Human Papiloma Virus may not be the Cause of Cervical Cancer

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...002_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....4&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 and ask for Rational Bacteriology.pdf (a 2MB
email attachment). --Gary Krasner

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...nnaf.o rg/doc
uments/aawefactsheet1.pdf+papillomavirus+%22feminine+hygi ene%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/immunizat...pv/index.shtml
and
http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases...06gardasil.htm
----------------------------------------

Gary Krasner, Director
Coalition For Informed Choice
188-34 87th Drive, suite 4B
Holliswood, NY 11423
718-479-2939

www.CFIC.us

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled" .Richard P. Feynman

"JOHN" wrote:

There's also no discussion of the one pharmaceutical
merchandise (i.e.: feminine hygiene products) that is the most likely
cause of
this cancer.

I love it! The most comprehensively understood cancer in the world,
where scientists can point to the specific gene locations, and all
this time it was caused by tampons.

A question - there is a lot of cervical cancer in India where
"feminine hygiene products" are used on a very limited basis. Please
explain.

Or is this another thing like the spurious vaccination-autism link - a
large number of women with cervical cancer have used tampons, so
tampons must have caused the cancer? This sort of idiocy would be
funny if it didn't kill people.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

BTW, I knew a guy who was making an HPV Dx and he claimed HPV also caused
Prostate Ca. I never was able to find any article on this. Anyone ever
hear of this or am I right to discount?


- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]

wrote in message
...
BTW, I knew a guy who was making an HPV Dx and he claimed HPV also caused
Prostate Ca. I never was able to find any article on this. Anyone ever
hear of this or am I right to discount?

There is no known relationship/correlation between the two.