The Great HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

**COUNTRYBUMPKIN** · 07-16-2008, 04:37 AM

http://www.naturalnews.com/report_HPV_Vaccine_0.html

(NaturalNews) For the last several years, HPV vaccines have been marketed to the public and mandated in compulsory injections for young girls in several states based on the idea that they prevent cervical cancer. Now, NaturalNews has obtained documents from the FDA and other sources (see below) which reveal that the FDA has been well aware for several years that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer.

NaturalNews has also learned that HPV vaccines have been proven to be flatly worthless in clearing the HPV virus from women who have already been exposed to HPV (which includes most sexually active women), calling into question the scientific justification of mandatory "vaccinate everyone" policies.

Furthermore, this story reveals evidence that the vaccine currently being administered for HPV -- Gardasil -- may increase the risk of precancerous cervical lesions by an alarming 44.6 percent in some women. The vaccine, it turns out, may be far more dangerous to the health of women than doing nothing at all.

**COUNTRYBUMPKIN** · 07-16-2008, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by gg

I'm glad somebody is onto this very controversial drug. I was alarmed last year after hearing about this news too:

How can this be?

gg, It is because the FDA and Big Pharma are tied in with one another. They are not concerned about the lives of human beings. The bottom line for them is profit. It's all so corrupt!!

**Frugal Nurse** · 07-16-2008, 07:06 AM

KUDOS.

See my other posts of today.

But I couldn't help but notice that the

The vaccine is used to prevent the human papillomavirus — a sexually transmitted disease believed to be the cause of most cases of cervical cancer.

Believed being the word here - to indicate there is no actual PROOF.
They are very carefully scripted (trust me I know). Each word is carefully reviewed for meaning and it's context before anything gets out to the public.

**Izzy0906** · 07-16-2008, 08:15 AM

I'm confused. I guess I didn't read enough on it but I never saw where they claimed it cleared it from someone who already has it. I always thought the commercials said it was for those who didn't have it yet. If someone could explain this to me I would really appreciate it. I have HPV, and I've had pre-cancerous cells removed 4 times so far.

**Frugal Nurse** · 07-16-2008, 08:27 AM

Just about every sexually active woman has HPV.
Not every sexually active woman gets HPV even though it's there.
So to say that HPV CAUSES cancer is like saying that stomach acid causes cancer - because it is in EVERY stomach cancer patient.

I will look into Izzy's question in a bit - I have to go see a patient about a horse.

**Izzy0906** · 07-16-2008, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Frugal Nurse

Just about every sexually active woman has HPV.
Not every sexually active woman gets HPV even though it's there.
So to say that HPV CAUSES cancer is like saying that stomach acid causes cancer - because it is in EVERY stomach cancer patient.

I will look into Izzy's question in a bit - I have to go see a patient about a horse.

I thought out of dozen of strands of HPV only a few they linked to cancer because the woman who got cervical cancer happened to have one of these few strands, not that all HPV causes cancer. I'm so lost. What you are saying is opposite of what my dr. has told me. SHe said 80% of women have HPV but only the woman who have these few strands have increased chance of developing cervical cancer. Can you please clarify? Thanks!

**bluebird728** · 07-16-2008, 10:19 AM

It's a free country and people can say and do what they wish...

However, this kind of disinformation is very disturbing. In the past I had one the the bad strains of HPV and severe cervical displasia (one step before cancer). I'm also an analyst by profession, so I did my research.

This is what I learned, and what I believe to be true. There are over 100 different strains of the HPV virus. About fourty of them cause warts and do not cause cervical cancer. Thirteen strains are considered high risk for cervical cancer. They are 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68. Of those 16 and 18 are the most common.

In most cases the body will fight off the viral infection and within a few months it will clear without incident. At this point a person no longer tests positive for HPV which is determined by a test during PAP. In some cases the virus will linger and become chronic. It is in those cases that the risk of displasia and cervical cancer manifests.

In nearly all cases of cervical cancer active HPV is also present - at the same time. When a woman has tested positive for HPV she needs to be very careful about getting annual PAPs. Cervical displasia (abnormal cells on the outside of the membrane) and cervical cancer (which occurs when those abnormal cells get past the outer membrane) are very slow growing. If caught in a reasonable amount of time displasia can usually be successfully treated and not progress to cancer.

My HPV and displasia occurred during an extended period of high stress (caregiving) when I didn't take good care of my own health. It is my personal belief that the high levels of stress I experienced compromised my immune systems ability to fight off the infection.

I, for one, think that the vaccine is a very good thing. My teenage daughter is getting it, so she can avoid the same experiences that I had.

**bluebird728** · 07-16-2008, 10:33 AM

One more thing... the vaccine protects against four of the most common strains that can lead to cervical cancer. Therefore the coverage is not complete, but it is a whole lot better than nothing at all.

**bluebird728** · 07-16-2008, 10:50 AM

I'm sorry, but twisted logic really bothers me. I re-read the article and found this

In it, the FDA says, "The HPV DNA test is not intended to substitute for regular Pap screening. Nor is it intended to screen women under 30 who have normal Pap tests. Although the rate of HPV infection in this group is high, most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer." (Emphasis added.)

In other words, the FDA knew in 2003 that HPV infections are not associated with cervical cancer.

Furthermore, the FDA states, in the same press release, "Most women who become infected with HPV are able to eradicate the virus and suffer no apparent long-term consequences to their health."

In other words, HPV infections do not cause cervical cancer! Remember, the entire push for mandatory HPV vaccinations of young girls across the country has been the urgent call to "save" these young girls from cervical cancer. The vaccine push has been about "savings lives." But as these documents clearly reveal, HPV is no threat to the lives of young girls. In fact, as you will see below, HPV infections are naturally self-limiting!

This is such bad logic that I'm shaking my head in disbelief. Think of it this way. The majority of people who smoke will not get lung cancer. Therefore smoking does not cause lung cancer.

The problem there is obvious. Of course we are all aware that many people who have lung cancer also were smokers. Therefore smoking is known cause of lung cancer.

The same thing is true of HPV. Most women who get HPV will not get cervical cancer. In most cases HPV will go away on it's on. However, in almost all cases of cervical cancer HPV is also present. Therefore HPV is a likely cause of cervical cancer.

Be careful of the conclusions drawn from known and agreed upon facts.

**shortstack** · 07-22-2008, 09:20 AM

I will not be getting this vaccine for my daughter but for a totally different reason. The vaccine is still too new to know the lasting side effects. That is also the same reason neither of my children have had chicken pox or Prevnar vaccinations. My daughter has had chicken pox and as my son gets a little older I plan to expose him so that he will catch it as a child as well.

Andrea

**Michelle** · 07-22-2008, 09:24 AM

I am disturbed by a lot of the information out there. It's all so contradictory, and it makes it very hard to make an informed decision. Kathryn's Dr. will be advocating that she get this vaccine at her next check-up. Right now I'm leaning toward refusing it at this time because it's just too new.

**Izzy0906** · 07-22-2008, 10:30 AM

I have strand 18. I have had it for 3 years and my Dr. said because of the length of time I've had it, my age and because of my abnormal paps every six months (yup, almost every six months I have to have a biopsy) it's probably something I have to live with for the rest of my life. If in 5 years, there are no major side effects, my daugther will be getting the vaccine if it at least gives her a small change of avoiding the 4 main strands that increase cervical cancer.

**Mo-BayMom** · 07-22-2008, 02:02 PM

I have 5 daughters and I won't give this vaccine to any of them. If they choose at age 18 that they want it..then fine..it's up to them.. but I don't feel it's safe enough..it's just too new. None of my kids had the chicken pox vaccine either..my own Dr said NO WAY...he wouldn't give it to his own kids. They are pumping our kids full of too many new vaccines and not really giving out the full details of risks.