Joan Shenton, is a British broadcaster and producer of Sacrificial Virgins: Not for the greater good. In Part One of the series, Shenton interviews molecular biologist Professor Peter Duesberg who is also the author of What if HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer? and asks him whether there is a causal relationship between the human papilloma virus and and cervical cancer. “Absolutely not”, he replied, adding that if HPV is there at all then it is what is known as a passenger virus. “It does nothing…these are fossils of HPV which are still in some cells. They are from an infection decades prior to the cancer.” This is damning and we must ask what on earth we are doing vaccinating girls and boys all over the world with a vaccine protective against a harmless wart virus. But the vaccine is not harmless. On the contrary there are more adverse events following its administration than for all other vaccines.
From the 1960s to 1991, cervical cancer screening was available to women in Australia on an opportunistic basis in that the test was done on the request of the doctor or the woman herself. Then, in 1991, an organised program was set up which in 1995 became the National Cervical Screening Program. Since the Australian National Cervical Screening Program began in 1991, the number of deaths from the disease have halved (Cancer Council Australia, 2017).
In December 2017 the successful two-yearly pap tests for women aged between 18 and 69 will be replaced by a five-yearly HPV test for 25 to 74-year-olds. An ABC online article explains that HPV screening looks for DNA from the human papillomavirus virus strains that cause the vast majority of cervical cancers. (Or so they say). The mainstream media was all over this new test yesterday. Why? Because according to Karen Canfell, director of the Cancer Research Division at the Cancer Council NSW, HPV screening for cervical cancer had been extensively studied and modelled, and shown to be better than Pap smears and liquid-based cytology. And the end of the year when this new program commences is fast approaching. It is time for promotion. And the media follows suite. They do not ask how these changes might adversely affect women or some women. They do not ask if there might be a problem with over treatment.
I suggest that these changes to the national cervical screening program are highly problematic. Firstly because the test is predicated on the basis that HPV causes cervical cancer. But we do not know that. We are told that cervical cancer is caused by HPV but even if the common human papilloma virus is found in tumour cells it may just be a harmless passenger. The real causes of cervical cancer are most likely socioeconomic and environmental factors such as poverty, nutritional deficiences, smoking, multiparity, prolonged contraceptive use and ageing. This test is for HPV not for cervical cancer. HPV is a very common virus so much so that most of us have had this at some stage in our lives. HPV is likely to be found in cervical cells but as Professor Duesberg has explained if the virus is detected it is a fossil, left over from earlier infection.
Pap smear testing has often been seen as excessive and resulting in cases of over-screening and treatment but this new test amounts to much more of the same. If the HPV test finds that a woman has HPV type 16 or 18, she will be given a colposcopy to look for any pre-cancerous cervical lesions. And if the HPV test finds any of the other high risk strains of HPV, then a Pap test will be ordered to ascertain if a colposcopy is required (Sifferlin, 2014). All of this of course will result in more colposcopies, and a lot of unnecessary worry for women who return a positive HPV test. And a great business opportunity for those in the sickness industry. This includes the vaccine industry – for this is sure to mean more women lining up for HPV vaccines and more adverse events resulting in more sick girls and boys who then need expensive medical care if they are to recover their former health. This policy is disastrous as is the HPV vaccination program which vaccinates teenagers all over the world with a vaccine that at best is preventative against a few strains of the human papilloma virus but does not protect them against cancer. How could it – it is a vaccine against a wart virus, that is all.
With these changes to the screening program there is particular concern for women who test negative for HPV but who have cervical cancer. HPV-negative tumours are present in many types of cervical cancers. Zhao MD and his colleagues report that large-scale studies reveal the existence of HPV-negative cervical cancers present in almost all types of cervical cancers (Zhao MD et al., 2014). According to Bosch et al. (2002), there has been little investigation of older women with cervical cancer, but it is likely that the HPV-negative cancers can be found in this group of women.These HPV-negative women will not have their disease found as early as they would have with a routine Pap smear. There has been little investigation of older women with cervical cancer but it is likely that the HPV negative cancers can be found in this group of women.
With the arrival of videos such as Sacrificial Virgins: Not for the greater good and books such as Gardasil: Fast-Tracked and Flawed the HPV causes cervical cancer is being exposed as the shocking sham it is. The vaccination program needs to stop until there is proof that HPV causes cancer and so far there is none. And the mainstream media need to up their game. After all this is what they are being paid for.