HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

CDC MONGERS FEAR AND HAWKS DEADLY VACCINE

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2008/03/13

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
— have confused correlation with causation, thus committing perhaps the most elementary error against which students of statistics are warned (p. 194 in The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory);
— invented an “hierarchical” classification scheme that set HIV/AIDS on a wrong course and made multivariate analysis impossible (ibid, p. 19);
— disseminated propaganda that everyone was at risk for AIDS while knowing that “for most heterosexuals, the risk from a single act of sex was smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning” (Bennett and Sharpe, Wall Street Journal, 1 May, pp. A1, 6);
— use incompetent computer models (ibid, p. 223) and disseminate their flawed estimates rather than actual counts (pp. 221-2);
— reduced retroactively some actually reported numbers, thereby obfuscating a decline in “AIDS” deaths (ibid, p. 221);
— had the gall to say in 2005 that “HIV infections” in the United States had surpassed a million “for the first time” when they had been estimating about a million for the past two decades (ibid, pp. 1-2);
— increasingly commingle “HIV” and “AIDS” data so that the lack of correlation between them is obscured;
— and for reasons not difficult to infer, they have invented “HIV disease” (post of Friday, 28 December 2007).

Given all that (and more), I hardly imagined that I would ever be taken aback at anything said or done by the CDC. Still they managed to surprise me with the 11 March announcement that

“1 in 4 Teenage Girls Has a Sexually Transmitted Disease
— 3.2 Million Female Adolescents Estimated to Have at Least One of the Most Common STDs” (CDC Press Release, 2008 National STD Prevention Conference—Confronting Challenges, Applying Solutions)

1 of every 4 teenage females just seems awfully high. But how can one argue with scientific facts?

“Chicago [March 11, 2008] – A CDC study released today estimates that one in four (26 percent) young women between the ages of 14 and 19 in the United States – or 3.2 million teenage girls – is infected with at least one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases (human papillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia, herpes simplex virus, and trichomoniasis).… The two most common STDs overall were human papillomavirus, or HPV (18 percent), and chlamydia (4 percent). …CDC also recommends that girls and women between the ages of 11 and 26 who have not been vaccinated or who have not completed the full series of shots be fully vaccinated against HPV.”

The study was based on data from a survey done in 2003-4. Why did it take more than 3 years to release information of this importance? Perhaps there was no point in frightening people before an HPV vaccine was available?

“ ‘The statistics are certainly disheartening,’ said Dr. Dorothy Furgerson, medical director at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte” (Julie Sevrens Lyons, Mercury News).

Indeed. But disheartening perhaps for other reasons than Dr. Furgerson had in mind:
“The new study by CDC researcher Dr. Sara Forhan is an analysis of nationally representative records on girls and women ages 14 to 19 who participated in a 2003-04 government health survey. . . . [of] 838 teens”

One might wonder whether 838 could be truly representative nationally. But the main point here has to do with human papillomavirus and the touting of “full” vaccination against it. Here are some other facts from the CDC itself:

“Approximately 20 million Americans are currently infected with HPV, and another 6.2 million people become newly infected each year. At least 50% of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives
….
The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2008, 11,070 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer in the U.S. . . . [and with other] HPV-related cancers . . .
3,460 women diagnosed with vulvar cancer;
2,210 women diagnosed with vaginal and other female genital cancers;
1,250 men diagnosed with penile and other male genital cancers; and
3,050 women and 2,020 men diagnosed with anal cancer.”

In other words, with 6.2 million newly infected with HPV annually, about 20,000 women annually will be diagnosed with a cancer “related” to HPV.

Keep in mind that it has never been proven that HPV causes the cancer; all the CDC has, once again, is a correlation.

Evidently the chance of contracting one of these “HPV-related” cancers if one is infected with HPV is 20,000 out of 6.2 million, about 1 in 300 or 3.3 per 1000. Can something that is “associated” with a cancer only three times in a thousand really be said to cause that cancer?

Even were that so, consider the relative risks of vaccination and of not vaccinating. Leave aside that the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, costs $120 for each of three required shots. Consider only that it was approved in June 2006 by the Food and Drug Administration, and that within less than a year there had come numerous reports of dangerous “side”-effects:

Judicial Watch Uncovers Three Deaths Relating To HPV Vaccine” (24 May 2007)

“Judicial Watch . . . today released documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing 1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil. Three deaths were related to the vaccine. . . . As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA . . . included 371 serious reactions. Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities. Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77% of the adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures. ‘The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors,’ stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. ‘Any state or local government now beset by Merck’s lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse health reports. It looks as if an unproven vaccine with dangerous side effects is being pushed as a miracle drug.’”

Yet the CDC is urging this dangerous vaccine on all females aged between 11 and 26… Evidently, press releases from the CDC ought to carry a “black box warning”:

cdclabel.jpg

Not that it’s necessarily better elsewhere:

“Glaxo wins European Union approval to sell Cervarix” (byline Marthe Fourcade)
“Sept. 24 (Bloomberg) — GlaxoSmithKline Plc won European Union approval for its cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix, allowing the company to compete with Merck & Co.’s Gardasil in the world’s second-largest pharmaceutical market. The vaccine was cleared for sale in 27 countries . . . .”

******************

Sometimes toxic things (think antiretroviral drugs) have temporarily beneficial side-effects (the general phenomenon is known as “hormesis”). In this case, the toxic press-release from the CDC has the side-benefit of allowing me to recommend the book “Virus Mania” by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Köhnlein (www.trafford.com/06-3226 or orders@ trafford.com; 320 pp, softcover, US$24.00, C$27.60, EUR18.71, £12.40).

virusmaniaall.jpg

I had been in a quandary, what to write about this book, which I’d just been reading. It contains some important eye-opening material; but the translation from German leaves quite a bit to be desired, and the tone is strident at times in indicting institutions and companies for deliberate deception and putting profits ahead of everything else. But any such defects are dwarfed by those in CDC publications. Readers should of course reach their own opinion by checking the sources cited in “Virus Mania”—just as they should always check in CDC publications for inconsistency of data, for estimates masquerading as facts, and so on. But all quibbles aside,“Virus Mania” reveals palpable facts that bring into serious question the widespread official propaganda about hepatitis C, mad-cow disease, SARS, avian flu, and cervical cancer, as well as more generally about vaccination and virology—not to mention AIDS, of course.

6 Responses to “CDC MONGERS FEAR AND HAWKS DEADLY VACCINE”

  1. Frank said

    What always jumps out at me with stories like these teenage STD headlines is the implicit mainstream admission that unprotected sex is obviously widespread in the United States. Given that, how is it possible that an incurable sexually transmitted viral infection such as HIV has not managed to expand beyond a fraction of one percent of the U.S. population? Over and over, we are told that the astronomical HIV infection rate in South Africa is related to irresponsible sexual habits, yet such habits in the U.S. seem to have no effect whatsoever on the HIV infection rate. It is yet another of the looney lacunas in orthodox HIV theories.

    There are some interesting articles regarding HPV and Gardasil at HPVTruth.org

  2. MacDonald said

    In de- and referring to the American Cancer Society, the CDC is artfully ambiguous about the fact that the “HPV related” cancers are admittedly not always caused by HPV. For example, their own “hopeful” estimate is that 70% of all cervical cancers are “related” to HPV, so we can immediately reduce the 11,000 to 7000-8000 cases.

    Furthermore, a knowledgeable friend from somewhere Down Under has informed us that the 70% might very well have been chosen for propaganda value more than anything else:

    “Ngongmahk – that’s the first time I’ve looked at Tara’s blog and I have to admit I am stupefied. Fitzgerald ascribes the 70% cervical cancer ‘causation’ figure to the CDC, when in fact Merck marketing gurus invented the figure for their “One Less” advertising campaign. Merck’s own FDA approval submission data demonstrate this to be complete nonsense with only 27% of CIN-1 being associated with HPV 16 and 18.

    If this scientific standard (“I saw it on TV so it must be true”) is what Tara Smith is promulgating among her students, no wonder epidemiology is in the toilet.” (Hivbollyx)

    http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=33647

    If “HIVbollyx”—who I suspect contributes here as well under another name—reads this, a comment would be welcome.

  3. James Foye said

    It is incredible that here in Texas Governor Rick Perry had the gall to try to force, via executive decree, all girls in Texas to be required to take Gardasil. His arrogance provoked a fierce backlash, not only from irate parents, but even from social and health organizations (normally behind this kind of thing), and legislators! He had to back down. For now, anyway.

  4. CathyVM said

    Hah — MacDonald has outed me!

    I remember the good old days when you knew you were “infected” with a wart virus because you had actual visible warts. Nowadays, a few genetic snippets washed off the cervix suffice for the definition of “infection”. These laboratory tests do not distinguish between current or past “infection”, or merely “exposure” (given that most “infections” are asymptomatic).
    The one in four (or 1 in 2 if you are African American) figure is from analysis of the 2003-2004 NHANES questionnaires, but no information is given on how infection was determined; was the question, “Have you ever had warts?”, or “Have you ever been tested for HPV infection?”. I suspect the latter and that the cohort of 800-plus who answered the question had probably been tested in an STD clinic. In other words they were self-selected and not representative. A more honest headline would have read:

    “One in four adolescent girls who presented to an STD clinic had been exposed at some point in their life to what we believe (but have never proven) is a virus associated with 27% of all cervical cancers.”

    In the studies Merck submitted for FDA approval, the actual prevalence in their (strangely virginal and abstinent) study population was only 6%.
    “HPV prevalence” appears to vary wildly; a study from the Department of Family Medicine, Riyadh Hospital, Saudi Arabia, reported an astonishing HPV 16/18 prevalence (by PCR and Southern Blot) in women presenting for Pap smear of 31.6% [1], while an Ann Arbor STD clinic reported a prevalence of only 10% (for any HPV) in clinic attendees [2]. For very low risk Moslem women to have more than a 3-fold greater prevalence of HPV 16/18 than high-risk STD-clinic-attendees suggests that HPV (like HIV) cannot be sexually transmitted and that having these markers in the body does not “prove” infection.
    Furthermore, Merck’s own data demonstrate that in women with asymptomatic “HPV infection” at baseline there was a 33% increase in external genital lesions in those receiving Gardasil compared to placebo. The authors explained that inconvenient finding away with “differences in baseline characteristics”. Given that most girls are vaccinated in the GP’s surgery and are not tested for “asymptomatic HPV infection”, there is an argument that Gardasil vaccinations may cause an unprecedented epidemic of actual warts.

    1. Al-Muammar, T., et al., Human papilloma virus-16/18 cervical infection among women attending a family medical clinic in Riyadh. Ann Saudi Med, 2007. 27(1): p. 1-5.
    2. Dempsey, A.F., L.A. Koutsky, and M. Golden, Potential impact of human papillomavirus vaccines on public STD clinic workloads and on opportunities to diagnose and treat other sexually transmitted diseases. Sex Transm Dis, 2007. 34(7): p. 503-7.

  5. MacDonald said

    Cathy, sorry about “outing” you, but I think everybody reading your Comment will agree it was well worth it. On the bright side, now you know another of my names as well.

    “Furthermore, Merck’s own data demonstrate that in women with asymptomatic ‘HPV infection’ at baseline there was a 33% increase in external genital lesions in those receiving Gardasil compared to placebo. The authors explained that inconvenient finding away with ‘differences in baseline characteristics’.”

    It was a stroke of marketing genius on Merck’s part, only realizable with the aid of a corrupt approval system, to turn these troubling statistics into a positive recommendation that Gardasil be given to pre-pubescent girls with hardly any studies to show efficacy or safety in this age group

  6. CathyVM said

    That’s quite alright MacDonald – I’m aware I’m probably the only dissenting person in NZ posting here and there. I tried posting this yesterday but it disappeared into the ether.

    I just found the methods used in NHANES for detection of HPV reported in a JAMA study last year in women aged 14-59 years. Participants used a self-collected vaginal swab specimen and detection was done with PCR. The HPV prevalence in the age group 14-19 was 39.6% in that analysis so either prevalence of HPV decreased 50% over 1 year, the methodology was different, or the whole HPV issue is just drivel.

    I should clarify that Merck’s own study 013 reported that there were 39 cases of CIN related to the HPV strains in the vaccine and 107 related to strains not covered by the vaccine in the placebo group, making the figure more like 27%.*

    I checked Pubmed again – flurries of studies have been conducted in the past year with many claiming HPV 16 and 18 is associated with 50-70% of cervical neoplasia. One was even conducted by Spanish researchers in Mozambique where I doubt most women will have the money for vaccinations (GDP per capita is only $900 per annum) whatever the authors conclude about the vaccine’s ‘effectiveness’. Prevalence seems to vary widely depending on region, population, stage of disease, use of composite endpoints and method of testing.

    Any “Gold Standard” proof yet that Gardasil actually prevents cervical cancer? Nope – we won’t have definitive data until 2020.

    *A summary of Merck’s data is available in an FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Assessment Committee (VRBPAC) background document. It combines the results of some (but not all) of the Merck trials of Gardasil.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s