Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
False: There was a consensus, among some scientists, to lie to the citizens of the U.S.; regarding the scientific consensus ... that SV40 causes cancer in U.S. citizens.
The conclusion of the IOM, which you choose not to quote:
"... the committee concludes that the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between SV40-containing polio vaccines and cancer."
Your source is fifteen years old. These researchers looked for SV40 with more modern techniques. The article is from 2016.
"In contrast to studies suggesting the involvement of SV40 in human neoplasia, we found no evidence of the expression of SV40 early proteins in ependymomas, choroid plexus and other brain tumors, mesotheliomas, and non-Hodgkin lymphomas."
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
It's not dumbing down. It's LYING.
There is no such thing as "brain chemical imbalance."
They are lying to convince people to take the drugs: "In my opinion, you have a brain chemical imbalance. I have no proof, I cannot TEST for it, but you must take this drug."
A whole category of drugs based on LYING.
Treatment for mental illness is based on symptoms, but it is possible to measure neurotransmitters and see what psychotherapeutic drugs do to them. That requires research methods and it is neither desirable nor necessary to do them for patients seeking treatment for conditions such as depression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
You do realize that cancer is hereditary, according the American Cancer Society. SV40 causes cancers in the parent, which puts the child at risk, which puts their child at risk.
Multiple generations of cancer patients.
The amount in liability would be STAGGERING. Which is why it will never be acknowledged.
Not all cancers are hereditary. In order to cause cancer in a child, SV40 would have to be transmitted from parent - essentially only the mother - to the child. At this point there is no evidence that the virus spreads from mother to fetus or from person to person.
What is STAGGERING is the misinformation you are spreading here.
There is no such thing as "brain chemical imbalance."
I'm sorry, but this assertion, as it stands, seems to be absurdly overstated. You can certainly say that the brain chemical hypothesis is unproven, and you are correct to point out that we don't have any good biochemical tests for mental disorder diagnosis, but you cannot plausibly say that "there is no such thing as" brain chemical imbalances. The word "imbalance" is a simplistic catch-all term for all sort of mysterious dysfunctions that can occur in biochemical pathways, but is not an unreasonable term. Most diseases involve too much or too little of some chemical components, and I am willing to bet that you cannot give any plausible argument for thinking that the brain could somehow be exempt from "imbalances" in this broad, vague sense. Diseases affect different organs, the brain is an organ.
Also, we have a great deal of evidence for thinking that chemicals affect brain function. So, again, if you are going to make a flat-out assertion that there is no such thing as brain chemical imbalances, the burden of proof is on you to back up this claim.
On a more personal note: My wife takes an anti-depressant and the results are astounding. I'm not saying that the same results could not potentially be achieved by other means (e.g., diet, talk-therapy, meditation, etc.), but the fact remains that the effects of the drugs are clear.
I am no fan of big pharma. I think that direct-to-consumer advertising should be banned in America and I think that pharma does, in effect, lie about many things. But I see no reason to reject the hypothesis that mental disorders are caused (at least to some extent) by brain chemical "imbalances" in a broad sense. But I'm open to arguments and evidence, if you have any.
You do realize the billions and billions of dollars that would HAVE to be paid out from lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit to multiple generations IF this acknowledged as true?
The evidence points to it as truth.
The "consensus" may not, and you need to ask yourself why.
Cochristi, you are a saint for trying to explain this to those who CHOOSE NOT to see.
Thank you, I've literally never been called a saint before! I'm going to show my husband this the next time he grumbles about "You think your right about everything ..."
To be honest; I know I'm not right about everything ... But I'm right about this.
And you are right about the "choosing not to see". I made that choice too, a long time ago & I already know that it's unlikely that anything I do, say or show here (on CD) will change anybody's mind.
I know how powerful the indoctrination is. I wouldn't say I was "one of them", more like "with them". For that matter, the majority of health care professionals the average person may come into contact with on a day to day basis is not one OF them either. The Pharma reps are just sales associates (who just happen to find the best Lasagna money can buy ... among other things) & doctors are taught what to know. They are ... Indoctrinated. By defenition.
God forbid that anyone here on CD become UN-indoctrinated the same way I did.
The problem; is that we have a real need for Vaccines. We, as people in one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world; are so lucky to have the advantage of vaccines...
Why, on earth, would we want to allow human greed & lack of integrity on the part of a few ... endanger the health of many?
I know there are people who's mind I will not change. But for every ONE of them who would come here & object, there are hundreds who are sitting quietly & reading. Their mouths are shut but there eyes are open. And this is going to be relevant in the near future because the SV40 is going to be relevant in the future.
Some very dangerous precedent has been set now, regarding the legalization of certain experiments with tissues that have been banned from use in vaccines since 1954. Based on SV40 ... some of these tissues have already been, or soon wil be ... approved.
There is something else too. Something is wrong; not was wrong: Is wrong. Fifty years after the fact; nobody at any level of science or government should be trying so hard ... to not look wrong. But I guess only time will tell.
So people can laugh at me, or try to discredit me but I don't have a choice in this matter anymore. We could be getting this right; we have the knowledge & the technology ... to get this right. Why should we accept anything less?
I'm sorry, but this assertion, as it stands, seems to be absurdly overstated. You can certainly say that the brain chemical hypothesis is unproven, and you are correct to point out that we don't have any good biochemical tests for mental disorder diagnosis, but you cannot plausibly say that "there is no such thing as" brain chemical imbalances. The word "imbalance" is a simplistic catch-all term for all sort of mysterious dysfunctions that can occur in biochemical pathways, but is not an unreasonable term. Most diseases involve too much or too little of some chemical components, and I am willing to bet that you cannot give any plausible argument for thinking that the brain could somehow be exempt from "imbalances" in this broad, vague sense. Diseases affect different organs, the brain is an organ.
Also, we have a great deal of evidence for thinking that chemicals affect brain function. So, again, if you are going to make a flat-out assertion that there is no such thing as brain chemical imbalances, the burden of proof is on you to back up this claim.
On a more personal note: My wife takes an anti-depressant and the results are astounding. I'm not saying that the same results could not potentially be achieved by other means (e.g., diet, talk-therapy, meditation, etc.), but the fact remains that the effects of the drugs are clear.
I am no fan of big pharma. I think that direct-to-consumer advertising should be banned in America and I think that pharma does, in effect, lie about many things. But I see no reason to reject the hypothesis that mental disorders are caused (at least to some extent) by brain chemical "imbalances" in a broad sense. But I'm open to arguments and evidence, if you have any.
Come on, Gaylenwoof - your wife has been LIED to...and even you have bought into it! But that's because you're weak-minded enough to think you (your wife) needs drugs to think straight. No nevermind that there are hundreds of studies done on different neurotransmitters and on meds that impact neurotransmitters showing the effects and the improvements brought about. We're all just deluded by the drug companies. I don't believe drug companies CARE about the people taking their meds but I'm also not stupid enough to think that they do all their own research and don't rely on outside work to guide what they're doing.
Admittedly, the OP will have difficulty proving "the lie"...but that's all on them. In the meantime, your wife, myself, and many others will continue to benefit from drugs that help balance our neurotransmitter levels.
You do realize that cancer is hereditary, according the American Cancer Society. SV40 causes cancers in the parent, which puts the child at risk, which puts their child at risk.
Multiple generations of cancer patients.
The amount in liability would be STAGGERING. Which is why it will never be acknowledged.
OK, now your ignorance is really showing. Some (not all) cancers have genetic risk factors and sometimes those factors are heritable. But an acquired risk factor of any type can only be passed to an offspring if the genetic material of a germ cell (sperm or ova) is affected. So, for one thing I am not aware that any of the four cancer types you listed has a heritable genetic risk factor to begin with, and even if it did, I have not seen any claims that SV-40 does indeed alter that gene and in particular, alter that gene in a germ cell. And that is of course assuming SV-40 is itself a risk factor (which is debatable).
So you need to produce some research evidence to back up your assertion as it looks pretty far fetched to me.
The conclusion of the IOM, which you choose not to quote:
"... the committee concludes that the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between SV40-containing polio vaccines and cancer."
Your source is fifteen years old. These researchers looked for SV40 with more modern techniques. The article is from 2016.
You misunderstood the context of my post & thats probably my fault because I didn't introduce it correctly:
I have found scientific data ... 50 years, of scientific data; that evidences human cancers that originated from SV40 contaminated Polio vaccine.
You have found scientific data that rejects that. You have had the benefit of 4 sub departments of DHHS & Pharma who have almost unlimited purchasing power to say anything they want & come up with an official statement of concensus or collaboration that are supporting your position. And why wouldn't they?
Who wants to be the guy that comes forward to say For exposing millions of people to cancer?
And not just until 1963 but until at least 1978 & possibly until 1999?
Basically; you have (almost) everything you need at your fingertips to support your claim but DESPITE that I can still match you study for study to support my claim.
And if I was wrong; I wouldn't be able to do that. But ping-ponging studies back & forth isn't what I'm "here" for. I'm trying to prove a conspiracy.
None of this would be happening; if the CDC had not "lost" the records that tracked the Polio vaccine lots.
If we had those chain of custody records, that we have for every other vaccine that has ever landed in every country, state, province, district, parish, county, clinic or straw-hut world-wide ... this whole topic would have been easily settled.
But we don't. The CDC has made two claims: first; "they didn't track vaccines back then". That was found to be entirely untrue. So now; they "lost them".
Just the Polio ones with the potentially contaminated lots. They have told Congress multiple times "We are still looking & will let you know as soon as we find them". Since 2003.
So my links changed tone in that post for a reason. I didn't need them for scientific support I wanted to introduce something else:
Sworn testimony that the NCI; who had been directed by congress to notify the public regarding the SV40 concerns; intentionally withheld that specific data from their website ... because the general public would see it.
And that Dr. Shah; who has been involved in several of the studies you have linked was, together, with Dr. Strickler; caught manipulating the data.
And that Dr. Shah; was working for Pharma the entire time he was doing "research" for the NCI & IOM.
Meaning you can't base a claim like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The evidence does not support SV40 causing cancer, and contamination of polio vaccine with SV40 was not due to fraud or conspiracy on the part of the companies that made the contaminated vaccine.
... on the studies funded by or conducted by ... the NIH, NCI, IOM & CDC. And if you can't trust those sources, as an American citizen; something is wrong.
Last edited by toosie; 02-13-2017 at 06:58 PM..
Reason: Deleted profanity
http://ascopubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1200/jco.2005.03.7101 "It is interesting to note that among the studies that have detected SV40 DNA in human cancers, many of these findings were in tumors samples from patients who were not likely to have been exposed to SV40 through poliovirus vaccination because of their young age. In these cases, SV40 exposure was presumably from another source that was not identified. It has been suggested that infants could have been exposed to SV40 by maternal transmission if their mothers received contaminated poliovirus vaccine while pregnant. However, there has been no evidence of mother-child transmission of SV40 to support this hypothesis."
Whats even more interesting is that SV40 was in the Polio Vaccine until at least 1978. Which might explain why kids born after 1963 had tumors positive for SV40:
Some Oral Poliovirus Vaccines Were Contaminated with Infectious SV40 after 1961
Rochelle Cutrone, John Lednicky, Glynis Dunn, Paola Rizzo, Maurizio Bocchetta, Konstantin Chumakov, Philip Minor and Michele Carbone 15 November 2005
"We determined that the procedure used by this manufacturer to inactivate SV40 in oral poliovirus vaccine seed stocks based on heat inactivation in the presence of MgCl2 did not completely inactivate SV40. These SV40-contaminated vaccines were produced from early 1960s to about 1978 and were used throughout the world." 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The Lederle vaccine was an oral vaccine. The evidence is that SV40 passes through the GI tract and does not cause infection in humans via the oral route.
As long you are a Hamster. Or a Mouse. From the same study as above:
"Instead, because human cells are permissive to SV40 infection, millions of viral particles are produced on infection of relatively few cells: accordingly, humans, but not rodents, can be infected through airway or gastrointestinal exposure to SV40 . This evidence suggests that the potential risk of oral SV40 administration should not be underestimated."1
Research only bothers with the "does it?" studies for our benefit & for the benefit of litigation proceedings; they don't want to walk into court in 2017 with research from 1999 so every so often they do a "if" or "does it" study. You can't study prevelence or regulation of something that doesn't exist. Many studies don't seem to question "if" but rather state it matter of factly:
ERK5 positively regulates cigarette smoke-induced urocystic epithelial-mesenchymal transition in SV‑40 immortalized human urothelial cells. 2
Ethnic differences in polyomavirus simian virus 40 seroprevalence among women in Houston, Texas. 2
Variable frequency of polyomavirus SV40 and herpesvirus EBV in lymphomas from two different urban population groups in Houston, TX. 2
The role of SV40 in malignant mesothelioma and other human malignancies. Pershouse MA1, Heivly S, Girtsman T.2006 Nov;18(12):995-1000.
Abstract: SV40 is a DNA tumor virus thrust upon human populations primarily as a contaminant in various vaccine preparations. 2
Simian virus 40 transformation, malignant mesothelioma and brain tumors. Qi F1, Carbone M, Yang H, Gaudino G.2011 Oct;5(5):683-97. doi: 10.1586/ers.11.51.
Abstract: Simian virus 40 (SV40) is a DNA virus isolated in 1960 from contaminated polio vaccines, that induces mesotheliomas, lymphomas, brain and bone tumors, and sarcomas, including osteosarcomas, in hamsters. These same tumor types have been found to contain SV40 DNA and proteins in humans. Mesotheliomas and brain tumors are the two tumor types that have been most consistently associated with SV40, and the range of positivity has varied about from 6 to 60%, although a few reported 100% of positivity and a few reported 0%. 2
This should not be happening. The initial mistake was, well; it was a mistake. But nobody really took any accountability for it. Now; we have a huge problem:
1984:" Dr. Jorge Yunis reports he has found an abnormal rearrangement of chromosomes, the structures that carry genetic information, in the cancerous cells of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a disease of the lymph glands. The illness strikes an estimated 30,000 Americans a year" Cedar Rapids Gazette December 2, 1982
1994: "American Cancer Society statistics predict that 45,000 Americans will contract non-Hodgkins lymphoma this year." Daily Herald Suburban Chicago February 12, 1994
2007: "Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma is an immune-system cancer that strikes more than 71,000 people, killing more than 19,000 each year in the United States". Rushville Republican April 12, 2007
Does anybody really think somebody will step forward NOW? And I'm the conspiracy theorist for saying
You misunderstood the context of my post & thats probably my fault because I didn't introduce it correctly:
I have found scientific data ... 50 years, of scientific data; that evidences human cancers that originated from SV40 contaminated Polio vaccine.
You have found scientific data that rejects that. You have had the benefit of 4 sub departments of DHHS & Pharma who have almost unlimited purchasing power to say anything they want & come up with an official statement of concensus or collaboration that are supporting your position. And why wouldn't they?
Who wants to be the guy that comes forward to say For exposing millions of people to cancer?
And not just until 1963 but until at least 1978 & possibly until 1999?
Basically; you have (almost) everything you need at your fingertips to support your claim but DESPITE that I can still match you study for study to support my claim.
And if I was wrong; I wouldn't be able to do that. But ping-ponging studies back & forth isn't what I'm "here" for. I'm trying to prove a conspiracy.
None of this would be happening; if the CDC had not "lost" the records that tracked the Polio vaccine lots.
If we had those chain of custody records, that we have for every other vaccine that has ever landed in every country, state, province, district, parish, county, clinic or straw-hut world-wide ... this whole topic would have been easily settled.
But we don't. The CDC has made two claims: first; "they didn't track vaccines back then". That was found to be entirely untrue. So now; they "lost them".
Just the Polio ones with the potentially contaminated lots. They have told Congress multiple times "We are still looking & will let you know as soon as we find them". Since 2003.
So my links changed tone in that post for a reason. I didn't need them for scientific support I wanted to introduce something else:
Sworn testimony that the NCI; who had been directed by congress to notify the public regarding the SV40 concerns; intentionally withheld that specific data from their website ... because the general public would see it.
And that Dr. Shah; who has been involved in several of the studies you have linked was, together, with Dr. Strickler; caught manipulating the data.
And that Dr. Shah; was working for Pharma the entire time he was doing "research" for the NCI & IOM.
Meaning you can't base a claim like this:
... on the studies funded by or conducted by ... the NIH, NCI, IOM & CDC. And if you can't trust those sources, as an American citizen; something is wrong.
Previously you quoted the IOM. Now you are saying the IOM cannot be trusted.
What the IOM said is that it could not determine, as of the time of the report, whether or not SV40 causes cancer.
There is no way to be sure who received contaminated vaccine and who did not. That makes epidemiological studies problematic. However, considering that the number of exposed vaccine recipients was potentially in the millions, a bump in cancer rates would have been expected after the vaccine was administered, with a drop afterward due to elimination of the exposure. That did not happen.
Attempts to find the virus in tissue samples from cancers using contemporary molecular biology techniques have not found it there. Older tests were confounded by contamination with viruses being used in the labs doing the testing. Antibody testing is confounded by cross reactivity between SV40 and BKV and JCV.
You can continue to use 50 year old data if you wish, but that data has been shown to be pretty much worthless.
I give you this link again. I suspect you did not read it before. It is from 2016.
"The presence of SV40 DNA has been episodically reported in malignant mesotheliomas, brain tumors, osteosarcomas, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and breast and colon cancers. In contrast, there have been epidemiological and molecular studies that suggest a lack of SV40 involvement in human disease (reviewed in refs. 1 and 21). We performed P-PIT on tumor TMAs representing brain neoplasia (261 cases, including 4 choroid plexus tumors and 11 ependymomas), malignant mesothelioma (88 cases), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (38 cases). We found no evidence of HPyV T antigen expression in any of the tissues tested."
SV40 has not been proved to cause cancer in humans. Contamination of the polio vaccine with SV40 was not deliberate. It was a hazard of the state of the art of vaccine production at the time. No one attempted to cover up the contamination and no one is covering up cancers caused by SV40.
SV40 is not evidence of fraud or a conspiracy involving the vaccine industry.
Last edited by toosie; 02-13-2017 at 07:01 PM..
Reason: Deleted profanity from post you quoted
What in the world does the Rh factor or our husband's family member's cancer treatment have to do with the discussion?
This thread was started with the question of proof of Pharma conspiracy, meaning that anyone who claims to have proof will be, by default the "conspiracy theorist".
Conspiracy theorists do not have much credibility with society in general & for good reason. In my experience, people who are "conspiracy theorists" usually have a universal mistrust of authority, including employers, law enforcement, religion, government, science, etc ...And they seem to "roll" one theory into another. They are many times clinically paranoid.
I'm too young to have been vaccinated during the 1955-1963 years & had never heard of SV40 until I researched my own Rh negative status. The "Rh" in Rh factor was named so after the Rhesus macaque monkey. Rh positive humans (85% are Rh +) and macaques share about 93% of their DNA sequence and shared a common ancestor from about 25 million years ago. It's for that reason that Salk chose the Rhesus monkey's kidney cells to start vaccine seeds.
Researching Rh negative origin online is initially cumbersome, actually, due to conspiracy theory. If you Google "Rh negative", you will see why I had to be selective. When "SV40" kept popping up I just thought it was one of those crazy topics ... until I noticed some them had NIH links. I wasn't looking for a conspiracy; it was accidental.
Family member comment: A general observation would be that successful litigation for liability for SV40 cancers will not happen & should not be used as a barometer for validity of an SV40 conspiracy. Not only due to issues of compensation but also for precedent & it's impact on research. From a pathology standpoint; tumor tissue from a SV40 cancer patient is valuable; to research. Tumor tissue from a SV40 cancer patient who survived not just one but multiple SV40 cancers is incredibly rare. And valuable; to research.
I'm sorry, but this assertion, as it stands, seems to be absurdly overstated. You can certainly say that the brain chemical hypothesis is unproven, and you are correct to point out that we don't have any good biochemical tests for mental disorder diagnosis, but you cannot plausibly say that "there is no such thing as" brain chemical imbalances. The word "imbalance" is a simplistic catch-all term for all sort of mysterious dysfunctions that can occur in biochemical pathways, but is not an unreasonable term. Most diseases involve too much or too little of some chemical components, and I am willing to bet that you cannot give any plausible argument for thinking that the brain could somehow be exempt from "imbalances" in this broad, vague sense. Diseases affect different organs, the brain is an organ.
Also, we have a great deal of evidence for thinking that chemicals affect brain function. So, again, if you are going to make a flat-out assertion that there is no such thing as brain chemical imbalances, the burden of proof is on you to back up this claim.
On a more personal note: My wife takes an anti-depressant and the results are astounding. I'm not saying that the same results could not potentially be achieved by other means (e.g., diet, talk-therapy, meditation, etc.), but the fact remains that the effects of the drugs are clear.
I am no fan of big pharma. I think that direct-to-consumer advertising should be banned in America and I think that pharma does, in effect, lie about many things. But I see no reason to reject the hypothesis that mental disorders are caused (at least to some extent) by brain chemical "imbalances" in a broad sense. But I'm open to arguments and evidence, if you have any.
Pretty simple. Medical issues have tests and treatments are based on the results of those tests.
There is no test for brain chemical imbalance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
