NotAIDS! Commentary
May 3, 2007 (updated)

Recent reports of massive DNA damage done to neonates by AZT and other "anti-HIV" drugs make it clear that those treated before and/or after birth with these drugs are at an increased risk of all cancers.

Yet this fact is blatantly absent from the news story released today, May 1, written by MarijkeVroomen-Durning of the Health Behavior News Service, in his summary of an article in The American Journal of Public Health.

The report of adolescents developing cervical abnormalities is indeed disturbing, but not for the reasons stated. Who reading this doesn't find it more plausible that the antiretrovirals and toxic drugs like AZT that Mr. Hanwell failed to discuss may instead be causing the increase in cervical cancer risk and occurence?

Furthermore, recent studies show that cervical cancer should never have been added as an AIDS defining illness by the CDC in 1993.

Research by Mark Bower et. al.¹ of the Department of Oncology at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London suggests that there is "no clear relationship between the risk of cervical cancer and either CD4 cell count or progression to AIDS." He continues, "In view of these findings, it is perhaps not surprising that there has been no decline in the incidence of cervical cancer in the era of HAART.".²

The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology draws telling conclusions, especially in light of the recent push of a questionable HPV 'vaccine'.

There seems to be little evidence to support the continuing designation of invasive cervical cancer as an AIDS-defining cancer in the era of HAART because it seems not to have a clear strong relationship to immune function as determined by CD4 cell count or responsiveness to HAART.

Perhaps for these reasons, we predict that HPV-associated malignancies, including cervical and anal cancers,.³ will persist within the HIV population despite HAART and will become an increasing health burden for people living with HIV. The effect of the new HPV vaccines in HIV-positive individuals also remains to be elucidated.

These horrible drugs are forced on these girls when they are born, and often before they are born via their mothers, at critical stages of their development.

The recent "vaccine" against cervical cancer was announced with great fanfare, and in fact will be forced on prepubescent girls in some states. Thankfully, the will of the people is restraining mad science in places like Texas, where the Governor's pandering to the pharmaceutical industrry was blocked by the Texas Legislature.

Why is cervical cancer an AIDS-defining illness? Has the world gone completeley mad? Everyone knows that cervical cancer has been around a lot longer than "AIDS". The much touted vaccine, Gardisil is promoted as an immune booster against human papilloma virus (HPV) and not HIV.

If cervical cancer is an AIDS-defining illness than isn't it redundant to say these young women with HIV are at greater risk? According to this study, we are supposed to believe that if girls grew up HIV positive, they will get AIDS, and then cervical cancer? AIDS-related cervical cancer means HIV caused it, so is Mr. Harwell saying that HIV causes cervical cancer? But what about HPV? And what pray tell, is the point of Gardisil?

What a strange and circular comment Mr. Harwell makes regarding the "troubling" news about a generation of children growing up with health problems - which is sadly and infuriatingly senseless and unnecessary. The medical establishment has to stop their gross negligence, stop turning a blind eye to the clear and present dangers of HIV drugs, especially those forced on the most helpless of our citizens.

##

Technorati Tags: