Piece on HPV vaccine = linked to Nobel Award 10th of December

[Guest guest]

Hi and Jackie and Sheri,

please find below pasted in and attached my piece

on HPV - thought you might be able to link this

to your websites before the Nobel award next week... if you like it that is.

Janine

author of Fear of the Invisible.

--

HPV VACCINE MYSTERIES

WHY IS A NOBEL AWARD BEING GIVEN FOR THIS ON DECEMBER 10TH?

By Janine

There are two licensed HPV vaccines in the world.

Merck makes Gardasil. It contains proteins said

to come originally from four different types of

HPV. By early 2008 over 10 million doses had been

distributed, three-quarters of these in the USA.

It is thought to be earning the company over $1

billion a year – at $360 a course of three

injections, far more than is charged for the

common vaccines The other is Cervarix, made by

Klein Beecham, which is not yet licensed

for use in the USA (as of May 2008). It contains

proteins said to come from 2 different types of

HPV. Both vaccines contain aluminium adjuvants.

Both manufacturers recommend that women are still

regularly scanned for cervical cancer – thus the

vaccine does not save costs. In fact these scans

give women far better protection than does the vaccine.

On December 10th, a Nobel Prize will be awarded

for finding HPV and proving its link to cervical

cancer to Dr Harad zur Hausen. However this is a

missing link in this – for he failed to find a

way to persuade cells to make his virus.

“THE VACCINE WITHOUT A VIRUS.â€

Measles, mumps, rubella, and polio – all the

usual childhood vaccines are produced from cell

cultures – for viruses are products of

cells. But there is something very different

about the HPV vaccines. Unlike all the usual

vaccines, they do not contain any virus.

Extraordinarily, at no point during vaccine

production is the HPV virus claimed to be

present. The reason for this is very simple. So

far scientists have failed to persuade any cell

culture to produce this virus, even cultures made

of cervical cancer cells. A statement by the

International Agency for Research on Cancer

reported that this type of virus, the

papillomaviruses (HPV), “cannot be propagated in tissue culture.â€

Rather these vaccines are the product of a new

synthetic vaccine industry based, not on

isolating viruses, but on reproducing short

lengths of genetic codes postulated to come from

proteins that once formed the outer coat of the

virus that is not itself found for the vaccines.

Extremely sensitive new tests, variants of a

laboratory tool called PCR or Polymerase Chain

Reaction, make it possible to study very small

fragments of genetic code found among broken up

cellular material. In this case, what are

searched for are fragments of codes for certain

protein molecules. These are presumed to come

from the outer coating of HPV – and the vaccine

is based on manufactured versions of these proteins.

They seem to assemble naturally into “virus

like†empty shells and are thus known

officially as “Virus-Like Particles’ (VLP),

even thou’ this is like calling a brick a

house. To make Gardasil, these are put into cells

and multiplied in yeast cell cultures, or in

baculovirus cultures for Cervarix. Fluid from the

culture containing these particles is then used

as the vaccine. The vaccines are thus certain to

contain many particles from the yeast fungi or

baculovirus, and whatever additives are used -

and thus Gardosil is not officially recommended

to those who are sensitive to yeast.

The HPV vaccines have then added to them aluminum

chemicals as an ‘adjuvant’. This is to

provoke our immune cells into producing

antibodies for longer – although it has recently

been discovered that many people have become

seriously ill because of this aluminum. [1] The

aluminium is in the form of tiny sharp

needle-like crystals. These our immune cells

attempt to digest, but they cannot. The needles

remain stuck inside. No wonder our cells respond for longer.

MAKING A VACCINE FOR AN ABSENT VIRUS

Why is HPV virus thought to cause this

cancer? It seems only because Harald zur Hausen

found certain genetic codes in or near the

cervical cancer cells; for, in about 90% of

cases, ‘DNA and transcripts of specific HPV

types are regularly detected in biopsies from

cervical cancer and in its precursor lesions.’ [2]

He presumed these codes were from proteins that

were unique to this virus. We have to say,

“presumed,†as most viruses have not yet been

studied so logically it is impossible for us to

be certain that a protein is unique to any virus.

Also, finding them in these cancer cells does not

mean that they cause the cancers. The cells may produce them for other purposes

Thus, because this virus cannot be grown, the

vaccine is instead based on ‘Virus-Like

Particles;’ made from synthetic versions of

proteins said to be parts of HPV. In reality,

human skin cells make these proteins – but these

same cells have not confirmed their ability to

make HPV itself by doing so in the laboratory.

This makes it near impossible to prove that these

proteins come from this virus.

The ‘P’ of HPV stands for papillomavirus.

This is described as containing a double strand

of circular DNA 8 kb long. So far some seventy

different proteins thought to come from variants

of this virus have been found in human tissues,

and some 20 in animals. It seems that they are

“highly host specific†meaning that they do

not move between animal species.

Where are the genetic codes identified as

papillomavirus found? Van Hausen did not find

them in viruses produced in cell cultures, not in

isolated viruses, but in the human genome, the

most protected part of our cells.[3] He did not

find there the whole code of his virus, but only

part of the code. He postulated from this that

the virus must exist and must have transported

this code to our cell. But it is hard to

distinguish these sequences from our normal DNA,

as they seem to be in nearly all of us.

PCR tests suggest nearly 80% of healthy human

adults in the USA have these proteins, meaning

their cells make them, but far less than 1% of

women get cervical cancer, suggesting the

proteins normally do not cause cancer.

Furthermore, an antibody test for the virus has

also proved difficult to develop as ‘antibodies

to early HPV proteins have also been detected in

patients with HPV-associated diseases as well as in healthy individuals.’ [4]

So, why were these proteins linked to the cancer?

Some HPV scientists say these proteins might

affect a normal protein found in cells called p53

that helps protect us from cancers. “The E6

protein (one thought to come from a certain form

of HPV) binds to p53 and this interaction results

in a decrease in the half-life of p53 within

cells,†[5] but this is very much an argument

from association. There seems to be less p53 in

circumstances where this protein is present. This

does not prove that one causes the other.

These proteins were presumed pathogenic after an

experiment in which these proteins (not the

virus) ‘were transiently transfected into HeLa

Cells’. The cells that died after this were

counted. Their death rate went up by ‘about

5%.’[6] HeLa cells are malignant human cervical

cancer cells. If they died after these proteins

were added, surely this might indicate why our

cells make these proteins when threatened by

cervical cancer – it seems far more likely that

they do so to protect us by destroying cancer cells, not to cause them!

Many retroviruses are similarly reported to have

strong anti-tumour effects. It has been suggested

that cells use retroviral particles to transport

genetic codes that the damaged cells can use to

repair themselves – or to induce apoptosis,

natural death, in the damaged cells as is suggested by this HeLa experiment.

The question is then, why do our cells make the

“HPV†proteins? Why do nearly 80% of adult

western females have them without getting

cancers? ‘By age 50, approximately 80% of U.S.

women have or have had a genital HPV

infection.’ [7] So why do most of us have these

proteins - when nearly all of us never get cervical cancer.

It seem that the entire focus of research up

until now has been on discovering if these

proteins might cause diseases – not on

discovering if they might be valuable to us in

some way – such as protecting women from cervical cancer.

If this is so, then there is utterly

counterproductive to take a vaccine aimed at

making our bodies produce antibodies against

these proteins, for if this were achieved, it

would create an autoimmune disease for it would make the body attack itself.

Viruses are made by cells in many variants,

making it extremely difficult to classify then

into species like ‘HPV.’ A viral species is

allowed to contain particles with up to 20%

differing genetic codes – despite there being

less than a 5% difference between the genetic

codes of a chimpanzee and a human. The difference

within viral species is so great that it is

questionable if these are true species.

As for these proteins, they are identified in the

lab by finding very short and hopefully unique

segments of their genetic codes, as follows:

(These letters are sequences of 4 nucleotides.) [8]

HPV-16 type-specific sequencing primer 5'-GCTGCCATATCTACTTCAGA-3'

HPV-18 type-specific sequencing primer 5'-GCTTCTACACAGTCTCCTGT-3'

HPV -6 type-specific sequencing primer 5'-GTGCATCCGTAACTACATCTT-3'

HPV -11 type-specific sequencing primer 5'-GTGCATCTGTGTCTAAATCTG-3'

But the same paper also says that the “majority

of multiple HPV infections are transientâ€,

“vary among patient populations and are

influenced by the stage of carcinogenesis “ and

that “in 93% of initially infected women, the

same viral type is not detected upon

re-examination four menstrual cycles later,†In

other words, the proteins thought from HPV do not

stay the same in the cervical cancer patients. Is

this because waves of different HPV viruses are

attacking – or because cells make different types

of these proteins according to needs?

An earlier paper by Duesberg et al

reported: “no subset of viral DNA is

consistently found or expressed in HBV-positive

tumors. Only 11-19% of tumors in HBV positive

patients express some viral antigens, compared to

26-61% expressing them in surrounding

non-tumorous tissuesâ€[9] Again, this could be

explained if these proteins are there to protect.

However despite this theory, after spending many

millions of dollars trying to prove this virus is

the cause of these cancers, most of the

scientists in the field have been forced to

conclude that this virus by itself cannot be the

cause of cervical cancer. They have had to look

instead for a toxin or other factor that triggers the cancers.

SO – WHAT IS THE MAJOR CAUSE OF THESE CANCERS?

It has now been found that: ‘HPV infection

alone is not sufficient to cause cervical cancer.

Host, environmental, and virological co-factors

clearly exist that influence the risk of

progression from HPV infection to cervical

cancer. Factors that may influence progression of

HPV infection to cervical cancer include young

age, immunosuppression, smoking, and co-infection

with herpes simplex virus or Chlamydia trachomatis.’ [10]

It was also reported: ‘The long latency period

between primary infection and cancer emergence

suggests that additional factors are involved in

the process of tumor development: sexual

behavior, immune status, genetic predispositions,

nutritional status, tobacco use, socio-economical level.’ [11]

The above-cited International Agency for Research

on Cancer also reported: ‘The effects of

chemical or physical carcinogens on progression

of papillomavirus-induced lesions have been

documented in a number of studies.’

Why cannot the virus be easily blamed for the

cancer? Because the cancer develops over a

decade, or even longer, after the presumed

exposure to the virus, making a causal link hard

to establish. ‘Progression from HPV infection

to invasive cancer is usually a slow process,

taking 10 to 15 years.’ [12]Given this, and

that the vaccine development only started around

2000, surely the efficacy of the vaccine in

preventing this cancer cannot yet be known?

What then is the major cause of cervical

cancer? Is it the co-factors – or these codes

and proteins? I would suggest that it is more

likely to be the co-factors, particularly toxins

– as toxins are widely implicated in other human

cancers – such as asbestos in mesothelioma and

tobacco in lung cancer. In a safety vaccine trial

in Utah, women who smoked were found have a 3.42

times greater risk of developing cervical cancer

than had women who had little exposure to tobacco

smoke. Also, women whose diets were high in

vegetables had half the risk of getting cervical cancer. [13]

Incidentally, the PR firm used by Merck used to

help it get rapid licensing for this vaccine and

to persuade governments to make it compulsory

with a ‘celebrity-led’ campaign, is Edelman,

the same company that has worked hard to protect

cigarette companies from legislation against tobacco smoke.

It has been suggested that ‘the long-term use

of chemical-based feminine hygiene products might

alter the normal bacterial environment in the

uterus that protects it, which in turn induces

pre-cancerous lesions.’ Douches designed to

kill bacteria, may well damage other cells as

well. Toxins accumulate in body tissues, and may

eventually reach critical levels. [14]This could

explain why the highest mortality rate from

cervical cancer is in the 75-79 age group.

So – does HPV vaccine lessen our chances of

getting this cancer? If the virus is present in

many healthy people it seems unlikely it to be

the cause. If the ‘co-factors’ are the main

causes, then a vaccine cannot give us immunity.

It has also to be said that the vaccines have not

yet been proved to work– as the cancer takes 10 –

60 years to appear and the vaccines have not been

tested for more than a few months.

HPV VACCINE SIDE EFFECTS

The safety trials on which Merck are relying to

prove their vaccine is safe were only over a

period of about 18 months with children and four

years for older children and adults, far less

time than it may take a cervical cancer to

develop. Furthermore the control group were

given a “placebo†that contained the same

aluminium adjuvant as is in the vaccine, making

the results unreliable as the control group could

contain many who reacted against this aluminium hydroxide.

Merck also warns that its vaccine is not for

women who are “already infected†with one or

more of the 4 proteins it guards against. Adding

more of these in synthetic forms through

vaccination is highly hazardous. It is reported

to increase the risk of precancerous cervix

lesions by 44.6%! `It is reported that

“injection of HPV vaccines into women who have

concurrent vaccine-relevant HPV type infections

may increase the risk, by 44.6%, of developing

high-grade precancerous lesions in the cervix.†[15]

Of course, it is very difficult to tell if any of

these proteins are present – near impossible in

practice as no one looks for them prior to

vaccination. Thus are we endangering people by

using it on people who have not been tested for

these proteins. This suggests that the added

synthetic proteins upset the body’s natural

process of protection against these lesions.

Merck seems to have no explanation for this at all.

It’s safety trials have also shown that the arm

muscles, into which it is injected, react against

it with some strength. Pain, swelling, itching,

bruising and inflammation are reported to be

frequent.[16] MS, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and

severely disabling muscle pains have been linked

to the aluminium adjuvant used.[17] One

possibility is that the cause might be sometimes

contaminants such as free DNA fragments –“ as

these are reported by senior UK and US vaccine

scientists to be possible causes of cancer and autoimmune diseases. [18]

Merck itself warns that its vaccine

1. “Has not been evaluated for the potential

to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.†(In

other words, Merck cannot guarantee that it will not cause cancers.)

2. “The safety and efficacy of Gardasil have

not been evaluated in children younger than 9

years†– or “in adults above 26

years.†(Most cervical cancer cases are in women above 35.)

3. “The administration of Gardasil with other

vaccines (other than Hepatitis has not been studied.’

4. “It is not known whether GARDASIL can

cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant

woman or if it can affect reproductive capacity. "

Because of the lack of testing in older women,

the FDA on June 25, 2008 denied Merck's

application to market Gardasil to women ages 27-45.

Dr Diane Harper, who helped develop this vaccine,

said on CBS television news on 7th May 2008 that

making the vaccine compulsory was wrong as “the

vaccine has not been out long enough for us to

have post-marketing surveillance to really

understand what all the potential side effects

are going to be.†Since June 8th, 2006, when

this vaccine was approved for use in the USA,

over 8,000 possible side effects have been reported, including 18 deaths.

One news organization summed it up thus:

‘ " Anaphylactic shock, " " foaming at mouth, "

" grand mal convulsion, " " coma " and " now

paralyzed " are a few of the startling

descriptions included in a new federal report

describing the complications from Merck & Co.'s

Gardasil medication for sexually transmitted

human papillomavirus – which has been proposed as

mandatory for all schoolgirls.’ [19]

Here are 3 official reports of possible side-effects observed in patients:

‘Severe form of Guillain-Barré syndrome after

HPV vaccine . . . Respiratory failure with

prolonged mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy

tube Placement . . . vital capacity deteriorated

on day 3 . . . able to move only jaw and eyes.’ [20]

Information has been received . . . concerning an

approximately 19-year-old female who was

vaccinated IM with a first dose of Gardasil.

Subsequently, the patient was diagnosed with

Guillain-Barré Syndrome and was hospitalized.

The patient’s Guillain-Barré Syndrome

persisted . . . Guillain-Barré Syndrome was

considered to be disabling and immediately life-threatening.’

A 18-year-old female patient was vaccinated with

the first dose of Gardasil . . . In the evening

of the same day she was found unconscious (or

liveless) [sic] by the mother. Resuscitation was

performed by the emergency doctor but was

unsuccessful, i.e. the patient finally died . . .

The cause of death of this patient remains totally unclear. [21]

Many more such cases remain to be investigated.

END

[1] . Fear of the Invisible. Second Edition.

[2] International Agency for Research on Cancer op cit

[3] Journal of Biological Chemistry - 2000 jan 7th pp 87-94

[4] International Agency for Research on Cancer op cit.

[5] Journal of Biological Chemistry - 2000 jan 7th pp 87-94

[6] WHO paper cited above

[7] US Pharmacist. 1st Sept. 2007

[8] Infectious Agents and Cancer 2007, 2:11doi:10.1186/1750-9378-2-11

[9] Duesberg and Jody Schwartz. Latent

Viruses and Mutated 
Oncogenes: No Evidence


for Pathogenicity Progress in Nucleic Acid

Research and Molecular Biology 
43:135-204, 1992

[10] Vaccinating against the Human Papillomavirus

in Young Women.’ 1 Sept. 2008. Chicago University Paper sponsored by Merck

[11] Mougin C. et al Epidemiology of Cervical

Papillomavirus Infections. Recent Knowledge. Presse Med. 9 June 2001

[12] WHO 2008.’Preparing for the introduction

of the HPV vaccine in the European Region.’

[13] Sedjo et al. 2002 Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

[14] Krasner, Is HPV the cause of Cervical

Cancer?

<http://www.hpvtruth.org/articles/gary_krasner.html>http://www.hpvtruth.org/arti\

cles/gary_krasner.html

[15] Infectious Agents and Cancer 2007, 2:11doi:10.1186/1750-9378-2-11

[16] VRBPAC background document - FDA briefing on cervical cancer pdf

[17] Fear of the Invisible, 2nd Edition.

[18] Fear of the Invisible, 2nd Edition Chapter

on the “Impurity of Vaccine’ and also on the Vaccine Plague?.’

[19] June 30, 2008 WorldNetDaily.

[20] VAERS ID: 268143-1 (S) (These reports were obtained by Juridical Watch)

[21] VAERS ID: 300741-1 (D).

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

Vaccines -

http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm Vaccine

Dangers & Childhood Disease & Homeopathy Email classes start in December 2008