Monday, July 28, 2014

Lead HPV Researcher Warns Public, Provides Opportunity

Disclaimer - The information in this newsletter should not be interpreted as medical advice for any condition.  Dr. McIntyre is a licensed healthcare professional, but this column is intended only to make you aware and to make you think.

Last October, I wrote an article detailing the dangers of and the lack of efficacy for the HPV (human papilloma virus) vaccine, concluding that “70% of the cases of HPV resolve themselves in one year without treatment.  Most viruses will be eradicated if you give your body a chance to do its job.  The immune system is built to stop foreign invaders, making it of paramount importance that your immune system is doing its job at its best.  The brainstem regulates the immune system, but is one of the most common adversely affected structures in the body when traumas occur (accidents, slips, falls, sports injuries, etc.).  Upper Cervical Care ensures that the brainstem can ideally regulate immune response, giving you faster and more efficient reactions to foreign invaders like HPV and other viruses.”

It has been said that the average 17 year old has heard over 20,000 hours worth of drug commercials.  The pharmaceutical industry constantly bombards the market with its message, so much so that the realities both for what it does and does not offer often get distorted or lost.  Conversely, the cautionary tales from those that have been harmed by pharmaceutical interventions or the red flags waved by those of us in the healing arts that are critical of the medical paradigm are so few when compared to the mainstream ads you see and hear all the time for drugs.  So, I think it’s important to reiterate some of the information out there about things like the HPV vaccine.  You may not hear or read about what people like Dr. Diane Harper have to say on the matter anywhere else. 

Dr. Harper, a renowned medical physician best known for her work in developing the HPV vaccine, has recently made some interesting comments.  Despite dedicating a substantial portion of her career to HPV vaccines, she has assessed and reviewed the many adverse events resulting from the vaccines and decided to tell the truth about it.  “The benefit to public health is nothing,” Harper says about HPV vaccines.  “There is no reduction in cervical cancers; they are just postponed.”   That’s a powerful statement from arguably the world’s top authority on the subject.  HPV vaccines are designed specifically to prevent cervical cancer.  If they are not even remotely accomplishing their goal, then that’s not just faulty drugs but a blasphemous marketing tactic.  It would mean that a multi-billion dollar industry has been created for no actual benefit to patients.  This is not the first time.  Any long-time reader of this newsletter has been made aware of the many drugs that make false proclamations.  

Sadly, the public reaction when medical professionals like Harper speak out against vaccines and other drugs is often to try and discredit the naysayer instead of take seriously their claims.  It’s fascinating, really.  In so many other businesses, the similar circumstance of an industry leader speaking out against a problem identified in his/her area of expertise would be met much differently than it often is in healthcare.  Earlier this week, German car giant, BMW, recalled 1.6 million cars over the concern of faulty air bags.  The cars in question were made between 8-16 years ago, so it barely affects the current market.  Still, they are taking action.  "As a precaution, we just feel now that the right thing to do is just to bring them all in and replace the passenger-side air bag," a BMW spokesman said.  If we change the subject to vaccine dangers, however, it’s neither a stimulant for further research nor the wake-up call that it should be.  Unfortunately, those in support of the vaccines/drugs all too frequently go on the attack as they crawl into a defensive shell.  Ignorance is the enemy of progress.  Burying our heads in the sand when someone says something that goes against the common thought process, particularly in matters related to health, is very dangerous.  Basically, the facts from the research say that HPV vaccines are more dangerous than that which they intend to prevent.  The serious adverse reaction rate, according to Harper, is as high as the cervical cancer death rate.  Others, as mentioned in the article that I wrote last year, are stating that the adverse reactions are even worse. 

Of course, the CDC says that HPV vaccines are safe.  Such resources are often the ones denouncing Harper’s claims.  Personally, I’m a bit leery of what I read from the CDC.  There’s a lot of contradictory information floating around their website.  If you search for HPV vaccines on CDC, you’ll see a note about a large number of them being recalled, but not to worry because “no concerning adverse reactions have been seen with those vaccinated by the lot.”  You’ll see similar caveats on many of the posts that are made about drug/vaccine recalls.  The number one reason to recall drugs (and reason numbers two, three, four, five, and six for that matter) is that they cause adverse reactions.  So, what gives?  Most in favor of drugs and vaccines tend to greatly understate the frequency of adverse reactions, at best, and deliberately act as if they never happen, at worst.  I think it’s important to remember that, when it comes to the development of anything chemical (as drugs/vaccines are), the burden of proof is on the scientists.  It’s not the patient’s responsibility to prove why they should NOT receive a vaccine like Gardasil (for HPV); it’s the doctor/scientist/researcher’s responsibility to prove to the patient why they should.  Scientists/developers/researchers/doctors have to prove, first, that it’s safe and, second, that it accomplishes what it proposes to be capable of doing.  If someone with a credible voice (like Harper) steps in with proof that it’s not safe and that it fails to accomplish what it proposes, then it’s back to the drawing board for those pushing for the drug/vaccine. 

I understand defending something that you believe in.  If you’re passionate about anything, then you should be able to relate to defiantly taking a stance.  However, there’s this thing that we spend so much time talking about called communication and both lines should be open.  Opportunities are so very frequently missed to use valid points, such as the ones that Harper brings up, to openly discuss both privately and publicly the risks and benefits of vaccines and other drugs. 

Thinking good things for you,

-Dr. Chad

No comments:

Post a Comment