- It was inevitable. In the post 9/11 marketing frenzy
questing for more and more bugs and diseases to make vaccines against,
what could be a more promising candidate than the second highest cause
of death in the US?
- Cancer of the cervix has been on a gradual upswing during
the past 3 decades, now affecting some 13,000 American women, 4,000 of
whom die. In the 1970s, herpes simplex virus was proposed as a possible
cause, but that hypothesis was soon abandoned after epidemiological studies
proved inconclusive. In the 1980s the next candidate suggested as the
missing link was human papilloma virus. 
- Before we continue, a word about epidemiological studies.
Epidemiological studies, also called population studies, are the poor
cousin of true clinical trials. They are not controlled studies done under
set scientific conditions, but rather attempts at verifying a hypothesis
just by counting the incidence of a certain disease or condition within
a certain population. The problem is that results from epidemiological
studies are subject to widespread interpretation, depending on who's doing
the counting, who decides the criteria for what gets counted, who publishes
the results, etc. For this reason, epidemiological studies can be used
to "prove" two completely divergent hypotheses.
- In the exploding vaccine industry today, epidemiological
studies are quickly becoming the standard to validate our need for more
vaccines, because they're faster, cheaper, and capable of supporting practically
any required outcome.
- So, once herpes was ruled impossible, the new population
studies then proposed human papilloma virus as a cause of cervical cancer.
The first problem is that there are over 100 strains of HPV, only 30 of
which are even theoretically linked with cervical cancer.  In addition,
HPV is present in at least half the normal population,  almost never
causing any disease or problems whatsoever. Indeed, HPV has never been
proven as a pathogen for any disease.
- HPV AND CANCER
- Now in any cancer, we're talking about a normal cell
that mutated and then began to make copies of itself, unchecked.
- The creators of the HVP/ cancer myth are pretending that
the HPV came along and attacked some normal cells and mutated those cells
and caused them to begin replicating themselves out of control - cancer.
And that this is happening on a mass scale even though we just discovered
it. And worse, that a vaccine can neutralize that type of attack on normal
- Scientifically, what they're proposing is ludicrous.
- Few scientists have a better grasp of the proposed virus/cancer
model than Berkeley's Peter Duesberg PhD. In his scholarly paper tracing
the history of the HPV/ cervical cancer story, Duesberg explains why HPV
is such an unlikely cause of any cancer:
- "no set of viral genes is consistently present
or expressed in human cervical cancers.  S HPV does not replicate
in the cancer cells. "
- So if the mutated cervical cancer cells are not mutating
because of abnormal viral genes being spliced into a normal cell, how else
could HPV be causing this cancer? Duesberg again:
- "the "hit-and-run" mechanism of viral
carcinogenesis was proposed. It holds that neither the complete [virus],
nor even a part of it, needs to be present in the tumor. Obviously, this
is an unfalsifiable, but also an unprovable, hypothesis. 
- All that has ever been shown is that HPV is sometimes
present in cervical cancer tissue, but as we know it's also present in
half the normal population.
- There is a total lack of evidence that cervical cancer
appears in women with HPV more often than in women without it. 
And yet this will be the focus of the vaccine: to pretend to eliminate
this ubiquitous virus from the body.
- THE NEW HPV VACCINE
- The original phrase used by Merck to link HPV with cervical
cancer was "there is a strong connection." ( p 1964)
- How that phrase got transformed to 'is the cause of'
in the past two years is more a matter of marketing than of science.
- The HPV vaccine had been in the Merck pipeline for years,
finally getting FDA approval in 2006.  Merck's HPV vaccine is called
Gardasil. It has no competition.
- What's in it? According to Merck's own data, the vaccine
is made from "virus-like particles" from four strains of HPV:
Types 5, 11, 16, and 18. ( p 1984.) With no clinical studies proving
it, Type 16 and 18 are now cited by Merck in the Physicians Desk Reference
as the cause of "over 70%" of cervical cancer cases.
- The theory is that these virus-like particles will trigger
the body to make antibodies that will be able to prevent the full-on natural
strains of HPV from getting a foothold. For five years, anyway. That's
what Merck is claiming.
- The Merck insert for Gardasil makes this unproven flat
statement: "HPV causes squamous cell cervical cancer."
- We 've already learned above that such is not the case.
- The market that Merck decided on was 12 year old girls,
the thinking being that since HPV is sexually transmissible, might as well
get it at the start.
- Now before we get too ebullient about this newest fad,
let's consider objectively what we're being sold here.
- EXTRAVAGANT DEMANDS ON CREDIBILITY
- With other vaccines for viral diseases, such as MMR,
hepatitis B, and polio, what has never made sense scientifically is that
the vaccines do not contain the original wild virus that occurs in nature
and supposedly causes the disease. Instead the vaccine contains a manmade
mutation of the natural virus, that is then claimed to be able to confer
immunity by triggering the body to produce antibodies to the original disease.
So that was bad enough. But what they're asking us to believe about HPV
is going to far.
- All physiology and immunology textbooks describe the
triggering of immunoglobulin production as an extremely specific sequence,
resulting in extremely specific antibodies.  They don't talk about
cousins of viruses or particles from viruses able to trigger the precise
antibodies to the virus itself. Such a claim is brand new. How could
any real immunity come from vaccines like these, even if the viruses were
the causative agents of disease?
- The second enormous impediment to credibility is that
the average age for cervical cancer is 50 years. (Merck Manual p 1964 )
But the plan is to mandate Gardasil to 12 years olds. And the manufacturer
is only claiming efficacy for 5 years. So using their own statistics,
this makes the vaccine worthless in the long run, because by the time most
females need immunity, it will have worn off long ago.
- A risk factor in cervical cancer that has been clearly
established is the lifetime number of sexual partners: the more partners,
the more likely the disease. ( p 1964) So who has more, 12 year olds
or 50 year olds? Even if the vaccine worked, statistically it should be
given to women in their mid 40s. Why don't they do that? Here's the
- The vaccine's "safety and efficacy not been
evaluated over 26"years of age. ( p 1987)
- Oh, OK. Well, guess we better give it to the young girls
- Are there any side effects of this new vaccine? Here
are some of those cited by the manufacturer:
- upper respiratory infection
- Physicians Desk Reference  p 1987
- Other side effects discovered later include loss of consciousness,
- 156 The Sanctity of Human Blood
- loss of vision and seizures. [ 3]
- There's a bargain - real side effects in return for unreal
- Can the vaccine itself cause cancer? That's a fair question
- we're talking about a vaccine that they're claiming prevents cancer by
imitating a pathogen that itself causes cancer, right? So wouldn't we
want to be fairly secure that this vaccine wouldn't cause cancer? Here's
what the manufacturer states:
- Gardasil .. "S not been evaluated for carcinogenicity
or impairment of fertility. ( p1986 )
- That's great. They want to vaccinate all American 12
year olds with a vaccine for cancer and they don't even know for sure whether
or not it causes cancer, or makes the recipients infertile. Yeah, sign
my kid up for that one.
- Curiously, the HPV vaccine is not recommended for pregnancy
because of its effects on the fetus , but menarche is no problemS?
- THE TEXAS TWO-STEP
- The HPV controversy sank to new levels with the Feb 2007
decision by Texas Governor Rick Perry to "require" the HPV vaccine
for all 12 year old girls in Texas.  In an unprecedented unilateral
move, with no input from either the state legislature or the Texas Medical
Board, with no scientific credentials, Perry brashly made this sweeping
invasion into the privileged area of parental authority, and then lamely
tried to defend his position. Ignoring the utter lack of science behind
the vaccine, with complete disregard for vaccine exemption laws that are
found in every state, and acting entirely outside the scope of gubernatorial
jurisdiction, Perry plays king.
- 157 The Sanctity of Human Blood
- THE LOVE OF MONEY
- Perry must have had the inside track; the vaccine was
quietly added to the Mandated Schedule just after Perry's edict. That
brought the number of vaccines for American schoolkids to an unprecedented
- Even so, such unilateral imprudence and reckless disregard
for the normal operation of state government in a public official rings
the Follow the Money bell.
- Gardasil is a 3 shot series at $360.  Perry's financial
ties to Merck are a matter of public record. 
- East Coasters might think, well what can you expect from
TexasS But 17 other states prepared to follow suit and initiate similar
mandates, even before it was added to the Schedule. 
- Projected profits from future HPV vaccine sales?
- "The vaccine is expected to reach $1 billion in
sales next year, S could make Gardasil Swithin five years, sales of more
than $4 billion, according to Wall Street analysts." 
- FINAL QUESTION
- Again, the whole story of HPV vaccine is much more twisted
than we're representing here. The reader is invited to follow up on the
above cited sources. Never before has such a calculated, systematic misrepresentation
of fact been attempted in which data is so obviously manipulated, issues
so deliberately obscured, and financial interests so obsequiously served.
- Reflecting on the section above, with the uncertainty
about the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine, the certainty of the
side effects, the prodigious economic upside to global dissemination irrespective
of its scientific merits, the absence of long-term studies, and the ludicrous
"religious /ethical" media controversy smokescreen designed to
distract us from the underlying scientific issues, is this really a vaccine
you want to try out on your little girl?