Human Papiloma Virus may not be the Cause of Cervical Cancer

[Guest guest]

The rush to mandate an HPV vaccine to prevent Cervical Cancer, may not even

make sense as a preventive measure.

Is Human Papillomavirus the Real Cause of Cervical Cancer?

 

Memo on the mandating of HPV vaccine in NYS.

By Gary Krasner, CFIC

 

The pharmaceutical-supported mainstream media, and the Merck-supported

Public Broadcasting Service uncritically accept the claim that human

papillomavirus is the cause of cervical cancer in women, despite the absence of

supporting

medical evidence. There's also no discussion of the one pharmaceutical

merchandise (i.e.: feminine hygiene products) that is the most likely cause of

this cancer.

 

 

Excerpts Supporting This Contention:

 

 

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdlatvir3.htm

QUOTE

The following epidemiological and biochemical arguments cast doubt on these

HPV-cancer hypotheses:

 

1. Random allelic mutation of suppressor genes, as postulated by zur Hausen,

predicts a few cancers soon, and more long after infection. Since cancers

only appear 20-50 years after infection, cooperation between HPV and mutations

cannot be sufficient for carcinogenesis.

 

2. Further, the proposal of zur Hausen that inactivation of host suppressor

genes is necessary for viral transformation is not compatible with HPV

survival. Since HPV, like all small DNA viruses, needs all of its 8-kb DNA for

virus replication (13), suppression of one or more HPV proteins by normal

cellular genes would effectively inhibit virus replication in all normal cells.

Conversely, if viral transforming proteins were not suppressed by normal cells,

virus-replicating wart cells should be tumorigenic because all viral genes are

highly expressed in virus replication (1, 13, 191).

 

3. The clonality of cervical cancers rules out the Howley hypothesis.

 

4. The lack of a consistent HPV DNA sequence and of consistent HPV gene

expression in HPV DNA-positive tumors is inconsistent with the zur Hausen and

Howley hypotheses and indicates that HPV is not necessary to maintain cervical

cancer.

 

5. The presence of HPV in no more than 67% of age-matched women with

cervical cancer (198) also indicates that HPV is not necessary for cervical

cancer.

 

6. The hypothesis also fails to explain the presence of clonal chromosome

abnormalities consistently seen in cervical cancer (16, 192-194)-except if one

makes the additional odd assumption that only cells with preexisting

chromosome abnormalities are transformed by HPV.

 

It follows that neither HPV nor HSV plays a direct role in cervical

carcinomagenesis. Moreover, the HPV-cancer hypothesis offers no explanation for

the

absence of a reciprocal venereal male carcinoma.

 

Thus, detecting inactive and defective viral DNA from past infections in

non-tumorigenic cells with a commercial hybridization test (Vira/Pap, Digene

Diagnostics, Silver Spring, Maryland) or with the PCR (199) seems worthless as a

predictor of rare carcinomas appearing decades later, in view of the

" ubiquity " (191) of these viruses in women and the total lack of evidence that

cervical cancer occurs in women with HPV more often than in those without. This

test, at $30-150, is currently recommended for the 7 million Pap smears that

appear " atypical " in the U.S. per year (Digene Diagnostics, personal

communication, 1991). By contrast only 13,000 cervical cancers are observed

annually in

both HPV-positive and -negative women in the U.S. (197). Indeed, the test may

be harmful, considering the anxiety a positive result induces in believers

of the virus-cancer hypothesis.

 

An alternative cervical carcinoma hypothesis suggests that rare spontaneous

or chemically induced chromosome abnormalities, which are consistently

observed in both HPV and HSV DNA-negative and -positive cervical cancers

(192-194),

induce cervical cancer. For example, smoking has been identified as a

cervical cancer risk (204). The controlled study of age-matched women described

above suggests that 52% of the women with cervical cancer were smokers compared

to only 27% of those without (198). Indeed, carcinogens may be primary

inducers of abnormal cell proliferation rather than HPV or HSV. Since

proliferating

cells would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells, the viruses

would be just indicators, rather than causes of abnormal proliferation.

Activation of latent retroviruses like HTLV-I (Section III,A) (2), herpes

viruses

(12), and lambda phages (205) by chemical or radiation-induced cell damage

and subsequent proliferation are classical examples of such indicators.

Indeed, Rous first demonstrated that the virus indicates hydrocarbon-induced

papillomas; it " ... localized in these and urged them on ... " and suggested

that

enhanced proliferation is a risk factor for carcinogenesis (203).

 

According to this hypothesis, HPV or HSV DNAs in tumor cells reflect

defective and latent viral genomes accidentally integrated into normal or

hyperplastic cells, from which the tumor is derived. This hypothesis readily

reconciles

the clonal chromosome abnormalities with the clonal viral DNA insertions of

the " viral " carcinomas. The inactive and defective viral DNA in the

carcinomas would be a fossil record of a prior infection that was irrelevant to

carcinogenesis.

UNQUOTE

 

and

 

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdlecture.htm

QUOTE:

Most recently we are saying that cervical cancer in women is due to human

papillomavirus. Ten years ago, it was herpes virus, you remember. There was

just a study at Berkeley. It studied 400 female students on the Berkeley

campus.

250 were papillomavirus positive. In reality, 50% of all women in this

country have these papillomaviruses and men have them too, and the incidence of

cervical cancer is totally independent of it. The percentage of women with

cervical cancer with and without papillomavirus reflects exactly the percentage

of papillomavirus in this country. No evidence whatever.

UNQUOTE

 

and

 

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/second_opinion/2002_nov25.html

QUOTE

Back in 1992, however, a question was raised about the dominant and

increasingly-entrenched theory that HPV causes cervical cancer. It came from

Peter

Duesberg and Jody Schwartz, molecular biologists at the University of

California at Berkeley. Among the various issues they raised about the

acceptance of

HPV as the cause of cervical cancer was their fundamental concern that there w

as a lack of consistent HPV DNA sequences and consistent HPV gene expression

in tumors that were HPV-positive. They instead suggested that " rare

spontaneous or chemically induced chromosome abnormalities which are

consistently

observed in both HPV and HSV DNA-negative and positive cervical cancers induce

cervical cancer. "

 

In short, Duesberg and Schwartz were pointing to the possibility that

" carcinogens may be primary inducers of abnormal cell proliferation rather than

HPV

or HSV. " And here’s the key point: " Since proliferating cells [cancer cells

dividing wildly] would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells,

the viruses would just be indicators rather than causes of abnormal

proliferation. "

 

The concept they raised back in 1992 is still relevant today; only science

has gone on to assume that causation of cervical cancer has been

well-established. Even the National Cancer Institute( NCI) says that " direct "

causation

has not been demonstrated; however, the NCI and just about everyone else works

with the principle that it has been established. Lip service is paid to other

possible factors that may be involved in cervical cancer such as

environmental conditions, including smoking. Even dietary factors -

particularly low

levels of Vitamin A and folate - have been suggested as associated with a risk

for cervical cancer.

UNQUOTE

 

and

 

http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=477113 & CategoryID=184164 & ThreadID=2

742501

Recently the alarm bells have been ringing about the risks of dying from

Cervical cancer. But HPV, the virus that is blamed for this disease is very

common and can be found in about 80% of both men and women. Most of us have

had,

at one time or another, the HPV virus but most of us do not suffer or die

from Cervical cancer. In fact, only one percent of women do develop cervical

cancer with the year 2000 figures on the mortality rates for cervical cancer

being 3.3 women per 100,000 population in the US and 4 women per 100,000

population in Australia. In Australia there are about 740 cases of cervical

cancer

each year and around 270 deaths from the disease. Mortality rates generally

increase with age with the highest number of deaths occurring in the 75-79 age

group.

Less than 6 per cent of cervical cancer deaths occur in women under 35 years

of age.

 

The US national cancer institute says that direct causation has not been

proven In a controlled study of age-matched women, 67% of those with cervical

cancer and 43% of those without were found to be HPV-positive. These cancers

are observed on average only 20-50 years after infection.

 

and finally,

 

This last tidbit of information about the prevalent use of feminine hygiene

products represents the most likely cause of cervical cancers in women. The

expression of any gene is determined by it's environment. The long-term use

of these chemicals alters the normal bacterial environment in the uterus,

which in turn induces pre-cancerous lesions in the corresponding tissue cells.

Restoring the normal bacterial balance through the use of douches that don't

contain anti-septic ingredients or other chemicals will allow normal cells

to proliferate again, and force tumor cells into remission. For more

information about the nature of infectious disease and supposed sexually

transmitted

diseases, email CFIC and ask for Rational Bacteriology.pdf (a 2MB

email attachment). --Gary Krasner

 

 

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:uJ3tLSdkv5EJ:www.hyde30years.nnaf.org/doc

uments/aawefactsheet1.pdf+papillomavirus+%22feminine+hygiene%22 & hl=en & ct=clnk &

cd=7 & gl=us

 

Feminine Hygiene Products

• Most doctors and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist

(ACOG) suggest that

women steer clear of douching.

• It is estimated that 20-40 percent of U.S. women ages 15-44 douche

regularly.

• Studies show that African American women douche at approximately twice the

rate of Caucasian

women.

• In an AAWE 2001 survey of 300 African American women, over half (52%) of

respondents

douched. 37% douched at least once per month, and 23% douched more than once

per month.

• Douching can break down the healthy bacteria or vaginal flora, which

serves as the vagina’s

defense against infections.

• Douching can spread existing vaginal infections to the uterus, fallopian

tubes, and the ovaries.

• Women who douche regularly have an increased risk of pelvic inflammatory

disease (PID) and

bacterial vaginosis or BV.

• Douching can make the vagina more susceptible to STI’s.

• Douching may increase a women’s risk of having an ectopic pregnancy.

 

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

- - -

END

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

- - -

 

 

 

-

Background information on the vaccine itself (Gardasil):

 

http://www.vaccineinfo.net/immunization/vaccine/hpv/index.shtml

and

http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases/pr62706gardasil.htm

-------

 

 

 

Gary Krasner, Director

Coalition For Informed Choice

188-34 87th Drive, suite 4B

Holliswood, NY 11423

718-479-2939

CFIC

www.CFIC.us

 

" For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over

public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled " …Richard P. Feynman

 

<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free

email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at

http://www.aol.com.