Saturday, May 24, 2008

Hide Your Sons, Merck has them in the Crosshairs with Bullets of Gardasil

Headline: Oral Cancer in Men Associated With HPVThe high risk of HPV-associated cancers in men suggests that vaccinating all adolescents is something that should strongly be considered,” said the lead researcher, Dr. Francis P. Worden...

I already warned you to hide your daughters. Now you must hide your sons as well. Last week it was women up to the age of 45, now they are going after young boys. Does the pharmaceutical industrial complex have any sense of decency?

This full-frontal assault on HPV is senseless, especially considering that there are so many natural ways to support immune function, much less eradicate a virus that anyone with minimal semblance of terrain integrity could clear with no pharmaceutical help at all.

The game is marketing and their weapon is your fear of the microbe. As long as you remain ignorant of the true laws of nature, it is a mere matter of Madison Street mathematics to keep you a customer of drugs and vaccines for questionable causation.

HPV does not cause cervical cancer. The lack of optimal immune function does. Have you looked into Uniform Picoscalar Oligodynamic Silver Hydrosol yet?


Anonymous said...

You had me up until you offered no support to your theory that HPV does not cause cervical cancer, whereas the reputable - non propriatary - research facilities do.

Anonymous said...

Long before anyone was trying to sell something to prevent it, it was well known that HPV's 16 and 18 were the primary causes of cervical cancer. But I suppose the truth would make your blog too uninteresting. I wonder how many people you have hurt with your misinformation?

Robert Scott Bell said...

Did you catch the fact that I referenced that it is the fault of a "faulty immune system" ? Otherwise, how would HPV be able to situate and take up PERMANENT residence there?

Go back and study Antoine Bechamp before you leap off the bridge of correlation one more time. I am much more concerned with the little girls that are injured or killed by your irrational fear of the microbe, thanks to Merck and FDA. Have you even begun to study aneuploidy as a necessary precursor to cancer? What is it that allows HPV to survive and/or thrive in the body for 10, 20 or even 30 years? Does that have anything to do with the immune system? Are you a willing host or do you propose that life is a random walk?

Do you work for Merck?

Anonymous said...

No I don't work for Merck.

Ploidy of cells is still an unknown commodity in many respects. If a researcher in Norway had not falsified a bunch of data we might have some answers, ones that people are ignoring now, and even dismissing the entire idea on the corruption of one researcher.

We have lots of microbes that live within us all the time, the fact that they do does not mean that we have a faulty immune system, it is the nature of the world that we live in, and each person's unique immune system, based on their genetic history. A history that is not random, but is out of our control to a great extent.

You would have those who wish a simple answer to something highly complex buy into your ideas, and of course spend money on things once they become convinced that will change somethings which are not always changeable. We are all a product of generations of genetic adaptations, which are still ongoing. Back in the mid 1300's when the plague spread through Europe killing millions, why were some spared death and others not? Better immune systems? Hardly. There were no treatments, no immune system boosters, nor drugs. Those that survived had a different genetic make up , specifically one that produces/favors hemochromatosis. The irony of it all, is that genetic selection which helped people survive then, is not a good thing to have now as descendants of those people. None of this is something in your power or mine to change, it is who we are, and it is a constantly changing situation as generations evolve. Each person has genetic predipositions unique to them, to be protected from, or suseptible to, various things. Perhaps we could avoid certain things if we knew more about our own uniqueness, but somethings like viruses are ubiquitous in our world and we will come into contact with them no matter what. You would have people believe that your methods will boost their immune systems ability to fight off ( in this case) an oncogenic virus. Were that solution viable, there would be no need for a vaccine.

Vaccines have prevented more deaths than almost any other medical breakthrough. Diseases like small pox or polio, are in the first world largely unknown now because of them There is much more to viral problems than just cervical cancer. Fear mongering about this vaccine which has been given to millions worldwide without significant harm, does not move anything forward in saving lives, particularly in third world countries where routine cervical exams are not done, and cervical cancer is still a major killer of women. Will some pharma giant make a ton of money off of this? You bet, but that does not negate the positive benefits of it all. But selling your ideas by creating fear of another idea is wrong in my opinion. I know that won't change anything having said it, there is money to be made even in your ideas. And where that opportunity exists, it is not altruism of saving a little girls life (nice button pushing there by the way) that motivates - it unfortunately comes back to the very thing that is so often at the root of all half truths and the peddling of them.. money.

I appreciate your having an open posting system and allowing me to propose a few ideas here which disagree with you and your support of some things that in my mind are on shaky scientific ground. I've found this dialog interesting, but of course an exercise that will change nothing.

Anonymous said...

My 2 daughters (ages 13, 17) went in 2 weeks ago for their 2nd Gardasil innoculations in Michigan, USA: both of them had serious reactions within seconds of receiving the injection. One lost conciousness and experienced convulsions, and the other while not totally losing consiousness, experienced loss of sight and hearing. Needless to say, there was a clear and unimpeachable connection between the injection and the response, and they will not get a 3rd injection.

Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.