Go Back   otherhealth.com > Homeopathy > Homeopathy List Discussion

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 20th December 2008, 02:26 PM
Sheri Nakken
Posts: n/a
Default Piece on HPV vaccine = linked to Nobel Award 10th of December



By Janine Roberts

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
Smith 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.


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.”

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.


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 transient”,
“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 Peter 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 tissues”[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.


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.


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 B) 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.


[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] Peter 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] Gary Krasner, Is HPV the cause of Cervical

[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

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
next classes start December 3 & 4
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
World Homeopathy Day - April 10th sreischman Homeopathy Discussion 13 9th April 2012 06:23 PM
OT: Two deaths linked to Tamiflu Sheri Nakken Homeopathy List Discussion 6 29th April 2009 02:32 AM
(off-topic) vaccine possibly linked to intussusception (twisted intestines) Teresa Kramer Homeopathy List Discussion 0 16th February 2007 08:45 AM
Nobel Laureate for homeopathy... Dana Ullman, MPH Homeopathy List Discussion 0 29th December 2006 05:35 AM
Poster award Dr. MAS Coffee Shop 11 28th April 2004 11:31 AM

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:15 PM.

The information contained on OtherHealth.com arises by way of discussion between contributors and should not be treated as a substitute for the advice provided by your own personal physician or other health care professional. None of the contributions on this site are an endorsement by the site owners of any particular product, or a recommendation as to how to treat any particular disease or health-related condition. If you suspect you have a disease or health-related condition of any kind, you should contact your own health care professional immediately. Please read the BB Rules for further details.
Please consult personally with your own health care professional before starting any diet, exercise, supplementation or medication program.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2005-2012 otherhealth.com
For books in the UK visit our sister site Dealpond.com

SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2