis. This is especially doubtful, when you realise that there is no reliable HIV-test, which means that HIV-positive can’t scientificically determined.

Then I looked for a paper on the relation between drug abuse and cervical cancer. The following paper focuses on cocaine in relation with HPV - H. Minkoff et al “The Relationship between Cocaine Use and Human Papillomavirus Infections in HIV-Seropositive and HIV-Seronegative Women”:

Look at the formulation of this conclusion:
Cocaine use is associated with an increased risk of detection of both prevalent and incident oncogenic HPV infection, as well as an increased risk of HPV-positive SIL over time.

Another well-known risk factor for getting cancer is smoking; the cocaine users were often also heavy smokers:
Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the study population at baseline. Women acknowledging crack/cocaine use were older, more likely to be African Americans, less likely to be Hispanic, had more sex partners in the last six months, and were more likely to report heavy cigarette use.
Also interesting is that studies are referenced, which show that cocaine abuse causes immune deficiency:
In one study of lymphocytes from individuals with cocaine in their urine, it was found that “Memory" CD8+ T cell subpopulations (i.e., CD45RO+) were reduced in the cocaine-positive patients leading the authors to conclude that this might “represent a disruption of particular immunologic cell networks which could ultimately influence host resistance to infection".
Shen and colleagues, evaluating a mouse model in which cocaine was injected intraperitoneally found that all immune parameters, other than lymphocyte transformation of the splenic or the peripheral blood lymphocytes, were suppressed [11].
Other investigators have shown that withdrawal from cocaine can also induce deleterious immune alterations. Using a rat model, Avila demonstrated that repeated exposure to cocaine followed by withdrawal led to activation of the neuroendocrine stress response, which alters cellular immunity and possibly contributes to an increased susceptibility to infection [13].
Perhaps most germane to our findings is the work of Lopez [33] and colleagues, who found that daily cocaine administration induced a significant decrease in the number of IgA+ cells with a concomitant increase in the number of CD8+ cells per villi in the intestinal lamina propria (ILP).

When the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was introduced in 2006, cervical cancer rates had been steadily declining for several decades.

Sweden had relatively low levels of cervical cancer.
Since Sweden approved the Gardasil vaccine in 2006, Sweden’s cervical cancer rates stopped declining. In 2017, Sweden’s Center for Cervical Cancer Prevention reported that the incidence of cervical cancer is climbing in nearly all counties.
In the two-year period from 2013 to 2015, the cervical cancer rates in Sweden increased with 20%.

An (anonymous) Swedish researcher found that while the cervical cancer rates in younger women (ages 20-49) increased considerably, the cancer rates for older women (over age 50) didn’t increase.

Sweden approved Gardasil in 2006.
By 2015, the oldest girls in the “catch-up” group (ages 15-18) that were vaccinated in Sweden had reached their early twenties and were within the 20-29-year range that displayed the greatest increase in cervical cancer incidence.

If Gardasil causes cervical cancer - this is what you would expect…

While the dying rate from cervical cancer is only .23 per 10,000, the serious adverse event rate of Gardasil is 1 in 15 (7%) and a death rate among the vaccinated is 14 per 10,000:
(archived here:
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason:
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote