Okay, thanks everybody, and welcome to another Wednesday webinar. Today, January 15, 2025. I think that’s right. And glad you’re joining us. And again, welcome. And I know I’ve been having some audio issues. I’m going to keep an eye on it. We did a little mic check and it seemed fine. I can’t check the chat when I’m doing this, so I guess if it goes out I’ll keep an eye on it. But somebody could call me and let me know. Hopefully that’s not going to happen. So the first thing I wanted to talk about before we get into the subject, which is does HPV cause cervical cancer? That’s the title for today.

I ran across something today which stimulated me to think about this and it’s been an open unanswered issue. So I thought I would just mention it because it’s been bugging me a little bit. And there’s a few reasons why I want to say this, but the issue is people of course know that I’ve said that. I question the whole genetic dogma, even to the point of questioning whether so called genes or sequences of nucleotides actually code for proteins. It may be that there’s sometimes that they do and most of the time they don’t. And I don’t find any.

And there’s a couple of reasons for questioning that. One is that there’s over 100,000, maybe 200,000 proteins and something like 10 to 20,000 genes, so the arithmetic doesn’t add up. And second of all, I started looking for the foundational paper that proved that nucleotide sequences, I. E. Genes actually coded for the proteins. And I couldn’t find anything that actually proved that. So the question that people ask is then, is there such a thing as genetic engineered, whatever, salmon or corn or us or anything? And if not, how is it, how do I explain? Or how would somebody like me explain that you can have genetically modified organisms seemingly make a product that’s specific to the gene sequence.

Now let me just say, first of all, I don’t know that that’s actually true, but let’s just say it is. You know, that’s how they make insulin and, and they make GMO corn, which supposedly makes proteins that allow the corn to get rid of Roundup. So how would that happen? Now the first thing, and as everybody knows, I like to talk principles even more than like specific reasons for such and such because the specific reasons are almost always dodgy and questionable. And so it’s more important to understand the thinking process. So the first thing I would say about that is one doesn’t have to know, I don’t have to know the explanation for why you can get an E.

Coli to make insulin to question the do the genetic dogma that is an independent proof. And just because they can make some biochemical phenomena happen that, that I, or maybe nobody actually understands how that actually works, doesn’t therefore prove that the original theory is correct. The original theory has its own life, so to speak, and has to be proven on its own terms. So that’s the first thing. So whether or not I know or whether what I’m about to suggest as an, as a hypothesis is correct, it doesn’t actually have any bearing on whether the genetic dogma of genes coding for proteins is correct.

On the other hand, it’s fun and interesting and maybe sometimes productive to actually generate ideas on how this may work. So here’s an idea in the, in the spirit of that, here’s an idea of how this may work. So in other words, we’re trying to explain how corn, or how a bacteria, how corn makes a protein that helps defend itself against Roundup and how, you know, E. Coli can be modified to make insulin, which we can then harvest and use as a quote, medicine. So if you’re talking about the plants or even bacteria, the first thing you can do is inbreed the heck out of them.

So over many generations you can inbreed them which will, as we know, with any organism that’s inbred, it tends to weaken it and make it susceptible to illness. Then you can cross breed it, which then will also have other effects which will probably weaken it and make it then grow quickly in order to quickly come to seed, if we’re talking about a plant. And so that would be the next step. So mostly it’s just good old fashioned inbreeding and hybridization. And then once you have a weakened plant or bacteria, then you expose it to a specific toxin and it could even be a alleged nucleotide sequence, if there even is such a thing.

But let’s say there is. So you, you expose it to a essentially complementary nucleotide sequence to the insulin which acts as a toxin or poison to the organism, to the corn plant which is weakened, or the bacteria which is also weakened. The bacteria or the corn then respond to this very specific toxin and probably they’ve trial and errored which toxin will then create a counter reaction by the organism, the, the plant or the bacteria to specifically neutralize that exposed toxin, whether it’s injected or just sort of slurried and are grown in it or put in the medium or however that’s done.

And so it’s not implausible to think that it would make something that actually specifically binds to that sequence that you put in, which could be a protein like insulin or a protein that neutralizes the, the chemical in Roundup, because that is the counter image so called that you put in as the sequence that is toxin. So in other words, all you’re really doing is stimulating the plant or the bacteria to defend itself against something specific, which then it will do and make all this protein or this material to defend itself. And that’s what we harvest as the insulin or the other proteins.

And there was never any mechanism of genetic modification. There was just good old fashioned weakening through inbreeding and hybridization and stimulating rapid growth with manipulating the medium, the conditions and then specific toxins, maybe even sequences or proteins that then were found that will stimulate the organism to make a specific protein. So that’s my hypothesis as to how that might work. I know it’s just a hypothesis and be interesting to actually try to do some studies to try to demonstrate whether that’s true. And I thought that would be an interesting way to start. A few other announcements.

One, some exciting news. We have a few new products on Dr. Cowan’s garden and I’m actually really excited about telling people about these products because you know, our goal is to offer to our customers, listeners, supporters the absolute best quality food we can possibly get. So we have two new products now. One is a balsamic vinegar made by the same people who make our amazing olive oil. And the other is an olive paste sort of. I don’t know what a tamponade is or tamponade or I’m not sure I even say it and what that officially is, I’m not sure this would qualify, but it’s basically ground up olives with ground some olive oil and some vinegar, balsamic vinegar and sea salt, all made by the same olive company in Greece that has their own trees, really old trees.

Every step of the way is the best quality you can imagine. So check those out, they’re on sale now. The final thing is really excited about seeing what happens at the upcoming book sale on Amazon. And that is Saturday, December 18th. And I’m asking everybody to buy at least two copies, one for yourself and one for a friend or family member who has a child. It’s called Common Sense Child Rearing. And we’ll put a link in Amazon. We’re also going to Be doing a public round table with the members of the new biology clinic at noon on Saturday.

And I’m hoping everybody will buy it. So we get the rankings up and that stimulates a lot of baby and mommy podcasts and reviews and things that we really get this out into the wider world because I think it’s huge how we care for our children. And on Saturday, I’ll again be going over some of the things, reading short passages from the book, and I think we’ll have a really interesting conversation amongst our practitioners about what. What’s the. How do you. What. What do we know? What. What can we say about how to rear children? And even what does that have to do with their health? Because it has a huge amount to do with their health.

So that’s Saturday at this. Saturday the 18th. Oh, and by the way, yesterday, and I think today maybe there’s a thing on Amazon that says the book won’t be available for you, won’t get your copy until July 20th, something. And that’s not actually true. That’s just because the book was held up for a few days from the publisher sending it to Amazon. And so they therefore generate this code that protects themselves. So they didn’t have the book. So they said, you may not get it for a long time, but that’s not the case. You will get it very soon because I know the book has been sent.

Okay, with that introduction then. So what do we know about hpv, human papilloma virus and cervical cancer? And I also want to put a link in. Our friend Mike Stone did a piece on his Viroligi website on the history of the papilloma virus or the alleged papillomavirus, and whether it’s ever been proven to exist and be the cause of genital warts, of which is one of the claims. And I think you can probably guess for the answer. So anybody who wants to do a deeper dive into the HPV story, that would be a good place to look.

So the reason I thought of this as well as it’s something that comes up a fair amount and it’s certainly something that’s a big part of the medical system. Uh, they. Let’s just talk about what the claim is. The claim in conventional medicine, which we all learned was that there is a virus which somebody must have found some time ago called human papillomavirus. Its only host is humans, which is bizarre, but that’s what they say. And. And it causes genital warts, which therefore are contagious and more so it causes cervical cancer, obviously, in women. And that became essential.

Well, not the reason for the introduction of Pap smears. The Pap smear thing essentially started before the connection with hpv, but for many, many years at least, since before I became a doctor, so we’re talking 40 years at least, women have lined up for their annual Pap smear and they take a. Essentially a smear of the cervical tissue, the cervical lining. They look at it under the microscope, they tell you whether it’s normal or whether you’re on a progression towards overt invasive cervical cancer. And then some 30 or so years ago, I don’t remember exactly when they would tell you if you were on this path to cervical cancer, you know, one of the stages, that you had a certain type or a certain essentially variant or strain of the HPV virus, and they didn’t do anything about the virus.

There was no antiviral medication or anything given. They just essentially scraped off the cervix or eventually did a cervical cone, which is remove the outer part of the cervix or the lining of the cervix, and that supposedly fixed it. Under the theory that if your dashboard is. Is broken or dashboard is showing that you’re out of gas, obviously the best thing to do is hit the dashboard with a hammer and then the dashboard will no longer tell you that you’re out of gas. So this is a big thing. This is what the gynecologists essentially do, or not only, but it’s a big part of the medical system.

And they talk about how doing these Pap smears and testing for cervical cancer has saved, you know, millions of lives. And it’s one of the crowning jewels of conventional gynecology and even medicine. So that is the claim. So we obviously want to look at the foundational science here and see, is there a case that there is such a thing called human papilloma virus? And if so, has it been shown to cause cervical cancer? That’s the agenda. Now, interestingly, the person who sent me these articles, allegedly, I wouldn’t say he thought they were proving that there is an HPV and it does have a connection, maybe causative with cervical cancer.

That’s not the case. But just to look at these, these are two obvious examples of papers in the medical literature that purport to demonstrate that there is this connection. So one of the things that came up in this conversation was, well, there’s at least 178, I believe the number was papers that show this connection so in order to really thoroughly understand whether there is this connection or not, wouldn’t it be the case that I would have to look at all 178 of these papers? Otherwise, if I looked at 177, there may be still one that actually shows that there is such thing and it does cause cervical cancer.

Now, from a certain point of view, I can understand that. I’ve certainly looked at many papers, probably 50 or so, and I know that, you know, Andy and Mark and Mike and etc. Alec and many others have looked at probably way more Jacob, probably hundreds of papers. And I would first of all say that actually you don’t need to look at all 178 of these papers. There are tens of thousands of virology papers since, let’s say, since 1953. And there’s no way that any person could look through them all to see if one of them actually demonstrated the existence of the virus and show that it caused disease.

And in fact, Once you’ve read 10 or 40 or 80 or 60 or whatever number that I’ve read, what you realize is that they all say the same thing. Now, this is not actually a controversial statement or even a criticism, just like anybody who finds frogs. Maybe there’s different ways of finding frogs, but it’s likely that they’ll all start with, well, I got a net and I went to a pond and I swirled the net around in the pond, and then I fished out the frog. And then I looked at it and said, yep, that’s a frog.

And then I examined it and probably killed it and examined what it’s made of, et cetera, et cetera. And they all will do the same thing. And so it is with virology. And that’s, again, not a criticism. They’re proud of it. They think they have found a way to isolate the virus, therefore proving that it exists, and then show what it’s made of and show how the body reacts to it and then show what diseases it causes. So if you read one study or 20 studies, they all do the same thing because they believe the method is sound.

That’s a hugely important part of this. So once you’ve read 10 and they all do the same method, you then realize that it’s the method that you’re checking, not the individual application of the method. That I can’t emphasize that enough. We’re actually investigating, or, yeah, investigating the method of virology, not. And the individual paper is just an application of that method. That should be clear by now. But I Thought it would be actually useful to go over first of all what the method is, just so it’s very clear. And then we’ll look at a couple of these papers and see if I’m right, that that’s what they did.

And then we’ll be able to. And then all 178 are essentially variants, variations of that method. So I don’t need to look at all hundred, this, the rest of the 176, until anybody could show me that in one of them they did it differently, which they never do because again, they believe the method is sound. Why should they do a different method? So there is no disagreement about that. The disagreement is whether the method is sound, not whether they keep doing the same method. And as we’ve said since 1954, with the advent of the so called viral culture, every paper is the same.

So what are these steps? So first the scheme is this, first you take sample from a non specific protective reaction of the body. So what do I mean by that? So it’s very clear that if you breathe in stuff and your body wants to get it out, it makes mucus in order to what I’m calling a protective reaction of the body. Some people call it a detoxification, but it’s just a, you know, you get it, you put something in which the body doesn’t want or something is generated inside the body which the body doesn’t want. So it gets it out with mucus or it may throw out something through the skin which we call a wart or a rash, or it may make a tumor which is a collection of debris that the body has pushed out in order to make this protective reaction.

So with every case of, of investigating the claim of whether the virus exists or not, they start with taking one of these protective reactions, mucus, vesicles like chickenpox, little bubbles or tumors or gross or something else that the body is making. And they take samples from that, from that tissue. So again, these could be mucus, could be discharged, could be warts, could be tumors. Body made that, they say that’s caused by a virus, they take a piece of it, the next thing they do. So that’s step one, step two, they grind that material up. Usually they use quote, sterile sand, they put some saline, they may put some buffer solution which are chemicals, they may put some so called viral transport medium which has all kinds of chemicals and serums in it.

And so they essentially make a slurry of that ground up protective discharge material. Now sometimes, sometimes they filter it, sometimes they centrifuge it. But at no time do they filter it or centrifuge it in order to find a quote virus. They just do that to get rid of some of the unwanted, you know, big pieces of debris that would inevitably go along with one of these ground up specimens. So do not be fooled. This is not a purification process in the sense of purifying out a virus. This is just making it a little clearer, easier to work with.

So you get rid of some of the, you know, big pieces or cellular debris or some of the things you don’t want. And so now you have a solution. The water soluble parts of ground up protective mechanisms from the body. That’s what you have. Nobody would claim that that is a virus. Nobody looks for a virus in that. They may do a PCR test, but that’s already putting the cart before the horse because that presupposes that you found the virus and now, you know, a piece of the virus. So that cannot be the way you find a virus.

Right? That has to only happen once you found the virus, isolated the virus, purified the virus, shown that it has pieces, then shown that no other organism has that same piece, then that can be a marker for that virus. But all those steps have to happen first. And we’re talking about the first step, first time this has been done. And so we’re again ground up material protective response from the body. We then grind it up, filter it sometimes, centrifuge it sometimes. And now we’ve got a slurry or the water soluble part of ground up protective response.

Okay, that’s step two. Step three is you. Then I put, and I’m looking at some notes here, you inoculate that onto what I called weird tissue. Now what do I mean by that? Inoculate means you spread it or put it on some tissue that’s supposedly growing tissue or cells that have been kept alive, they’ve been nourished and so they’re growing in the test tube or in the petri dish. So what do I mean by weird tissue? I mean monkey kidney cells. Now you could say that’s weird. Like why did they choose monkey kidney cells or certain kinds of liver cells? Or as you’ll see in this case, they take the ground up cells taken from the foreskin of a child of a newborn baby boy who’s had a genital mutilation surgery and they’ve removed the foreskin and they grind that up and use those cells as the growing medium for the quote virus.

I mean, think what you want about that. It’s just weird. Like why? I don’t know. I mean they obviously have reasons. And they say, they call it, they say trophism. The virus doesn’t grow on this one and it grows on that one, which is a bit weird itself. And maybe there’s reasons for that. All I’m saying is they take these bizarre tissues and inoculate, spread the, the unfiltered, unpurified stuff onto there and then they see if it grows and then if the tissue which was growing before they put this stuff on it breaks down and meanwhile they start adding other stuff like antibiotics and trypsin and other chemicals.

And they don’t do proper controls because they didn’t add the inoculum to the control. So they don’t need to add the same amount of antibiotics, which makes it a not scientific experiment. We’ve been through all that. But the next step is they will see, they essentially incubate the tissue and see if it grows and if it breaks down. They call that the isolation of the virus, meaning they now found the virus. Now I think it’s pretty easy to see that at no point in there was any virus. Not only was it not identified, it wasn’t even attempted to be identified.

So it’s a bizarre claim. The, the best you could say if they actually did a proper, it’s not really the right word control, but taken, you know, the, the, the slurry and put that on growing cells and everything else was the same, except they didn’t put the slurry onto the so called control, which isn’t really a control. The best you could say is there’s something in that slurry which the cell, the growing cells don’t like. That would be the best you could say. There’s no, at no point does a quote virus enter into that. Okay, that’s step four.

Step five is then you chop up this now decayed cells with all the slurry in it and all the chemicals and the fetal bovine serum and the growth factors and everything else that’s in there, you chop that up into pieces and then you say that some of the pieces are quote viral and some of the pieces are not. This is based on the claim that you know what all the pieces of say the person that, that you got the sample from, even though then they turn around and say, well, we don’t know at least 10% if we’re talking about the quote, DNA.

We, we’ve never seen 10 of the DNA. We’ve certainly never seen the DNA of this person. But in spite of that, they claim that they’ve now stepped, they can then chop it up into little pieces and they have little pieces. And they say these pieces come from the person and these people pieces come from the virus, which we’ve never seen. We don’t even know if there is a virus and we don’t know whether it has pieces or not. But we say that these pieces came from the virus. And then we attempt to amplify those pieces with the so called PCR process.

Then we assemble those little pieces which are alleged to be from a virus, even though all we really know is that the pieces came from some mixture of something either in the experiment or in the original sample. That’s all you actually know. And then they chop them up and then they assemble into a long piece which they allege is the genome of the virus. So that’s step five. Then step six is they find the proteins in this brew and they call them viral antigens, or in other words, proteins that must have come from the virus. Even though there’s no attempt to isolate, purify the virus, they have no idea where these proteins came from.

They could have easily come from the person or be generated by the experiment or the cell culture or maybe some other way of finding them generated by something to do with the experiment. But these are called the viral antigens. So that’s what they do at the next step. And then they add non specific proteins that they call antibodies to bind to these proteins that they found in step six. And they look for a certain reaction, usually a fluorescence. And they say that means that the antibodies which we know are nonspecific have therefore bound to the viral proteins, which then tells you that these viral proteins came from a virus because the antibodies are allegedly specific to the virus, which we know that they’re not.

And that’s called immunohistochemistry. And so when we get a whole lot of these nonspecific proteins, mistakenly called antibodies to bind to nonspecific proteins, which are mistakenly called viral antigens that have that allegedly come from the pieces of genetic material or RNA and DNA that allegedly come from the virus. And at no point in this mess was any virus actually found, purified or demonstrated to have any DNA, RNA proteins, antibodies or anything else. So those are the steps. Let me just go over it again. Non specific sample from a protective reaction. Step one, grind it up occasionally centrifuge or filter, that’s step two, inoculated onto weird tissue like monkey kidney cells or foreskin.

Step three, when that tissue breaks down. You call that isolation, that step four. Then you take this brew with the monkey kidney cells or the foreskin and the original stuff, and you chop that into little pieces and you say those little pieces, some of them are from the person and some of them are from the virus, even though there’s no way to know that because you never separated out the virus. And then they assemble the little pieces into a long strand and they call that the viral genome. And then they find other little pieces of proteins and they say these are from the virus.

And then they put in antibodies and say they’re specific to the proteins which come from the viruses. None of which has ever have been demonstrated. So that’s the steps. Now going to take a look at a actual study and see if I got this sort of right. Now importantly, when you look at these studies, you never. We never look at what they say. I mean, you can look at it, but you never believe what they say. You just look at what they do. And that’s important principle for just about anything. If you say so, you know, whatever it is, you actually keep asking the person, so what did you actually see? You know, you see one person with a wart, and then you see another person with a wartime.

And then you conclude that it was the virus that caused the contagious war to happen in the next person. You obviously didn’t see the virus. All you saw was two people in the same time in proximity to each other sharing similar symptoms. And you don’t have any idea what the mechanism of that is because you didn’t see that. So you stick to what you see. And obviously that becomes the method section. So when you read this, they say they isolated and propagated this human Papilloma virus, type 16, in human xenografts implanted in the severe combined immunodeficiency mouse.

That’s what they’re saying. And then they. The summary is we report the isolation and propagation of HPV type 16, the main agent of cervical cancer, using human foreskin fragments implanted in severe combined immunodeficiency mice. The infection produced viral particles and with each passage of the virus, it causes lesions identical to interepithelial neoplasia. Okay, so what did they actually do? So that’s the paper, journal of virology, June 1998. So we go down to the first isolation. So the fragments of single biopsies of clinical Condyloma acumenata from 11 patients were collected and snap frozen in liquid nitrogen. That’s step one.

They took Biopsies. They took pieces of stuff from people which are reactive, non specific protective reactions. So that’s, I was correct about that. They were going to start with taking something from a person. Then they go on about the human and they said, the human investigation said they could do this. Fair enough. Then each was separately ground in phosphate buffered saline with sterile sand using mortar and pestle as previously described. I didn’t find that paper, but basically they ground it up with a mortar and pestle. So that’s what I said. Next, step two is you grind this stuff up, you sand, you put some phosphate buffered saline, sometimes you put some other things.

They didn’t list what they did. Then the material was clarified by centrifugation. They tell you how many G’s for how many minutes and it was stored at negative 80 degrees. I didn’t put that part. But basically they ground it up, centrifuged it, clarified it and then froze it at minus 80 degrees. So that was step two. Then they took individual aliquots, meaning pieces of the 11 sample were pooled and pelleted by centrifugation. So they did another step of, of somehow mixing them together and then they centrifuged again and stored it again at a very low temperature.

So we’re correct so far. Next step, a neonatal human foreskin from routine circumcision was prepared as previously reported. Again, I didn’t look at that, but my guess is they ground it up somehow or at least chopped it up. So they cut it into fragments. That’s what they did. One by one millimeter. So that’s step three. Inoculate onto weird tissue. When I was thinking about this and I was thinking, you know, here you are as a 10 year old little girl or boy thinking, well, what do you want to do, Lucy, when you grow up? Well, I want to take little pieces of people’s warts and, and cervicals discharge stuff and I want to grind that up and then I’m going to put that on some foreskin that we got from, from these newborn babies and then I’m going to see what grows.

I don’t know that anybody actually thought that, but that’s what happened here. So they put this ground up stuff onto foreskin and then they incubated it. In other words, put it in an incubator for certain temperature for an hour at 37 degrees. That’s the next thing. Now I didn’t write this, but this comes under the category of inoculate onto weird tissue sometimes. Then they do something else Weird, which is they took this stuff, this inoculated foreskin, and they grafted it under the skin of the external ear. And another was implanted under the renal capsule on both sides of three, five to eight week old female immunocompromised mice, so called.

And the mice were killed 12 weeks later. None of the grafts implanted in the ear grew. Of the six renal grafts, only one enlarged slightly. And they tell you how much. So what does that mean? So they took this stuff that they grew on the, that they chopped up from the, from the lesion in the cervix, clarified it, spread that on some foreskin which they took from a genitally mutilated newborn baby, grew it for a while and then sewed that behind the ear of a inbred weird mouse. But sometimes they took that inbred weird mouse and they sewed this foreskin with the stuff on it next to their kidneys.

And then they see what happened. Now, I hope that that strikes you as a bizarre way to go about understanding whether there’s a virus, because I don’t know which part of this experiment is actually talking about the virus and then showing that this has any relevance to what happens with normal people. I mean, frankly, I can’t remember a single person who came to me and said, you know, Doc, I was fine. And then I was walking down the street and this guy came and, you know, he grabbed me in a white coat on and he sewed some foreskin right behind my ear.

And then he, this other guy, he opened me up and he put some foreskin with some goop on it next to my, both of my kidneys. And, you know, I’ve never been the same since. So that’s essentially what they’re doing. And they’re telling us that this actually means something. And then they go on, the graphs were split, they were fixed. And by the way, only one of these graphs next to the kidneys actually did anything. And but they say that the, it fit the histological criteria for an HPV infection. In other words, you, you see, you get some changes in the tissue after you graft this foreskin onto these weird mice with some goop from a cervix.

And then in some cases, not all of them, but in some cases you get some changes in the tissue on the, on the kidneys. And you say, see, those are the typical changes you get from HPV infection. And then comes. They look for the proteins. So here we see the HPV capsid antigen. They didn’t show this data, they start looking for the sequences and then they start putting in the antibodies. And they got the antibodies from the previous study, and these allegedly bind with the papilloma antigen. And then they say the controls were done, which is never actually the case.

And then they extract the viral DNA from the frozen sample, and then they do the whole thing over and over and over again until they get. Until they allegedly prove that the more times you do this, the worse it gets, and you end up getting lesions and particles that look like the previous particles that we’ve gotten doing the exact same thing. So, in fact, my steps were correct. That’s exactly how they do it. And I just want you to understand that at no point of this experiment was a HPV virus actually discovered, found, isolated, or shown to exist.

There is no point in this experiment that they showed that any of these antigens or sequences came from any virus. There is no point in this experiment where they isolated. That the virus could possibly be the cause of the changes in the tissue of the, that they. That they found in these implanted mice, because they never isolated the virus and use that as the independent variable which could possibly account for the effects. So this is obviously exactly the way that I said. And every study, again, is a variation on this theme, same thing. And you just keep asking yourself the question, at what stage did they actually show that these sequences.

And then it gets very technical. They talk about nucleotide substitution, so you’re going to get into variable variants and then different stains and different antibodies. But they always beg the question of you’ve got to show the thing first. And they never do that. They always refer you back to other papers, which then you can get to Mike’s paper that even the very first one, they never did that. Okay, so that’s obviously this paper. So then I got this quote, and this isn’t the whole paper. So this was from the International Journal of Cancer. Again, this is what they’re claiming, but you can see this is from 1980.

So it’s back when the. This whole thing was getting started. So they’re making claims. Papillomaviruses. And. But the reason I’m reading this is to show you that even when they’re making claims, there’s always this hedging of one’s bets, so to speak. In other words, well, we found it, but we didn’t always find it. And it should always be there, because that’s part of how we know that something causes something, because it’s always there. Even when we say we look at diphtheria, and then 40% of the case of diphtheria, there’s no diphtheria organism. We look at sepsis, which is defined as bacterial infection, but in 40% of the cases we can’t find an infection.

And I read the other day that 60% of cases where they say that the cause is a bacteria they can’t find with any method currently in use of any bacteria that could possibly be causing it. So there’s always. You get into these caveats. So here we go. Papillomavirus in human genital warts. Acumenata, occasionally found by electron microscopy, have thus far escaped identification. In other words, we know they’re there, but we can’t find them, even though we have a tool that allegedly can find them. This is mainly due to the paucity of such particles in clinical material and possibly also to the higher fragility of the particles extracted.

In other words, we know that we have this tool that can find them and we know that this thing is caused by the genital warts, but we can’t really find them because there’s not enough to see there. That’s the usual excuse, even though that makes it hard to say that the reason why this thing happened was because we have these millions of viruses, but they’re not really there, or maybe they’re just fragile, so they break apart. The difficulties in virus purification were partially circumvented by selection extraction of closed circular DNA. Positive identification of the isolated circular molecules has not yet been achieved, and no data are available on the homogeneity of the viral DNA particles obtained from individual genital warts.

In other words, in order to circumvent the problem of we can’t find the actual virus, let’s forget about a virus and say we found some DNA. All right? Forget about the virus. Forget about whether we know where the DNA came from. We found some DNA and it’s circular, so that must be the viral genome of the virus that caused the warts. Now, unfortunately, we can’t really identify that these. We found this. We can’t positively identify it. And we don’t know if all these circular molecules are actually the same because they don’t look like they’re the same, but they should be the same, and we should.

They should have come from there, so we’ll say that they did. So here we report identification and partial characterization of human genital wart virus DNA and demonstrate the presence of cross reaction in all the genital warts tested. And so they say yeah, we got it. We found out that it’s always the same, even though if you read the paper, that’s actually not the case. But even if it was, you could imagine finding the same breakdown products in all warts, since maybe warts have something in common, but it doesn’t demonstrate that they came from a virus which they gave up because they couldn’t find the virus.

And finally another paper, I’ll just go through this quickly, this partial characterization of viral DNA from human genital warts. So again, they go on to claim that they found this. So we would look at the, what did they actually do? And here again, they ground up tumor tissue or ground with csand. So they took some samples of the tumor at step one, they ground it up with sea sand, put it in some chemicals, EDTA and SDS and proteins and RNAs and then some phenol and then we buffered it. And so that’s step two grounded up here.

They didn’t filter anything, they didn’t centrifuge anything, and they just started looking. So there’s no isolation of anything. And they go right to looking for the piece of something again without ever demonstrating that this came from anything called a virus. And then all the rest of it is just looking at the pieces, looking at the proteins, looking at the antibodies, banding them, doing all kinds of characterization of these super coil DNA and the super coil DNA in the bands and the hybridization with the, with the alleged antibodies that they put in. And always begging the question of where did these little pieces come from? Because that’s not part of the equation.

And so at the end of the day, the only conclusion you can come to looking at at least these two papers and a few more, and Mike’s paper on the original HPV is nobody has ever demonstrated that there is such a thing as hpv. Therefore it is impossible to demonstrate using science that it causes anything, because something that doesn’t exist doesn’t cause anything. And so that’s where we’re at. And unless somebody can show me that one of these papers used a completely different method to figure this out, which I would highly doubt, that’s where we stand.

And you can look at all the other 177 papers if you want, but I think you’ll find the same thing. So we’re left with the final question, which probably some of you are wondering about, is does this mean that you should or shouldn’t get pap smears? So what do I think about pap smears? So let’s Just talk about that for a minute. A pap smear, turns out, has nothing to do with hpv. They say it does. But what you’re doing is taking a sample from the cervix by scraping it essentially and looking at the cells and seeing whether there’s changes in essentially the chromosomes and the morphology of the cells, and assessing where on the spectrum of from normal to full blown invasive cervical cancer your particular cervical cells are.

So there’s all these stages, and I don’t even remember how many stages there are, and supposedly the higher the grade, the more likely you are to progress to cervical cancer. And, and so the idea is that we can catch it early, before it actually has chance to invade into the uterus or spread somewhere else, and we can actually remove that tissue, which has many costs, including that’s a very sensitive part of a woman and has a lot to do or at least something to do with their sexual response. So there is definitely a cost to that.

But the bigger cost is is that really is a tumor or the changes in the cell, is that really the disease? Or are the changes in the cell because the body is making a protective response and essentially using the cervix for some reason, which we may or may not know, and probably don’t know as the location for making this protective response? And the worse the situation is that the body needs to make this protective response. In other words, the changes in the cervix, the changes in the tissue, is the protective response. That is the way that the body deals with unwanted material, toxins, things it doesn’t want in the tissue.

It is the way that it translates the emotional, psychological, spiritual situation that one is in into actual matter by by doing some protective response in the cervix. And one could imagine many possible strategies or explanations for how the body is doing that. And so the misinterpretation here is that this is a disease process instead of a reparative process. So those are the two different possible interpretations. There may be more. And so the question I would ask, they say, and this is very important with anything to do with so called preventative medicine in conventional medicine, they will say that by doing the Pap smears, we’ve been able to prevent such and such percentage or number of cervical invasive cervical cancer.

But that’s actually the wrong question. It’s the same question as you can cut off women’s breasts, you can cut out men’s Prostates and prevent 100% of their prostate cancer. The question is, do they live a longer and better and more productive and happier and healthier life. That is the only question. There is not whether you can cut off a certain organ and therefore prevent that organ from getting sick. That is absurdly obvious that you can do that. That is not a question worth studying or worth answering. The question is, if you do that, and in my view, misinterpret the meaning of this, of these changes, and you’re calling it a disease and an error of the body instead of a brilliant maneuver to protect your body, if you make that error in judgment and you cut off that organ and you think that you somehow made the person better.

So my question is, can you prove that with studies? Can you prove that doing pap smears and intervening in these early stages, so called, of invasive cervical cancer improves the life, the outcome, the longevity, the happiness, the well being of the women? And again, as far as I know, there is no study that proves that that has been the case. I could be wrong about that because I haven’t looked into this in great detail. So if somebody has a study that shows that with two very comparable groups that the ones who had the cervical procedure had longer, healthier, more productive, happier lives than the other ones, which I don’t think has even ever been studied, and it’s never been shown with any preventative screening method that I know of, therefore all of them are asking the wrong question and therefore getting misleading answers.

That’s what I see. And therefore I am very skeptical of subjecting yourself to the invasion and the fear and the procedures and the worry and especially the fear of the annual yearly pap smear procedure. And so I’ll let everybody think about that for themselves and whether this is something they want to do. It’s certainly not something that I would choose to do for myself or my female loved ones. Okay, so with that again, thanks everybody for listening. Remember, Saturday, January 18th at noon to 1. Buy two copies. Common sense child rearing. Tune in to our roundtable.

Balsamic vinegar and olive paste. And thanks everybody for joining me and I hope you have a great week.
[tr:tra].

See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.