HIV/AIDS Skepticism

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

HPV does not cause cervical cancer; HPV vaccination can be deadly

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2018/09/16

(Cross-posted from http://scimedskeptic.wordpress.com/)

Evidence continues to mount that the presumed connection between HPV and cervical cancer is no more than a statistical association, not a causative relationship:

The Gardasil controversy: as reports of adverse effects increase, cervical cancer rates rise in HPV-vaccinated age groups

Annette Gartland

“The Gardasil vaccines continue to be vaunted as life-saving, but there is no evidence that HPV vaccination is reducing the incidence of cervical cancer, and reports of adverse effects now total more than 85,000 worldwide. Nearly 500 deaths are suspected of being linked to quadrivalent Gardasil or Gardasil 9.
As Merck’s latest human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil 9, continues to be fast tracked around the world, the incidence of invasive cervical cancer is increasing in many of the countries in which HPV vaccination is being carried out.”

Once again independent scientists without conflicts of interest are maltreated by bureaucratic organizations with conflicts of interest to commercial interests, drug companies in particular:

“This article was updated with information from the AHVID  on 14/09/2018.

Update 15/9/2018:

Peter Gøtzsche has been expelled from the Cochrane Collaboration. Six of the 13 members of the collaboration’s governing board voted for his expulsion.
. . . . .
‘This is the first time in 25 years that a member has been excluded from membership of Cochrane. This unprecedented action taken by a minority of the governing board . . . . ‘
In just 24 hours, Gøtzsche said, the Cochrane governing board had lost five of its members, four of whom were centre directors and key members of the organisation in different countries.
Gøtzsche says that, in recent years, Cochrane has significantly shifted more to a profit-driven approach. ‘Even though it is a not-for-profit charity, our ‘brand’ and ‘product’ strategies are taking priority over getting out independent, ethical and socially responsible scientific results,’ he said’”.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “HPV does not cause cervical cancer; HPV vaccination can be deadly”

  1. The expulsion of Gotzsche is, without exaggeration, the death of the Cochrane idea, as originally known. It is somewhat like the journal Medical Hypotheses having peer reviewed imposed on it, when it was established as a place for ideas that wouldn’t make it through peer review screening.

    • David Crowe:
      Yes indeed. I’m afraid things are even worse than I had realized. A minority of the Cochrane Board …. presumably the others abstained? Or was there a meeting without a quorum?

  2. voza0db said

    Hello…

    As I once wrote here one cannot expect that a scoundrel system generates non-scoundrel outputs. And if we keep nursing this illusion than we’ll never be able to radically CHANGE the system.

    More than 30 years of scoundrel “science” passed and the Mythology “HIV is the cause of AIDS” still persists!

  3. Alice said

    I had a gut feeling all along that this was another lie, just to target young females for nothing but profiteering

  4. I’m not asserting causality (I think there is only an indirect relationship) but detection of cervical cancer in the UK went up at about the same time women who had been vaccinated started to turn 20 (the youngest age monitored for cervical cancer in the UK). You can see this related to the rate of vaccination among 20-24 year old women here: https://davidcrowe.ca/GraphSeries.php?S0=9&C0=MidnightBlue&S1=40&C1=ForestGreen&C2=SaddleBrown&C3=RebeccaPurple

  5. In correspondence with me Peter Gøtzsche re-affirmed his belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS and that AZT had been useful, but in no uncertain terms refused to discuss his reasoning. Is it possible that Gøtzsche had become a tyrant within the Collaboration? Thoughts?

    • rswixonRoger Swan:
      It took me a decade of reading HIV/AIDS dissent, and then personally collating the data from HIV tests, to be convinced. No one, Gøtzsche included, can look in the necessary detail at every topic. I too accept a whole bunch of mainstream views without examining them deeply. Gøtzsche’s books on mammography and prescription drugs are invaluable contributions, but he is not necessarily right about everything; who is?

      • Roger Swan said

        Dear Henry, Thank you for responding. I have enormous respect for you and consider your “The Case Against HIV” a paradigm shift in the way bibliographies can enlighten and assist the understanding of both the well-versed and the newcomer on particular topics. Nevertheless I find your defense of Gøtzsche unconvincing.
        I do not want to appear argumentative or take up your valuable time, so let me simply say that when, 20 years after he admits stopping work on AIDS – “I could have written a lot about AIDS and many other issues, but I had not worked with AIDS for 20 years, so I focused on other areas” – Gøtzsche could still write, “The virus causes the disease. Full stop. It is
        meaningless to question this for a scientist like me. If you object to this, I shall not respond”, I find it deeply troubling and hardly collegial towards other scientists such as Duesberg, Mullis or yourself.
        Is this an indication of how a “scientist like me” investigates and evaluates the safety and efficacy of mammography, prescription drugs, or anything else? If so, should this concern us? Obviously I’m troubled, but so what?
        You are a more humble, understanding and forgiving man than me Henry, for which I sincerely salute you. Roger..

      • Roger Swan:
        I wasn’t aware of “I had not worked with AIDS for 20 years”, meaning he had actually worked on it. I wonder in what way? As physician or researcher? Google yielded his CV, and it turns out that he actually published a number of articles about AIDS and participated in an AIDS trial at his hospital. VERY DISAPPOINTING!
        I don’t know about “forgiving”, or even “understanding”, but after many decades of disappointments I’ve learned that valued colleagues on a particular topic can be way off base on a different topic; that good neighbors can be totally wrong about political matters; that good friends can do hard-to excuse things to other people than me…
        So “disappointment” has become my more common reaction. Also, intellectually if not emotionally, I realize that since intelligent people can be so wrong about some things, maybe I’m wrong on some things too — though I don’t REALLY believe that on matters I feel certain about, like HIV/AIDS, Loch Ness monsters (they exist), global warming (it’s NOT carbon dioxide)…..

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s