7 votes

UPDATE - How Crazy Is Michael Douglas' Cunnilingus Cancer Link, Really - VIDEO

UPDATE - How Crazy Is Michael Douglas' Cunnilingus Cancer Link, Really - VIDEO

Posted: 06/02/2013 3:22 pm EDT | Updated: 06/03/2013 3:57 pm EDT

UPDATE: Michael Douglas' spokesman Allen Burry has released a statement explaining that the actor was just saying that oral sex can cause cancer, not that it necessarily led to his diagnosis. "In a discussion with the newspaper, they talked about the causes of oral cancer, one of which was oral sex, which is noted and has been known for a while now," Burry said.

Previously...

Michael Douglas has opened up about his past diagnosis, revealing that oral sex, not smoking or drinking, caused his type of throat cancer.

In a candid new interview with U.K.'s The Guardian, Douglas admits that his illness was caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/02/michael-douglas-thr...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------

CONNOR SIMPSON | 6:26 PM ET

Apparently cunnilingus causes cancer. That's according to actor Michael Douglas, who isn't as crazy as he sounds, according to science. But don't go using that as an excuse: it's only dangerous for people already suffering from human papillomavirus.

In an interview promoting Behind the Candlebra with the Guardian's Xan Brooks, Douglas opened up about what he thinks is the source of his stage four throat cancer. The common theory about Douglas's cancer was his years of drinking and smoking. But Douglas says it was all because of oral sex, of course:

"No," he says. "No. Because, without wanting to get too specific, this particular cancer is caused by HPV [human papillomavirus], which actually comes about from cunnilingus."

From what? For a moment I think that I may have misheard.
"From cunnilingus. I mean, I did worry if the stress caused by my son's incarceration didn't help trigger it. But yeah, it's a sexually transmitted disease that causes cancer."

Read more: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2013/06/how-cra...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Michael Douglas is a known globalist

This is obviously pro vaccine propaganda for men and women. Globalist have some kind of agenda. LOL obviously they want to control your sex life now. No more pleasure for the women too? Something is amiss. Vaccine propaganda.

The reaction here is surprising

given that DPer’s are usually diligent in researching a topic. Oral cancer rates among men have skyrocketed in recent years due to the HPV virus. Someone I know was diagnosed with neck and throat cancer – and the doctors at a renowned metropolitan hospital unit specializing in this disease immediately did biopsies on him looking for HPV.

Discussion about women's cancer rates from HPV is irrelevant here: statistics prove that men are getting oral cancer from sexually-transmitted HPV in increasing numbers. Is there a push for the vaccine among young adolescents? Yes, and that may very well be driven by big pharma greed or other nefarious motivations. But what Michael Douglas has stated is an accurate representation of what medical experts in this field have determined has led to the rising oral cancer rates in men. This information is also not news - the WSJ article below is from 2011:

“A sharp rise in a type of throat cancer among men is increasingly being linked to HPV, the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus that can cause cervical cancer in women...Recent studies show about 25% of mouth and 35% of throat cancers are caused by HPV, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Men account for the majority of cases, and currently the highest prevalence is in men 40 to 55, says Eric Genden, chief of head and neck oncology at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230365740457635...

It is YOU that needs a

It is YOU that needs a refresher in science. There is absolutely zero proof for HPV causing cancer. You are citing studies that show that a majority of patients test positive for the HPV DNA. But the presence of a pathogen does not equal causation. The "pathogen" could be there due to the cancer! This is how Duesberg explains it: "Since proliferating cells would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells, the viruses would be just indicators, rather than causes of abnormal proliferation."

Second, "The presence of HPV in no more than 67% of age-matched women with cervical cancer (198) also indicates that HPV is not necessary for cervical cancer." Duesberg at http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch5.html

Third, the great majority of men and women with HPV, even the "high risk strains" do NOT have cervical cancer and will NEVER get cervical cancer.

For these and other reasons, the case for HPV as a major cause of cancer is weak at best.

Stop assuming that the medical establishment has it right. Virus hunters WANT to find viral causes of disease. There are toxicological explanations for increased incidence of throat and cervical cancers.

And you need to learn to read

For someone telling others to brush up on science the number of false and weak assumptions you make is...revealing. This thread is not about women and cervical cancer at all yet you keep bringing it up as if it is relevant to men and oral cancer - it isn't. You keep citing the same sources that do not address the topic - which is the documented rising rates of neck, throat, tongue and tonsil cancer in men over the last ten years. You state "There is absolutely zero proof for HPV causing cancer" - zero, really? A simple google search provides numerous studies involving thousands of men that show a direct link between the two.

You claim I referenced "studies that show that a majority of patients test positive for the HPV DNA" - reread my post and link, because this statement is not there. Furthermore, as you admit this doesn't prove if HPV is or is not causative, so why inject it into the discussion? It's meaningless. There are many viruses found in the majority of people - and some get disease from them and some do not. Lupus, MS, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis and shingles, to name a few, all have been shown to have links to common viruses carried by a large percentage of the population.

You assume I believe "that the medical establishment has it right" - again, reread my post because I state that there may very well be a push for the vaccine for nefarious reasons. You know nothing about my position, experience or knowledge of the medical establishment, yet profess to tell me what I should and should not think about it.

Your assumptions are anything but scientific.

Association does not equal

Association does not equal causation. Learn the difference. Why might people with cancer have HPV (only 67 per cent in women with cervical cancer)? Because HPV is cleared naturally in healthy people, but not in those whose lifestyles lead them to experience cancer. Also, because proliferating cells are more suscetiple to infection than resting cells, the HPV is an indicator, rather than a cause of abnormal proliferation. See http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch5.html for more on why HPV is a poor candidate for a cause of cancer.

Here is a key part of the paper at this link:

The following epidemiological and biochemical arguments cast doubt on these HPV-cancer hypotheses:

1. Random allelic mutation of suppressor genes, as postulated by zur Hausen, predicts a few cancers soon, and more long after infection. Since cancers only appear 20-50 years after infection, cooperation between HPV and mutations cannot be sufficient for carcinogenesis.

2. Further, the proposal of zur Hausen that inactivation of host suppressor genes is necessary for viral transformation is not compatible with HPV survival. Since HPV, like all small DNA viruses, needs all of its 8-kb DNA for virus replication (13), suppression of one or more HPV proteins by normal cellular genes would effectively inhibit virus replication in all normal cells. Conversely, if viral transforming proteins were not suppressed by normal cells, virus-replicating wart cells should be tumorigenic because all viral genes are highly expressed in virus replication (1, 13, 191).

3. The clonality of cervical cancers rules out the Howley hypothesis.

4. The lack of a consistent HPV DNA sequence and of consistent HPV gene expression in HPV DNA-positive tumors is inconsistent with the zur Hausen and Howley hypotheses and indicates that HPV is not necessary to maintain cervical cancer.

5. The presence of HPV in no more than 67% of age-matched women with cervical cancer (198) also indicates that HPV is not necessary for cervical cancer.

6. The hypothesis also fails to explain the presence of clonal chromosome abnormalities consistently seen in cervical cancer (16, 192-194)-except if one makes the additional odd assumption that only cells with preexisting chromosome abnormalities are transformed by HPV.

It follows that neither HPV nor HSV plays a direct role in cervical carcinomagenesis. Moreover, the HPV-cancer hypothesis offers no explanation for the absence of a reciprocal venereal male carcinoma.

It is the medical

It is the medical establishment's duty to prove their assertions about HPV. They haven't and that is my point. Nor have you provided any evidence to prove that HPV cause any kind of cancer. All you have reported is increases in cancer. How in the world is that proof? Why are you neglecting to consider toxilogical explanations? Because your doctor and the establishment have neglected to consider them! Read Peter Duesberg's critique of the HPV Cancer theory.

Carry on your crusade

Your single link as well as single-mindedness result in under-informed and hence uninteresting conversation on the issue.

Propaganda

I saw this reported on Good Morning Amerika. It was basically an advertisement for the HPV Vaccine. What a load of horse sh*t.

I'm not sure

what you guys think, but there's something very fishy about this hole thing.

tasmlab's picture

Ah, stop being such a pussy

Ah, stop being such a pussy. We'll have this thing licked in no time.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Which

hole?

Asclepius's picture

Is Cunnilingus Cancer story PR for HPV vaccine in boys?

Let's hope not!

If you are worried about a link between Cunnilingus and HPV induced Cancer, there is a known treatment that will kill any HPV in your throat. The little known treatment is even FDA approved as a topical (Veregen) for women.

http://www.rxlist.com/veregen-drug.htm

The active chemical is known as Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), the primary flavonoid in green tea.

The original clinical studies showed that both oral and topical treatments were effective in women, but only the topical form was further developed, probably because anyone can buy EGCG capsules OTC.

I recent patent I read suggested that oxidized EGCG works even better!

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds. - Bob Marley

SteveMT's picture

Here is the real reason.

How Excess Alcohol Depresses Immune Function

Aug. 15, 2011 — Alcoholism suppresses the immune system, resulting in a high risk of serious, and even life-threatening infections. A new study shows that this effect stems largely from alcohol's toxicity to immune system cells called dendritic cells. These cells play a critical role in immune function, responding to danger signals by searching for unfamiliar antigens within the body that would be coming from invading microbes, and presenting such antigens to T cells, thus activating them to seek and destroy cells containing these antigens.
------
"This research helps us understand why alcoholics are predisposed to bacterial and viral infections, and why they do not respond well to vaccines," says Wands. Understanding this, he says, will help in the development of ways to improve dendritic cell function in people with alcohol syndromes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110815172153.htm

SteveMT's picture

Sad that these people are even given the time of day,.....

much less a news story about such rubbish. If Douglas doesn't stop living the way he does, he is going to go blind also, ..... so they say.

He was in stage 4 by the time they found it

If it was smoking related, it would have gone straight to the lungs or deeply infiltrated the lining of the throat. As far as drinking related, Douglas was more at risk for getting liver problems, and thats usually from being a red-faced drunk. Maybe he was just spending his money on whores and got a mouthful.

not necessarily

not necessarily

More Hollywood Bullsh*t!!

Agie wants to hack off her boobs to cancer - Michael is losing his tongue to cancer..

What do they both have in common?:

poor nutrition due to excessive amounts of alcohol and cigarettes

Result: The blood becomes very acidic (acidosis) and thus, becomes a breeding ground for cancer.

Please! boobs and tongues are not the problem. It's poor living habits by those that live in the fast & furious lane of life..

Cancer--- A Disease of Civilization

"The major cancers of our time are diet-caused, mainly by fat and cholesterol."
Dr Ernst Wynder, American Health Foundation, addressing the US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020121horne/02...

In US sample, ONLY 0.0067% of women with HPV get cancer

http://liamscheff.com/2011/03/hpv-the-virus-that-causes-cerv...

Here’s an actual sample from the US that shows how absurd is the HPV Cancer supposed link:

“For example, in the state of Maryland, 9.3 out of every 100,000 women contracted cervical cancer in 2003. Without considering any of the personal risk factors (like cervical cancer in the family), the general risk for someone living in Maryland would be 9.3/100000 or .0093% chance of contracting this disease.” NaturalNews.com | www.statehealthfacts.org

In 2006, it was 6.7 per 100,000 women, or .0067 percent. Bring that up to match the “out of a million” and you end up with the following:

6.7 out of 100,000
67 out of a 1,000,000

Sixty-seven out of a million women. Not 1,600. But, in a real-world sample, sixty-seven per million.

Can we have our moment of “duh?” (to quote our friend Robert Scott Bell)"

That is a waste of 7 minutes. He says nothing of value.

Scheff is a science contrarian. He calls scientists liars and offers no explanations other than conspiracy speculating and religion. I don't see how anyone can be impressed with this speech. "He told me what I wanted to hear! I don't trust science, either! STANDING OVATION!"

Those who oppose the mainstream scientific view are occasionally correct, and they are usually heralded by the scientific community when it is realized. They are often given the Nobel Prize. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren's discovery of H. pylori in peptic ulcers is one of the most repeated stories in medicine. I'm not exaggerating when I say that every single one of my microbiology/biochemistry/anatomy/pathology et cetera professors told the story.

The fate of most contrarians is irrelevance. Peter Duesberg has been proven wrong by thousands of different researchers. When HIV/AIDs was first discovered in the 80's, Duesberg was asking relevant questions. One of my heroes, Kary Mullis, agreed, and supported Duesberg.

Well it has now been 25 years since Duesberg has been thoroughly debunked. Kary Mullis has since recanted his support of Duesberg's claims, instead now just supporting the right to have a differing scientific opinion, even if incorrect. Of course people like Scheff still hold on to the 1980's understanding of virology, as that fits nicely with the "everything is a conspiracy" narrative.

By the way, all of you can debunk Duesberg yourself. Go down to the local sex shop and purchase some alkyl nitrites to inhale. Duesberg claims this causes AIDs. I have inhaled quite a bit of alkyl nitrites, along with a lot of other drugs Duesberg claims cause AIDs, and I do not have AIDs.

Also, there is very compelling evidence about the serotypes HPV 16 and 18 as correlating/causing certain types of cancer, and the mechanisms are being elucidated even further every month.

http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v18/n32/full/1202818a.html

Where is the epidemiological

Where is the epidemiological proof for HPV causing cancer? What you linked to is no way proof for HPV causing cancer. Gee, some people are completely take in by the medical establishment. Show me proof! Stop seeing medicine as a holy religion.

Good luck getting links from this guy

I went around and around with him on the Monsanto bee angle wherein he uses a Monsanto funded study to prove Monsanto is awesome.

http://www.dailypaul.com/283240/delysids-guide-to-thinking-a...

http://www.dailypaul.com/287370/farmer-feeds-gmo-corn-to-his...

I really think that science and logic can help us all get to the bottom of things, but these science fetish types just like sounding smart without actually doing the hard work. Smug arrogance and a few large technical words, an argument does not win. Give me something I can put into Excel. And knowing how our government, financial, and other systems have been jacked by mechanisms with no accountability, it is the height of naivety to think that people who wear white coats are not on the take as well.

Anyway, I feel your pain of nailing jello to the wall.

Thank you! Too many people

Thank you! Too many people just believe whatever the medical establishment says and then act like WE are the ones living on faith rather than reason! I am pro-science, and that is why I demand proof before believing something.

The problem is that you are getting info 20 years old

This is exactly what the anti-science conspiracy theorists do. They just ignore all modern science and rehash decades-old hypotheses when there was a much poorer understanding. People do this shit with Weston Price. They guy died 70 years ago, and people act like no knew science discoveries have been made since then.

Here is some reading to do on HIV pathogenesis.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/path.2276/abstrac...

Here is HPV and cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17826171

Liam's data is not 20 years

Liam's data is not 20 years old. Do you even bother to read what you critique? Look again Einstein.

I read your abstract and

I read your abstract and still see no epidemiological evidence behind the notion for HPV causing cancer. None. If you want, send the full article and I will be glad to read it.

I have done plenty of reading on HIV, whatever it is. I could share reading for you to do, but somehow, I doubt you would even look at it.

Keri Mullis has NOT recanted.

Keri Mullis has NOT recanted. And your anecdotal luck in not getting sick from poppers means nothing. Many people smoke into old age and never get cancer. That doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause cancer.

And please show me the reference that proves Duesberg wrong. As a fellow gay man I think your ignorance of AIDS and this issue is appalling.

Show us proof, not medical establishment propaganda.

I'm not gay. That's why Duesberg is full of crap about drugs

How many straight people developed AIDs from drug use? NONE.

Also there is no evidence from HIV-negative patients developing AIDs simply from using anti-virals. It is standard for medical professionals to go on a months long course of anti-virals in case of a needle-stick, and they do not develop AIDs.

Kary Mullis has kept his mouth shut for 15 years. All of his quotes regarding HIV/AIDs were in the early 1990's. I can't find the specific source I got my information on, but I read that he no longer actively defends the Duesberg theories. If you can find something Mullis said or wrote defending the hypothesis that "HIV does not cause AIDs" since the year 2000 please share it.

Um, John Holmes, Larry

Um, John Holmes, Larry Flynt's wife, etc. Almost every single "straight" AIDS patient who NEVER took the AIDS meds, WERE drug addicts. The epidemiology of AIDS is very clear. Aside from hemophiliacs, it is extremely rare for non drug addicts to get AIDS unless they are living a fastlane sex lifestyle. Even most African AIDS patients test negative when they actually are tested.

Your ignorance is stunning. No one claims that a few months of current dosages of AIDS meds will cause AIDS. Maybe a few months of the old dosage of AZT would, but not the current dosages. Some of the AIDS meds are widespread in their anti microbial impact.

If you can find where Mullis has "recanted" please do so. Till then, you might not want to write things you can't support.

I have followed this for years. You probably don't want to get into a match with me on this.

I meant monogamous

I meant non-promiscuous, drug-using straight people.

Pornstars getting AIDs just disproves Duesberg even more. HIV is sexually transmitted, HIV develops into AIDs.