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.
You know what they say, correlation (or association) is not causality. Your quoted excerpts said there is an association between some cancers and SV40. And one of your links specifically said:
"It appears unlikely that SV40 infection alone is sufficient to cause human malignancy, as we did not observe an epidemic of cancers following the administration of SV40-contaminated vaccines."
But, there are also plenty of people throughout the industry who absolutely care. I know many that care and work hard.
Me too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassy Fae
I also know enough scientists who are sick themselves.
Thats how we lost my Aunt. A rare one & very agressive.
I wonder if there are supporting statistics.
When I first started working moons ago it was my great privilege to work up and create a deliver formulation for a child who had cancer. The kid was part of a clinical trial and I don't know what the drug was or the outcome, but I was happy to participate and it gave great meaning to me about my decision to enter this field in those initial days.[/quote]
Too simplistic. Caring or not caring is not black and white, there are lots of shades of gray, there is more vs. less care and more vs. less greed.
You've got on one end of the spectrum the people that do a tremendous amount of bro bono or volunteer work, that are willing to personally sacrifice tens of thousands of $ every year in potential income, in order to help individuals that would otherwise not have a fair chance. In the middle of the spectrum you've got the people that try to adhere to ethical rules but at the same time won't accept a role that helps others but requires a sacrifice of personal income. And at the other end of the spectrum are the truly greedy healthcare providers (such as the doctors that make up fake procedures in order to scam the insurance company, or the insurance company that drops someone's coverage on a technicality when they need treatment for cancer).
Where on the spectrum do you put yourself, and why? Let's rate on a scale from 1 (totally selfless) to 10 (greedy and will do anything to get more money you think you won't get caught for).
This is too complicated. Also, it's a bit much to force people into your definitions of what it is to care. If you want to break it down internally that's your prerogative, but if someone spends the vast majority of their time in an effort that will ultimately help others in some capacity it what it is.
At the time the contamination was found, there were close to 30,000 cases of polio annually in the US, with an upward trend for more. The decision to use the vaccine was made in the context of the known risk of polio and the absence of any known human risk from SV40.
Quote:
Any indication of my having paid homage to appease the demi-god Polio while suggesting that SV40 cancer victims were sacraficial lambs of minimum consequence will stop now. It was required at the beginning of this thread but now I'd just be lying.
In other words, you think polio was trivial. I assure you that the people living through the polio era did not think so. There are no unequivocably confirmed cases of cancer in humans caused by SV40. Your saying there are does not make it true.
You continue to pile on sources while you ignore the fact that none of the sources you provide proof that SV40 causes cancer. In particular, you continue to use research that was done using methods that are now known to be suspect.
This is an excellent summary describing why SV40 cannot be definitively said to cause cancer in humans:
"Several recent studies suggest that older detection methodologies were flawed, and the limitations of these methods could account for most, if not all, of the positive correlations of SV40 in human tumors to date. Although many people may have been exposed to SV40 by polio vaccination, there is inadequate evidence to support widespread SV40 infection in the population, increased tumor incidence in those individuals who received contaminated vaccine, or a direct role for SV40 in human cancer."
The authors are from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
You have certainly not demonstrated that there is any conspiracy concerning SV40 and cancer. The sheer volume of material on the subject available on the internet disproves that.
Tell you what?
At the time the contamination was found, there were close to 30,000 cases of polio annually in the US, with an upward trend for more. The decision to use the vaccine was made in the context of the known risk of polio and the absence of any known human risk from SV40.
In other words, you think polio was trivial. I assure you that the people living through the polio era did not think so. There are no unequivocably confirmed cases of cancer in humans caused by SV40. Your saying there are does not make it true.
I doubt that Polio was at all trivial for the 10-15% that were left mobility disabled, nor the 5-10% who died.
But the death rate from Polio in 1950 was 2 per 100,000. And 1 per 100,000 in 1954. Apparently, even at the time, doctors were trying to offer some perspective:
Dubuque Telegraph Herald
(August 21, 1949) No one wants polio.
And no one wants to get hit by a car
while crossing the street. The best
you can do is to observe the traffic
safety rules. Even then you milght be hit.
Even that slim chance doesn’t keep you
glued to the corner, afraid to go across.
“Parents and their children would be far
better off if they took the same reasonable
attitude toward polio,” Dr. Van Riper said*.
Long Beach Press Telegram (May 12, 1955)
They warn against "poliophobia"
as well as against polio. Poliophobia
is the illness of a person who is so
afraid of polio, fear alone makes him
ill. In extreme cases, there may even
be paralysis, along with fever and
other symptoms. It's amazing what
a mind that is being powered by
hysterical fear can do to its body.*
Why would people chose to trade a 1:100,000 mortality risk for even the possibility of cancer? Cancer, in 1955, killed 125 people per 100,000 ... One hundred & twenty five times as high as Polio. **
I don't think any "expert" made this choice based on a desire to protect the public health; it sounds more like they wanted to protect the Immunization Policy/program from a questioning public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
You continue to pile on sources while you ignore the fact that none of the sources you provide proof that SV40 causes cancer. In particular, you continue to use research that was done using methods that are now known to be suspect.
This is an excellent summary describing why SV40 cannot be definitively said to cause cancer in humans: http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2005.03.7101
"Several recent studies suggest that older detection methodologies were flawed, and the limitations of these methods could account for most, if not all, of the positive correlations of SV40 in human tumors to date. Although many people may have been exposed to SV40 by polio vaccination, there is inadequate evidence to support widespread SV40 infection in the population, increased tumor incidence in those individuals who received contaminated vaccine, or a direct role for SV40 in human cancer."
The authors are from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
And you continue to get this backwards. The research with the "suspect methods"; is the research from the NIH that states there is no evidence that SV40 causes cancer in humans.
I've continued to pile on the sources because you continue to twist it. Among my sources are sworn congressional testimony & an actual letter to the NIH from an independent lab as to why they were removing themselves from participating in a NIH sponsored study: They didn't want to ruin their reputation.
Many of my sources used the ELISA method & there is no better method available.
Case in point is the source you gave above; "Dana-Farber ...". When you open the link, look under the "Authors" for the line that reads "DOI: http ..." & click on it. It will re-open to look almost identical but you will see on the right hand side a link that says "choose" with an arrow down symbol.
Click the arrow. It opens a menu & select "Authors Disclosure ..."
It states: "Author: James A. DeCaprio. Employment: Novartis Pharmaceuticals (B)
Dollar Amount Codes (A) < $10,000 (B) $10,000-$99,900".
He is straight from Pharma with a wad of cash in his pocket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
You have certainly not demonstrated that there is any conspiracy concerning SV40 and cancer. The sheer volume of material on the subject available on the internet disproves that.
Ironically; YOU may just have.
You don't really believe that Mr.James A. DeCaprio from Novartis Pharmaceuticas, who wrote your " excellent summary" was just playing kindly benefactor for the cause of cancer research; do you? And I highly doubt he is paying hush-money out to protect a decades long conspiracy either.
What Mr.James A. DeCaprio IS doing at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; is making his contribution to fight an attempt to place SV40 on the list of "Known Carcinogens",maintained by the International Agency for Research in Cancer (World Health Organization).
When Dr. Gadzar, formerly with the NIH, testified for congress & said:
"SV–40 is one of the most potent cancer-causing agents discovered
for human cells. It’s—because of—perhaps it’s the most potent
transforming agent, cancer-causing agent for human cells." ***
... He was right. And he wasn't the only one, by far; that knew it.
Ever since the strange sv40 cancers started appearing in humans, it was noted that the sites of the cancer were atypical because they are not in easy areas of the human body to "get to". Not only was sv40 crossing barriers ... it was crossing the Blood Brain Barrier.
SV40 is not just any virus. It's a Viral Vector.
Combined in the right way; it will transport chemicals anywhere it can go; meaning it can be used as a chemotherapy agent. It's been developed already to treat Prostrate cancer & if the patient survives the 5 year mark it has successfully treated cancer; no matter if the patient develops an sv40 cancer down the road, they will have already made millions.
Unless the WHO places it on a known Carcinogenic list, of course.
Trilexium & Anisina, from both Pfizer & Merck & Co are two such agents. *****
If SV40 could not cause cancer in humans; SV40 could not (initially) TREAT cancer in humans.
Additional information regarding the "how not to" cause SV40 in humans, since SV40 does cause cancer in humans:
"Simian virus 40 (SV40) vectors are efficient vehicles for gene delivery to hematopoietic and hepatic cells. To ensure their replication incompetence and because of safety considerations, it is critical that the vectors do not contain T-antigen sequences." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...42682202917915
"The pGL4.13[luc2/ SV40] Vector contains the luc2 reporter gene and the SV40 early enhancer/promoter for use as an expression control or a co-reporter vector."
GenBank® Accession Number: AY738225. http://101.200.202.226/files/prod/ma.../541803001.pdf
Just for fun as I honestly have no clue as to what this means, this linked PDF product info statement contains this footnote:
"GenBank is a registered trademark of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."
Why would people chose to trade a 1:100,000 mortality risk for even the possibility of cancer? Cancer, in 1955, killed 125 people per 100,000 ... One hundred & twenty five times as high as Polio.
I don't think any "expert" made this choice based on a desire to protect the public health; it sounds more like they wanted to protect the Immunization Policy/program from a questioning public.
Your newspaper articles make the point for me. People were scared of polio. Reports about the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine were front page news:
People were not afraid of dying so much as they were afraid of permanent paralysis, including being confined to an iron lung.
You are bound and determined to try to show that the people who made the decision to use up vaccine that might (or might not) contain SV40 knew that it could cause cancer in humans. They did not. Humans are not hamsters. There was no known human illness from SV40 at that time.
Your implication that SV40 would cause 125 cancers per 100,000 is a bit dishonest, in my opinion.
Quote:
And you continue to get this backwards. The research with the "suspect methods"; is the research from the NIH that states there is no evidence that SV40 causes cancer in humans.
The suspect research is that which could not differentiate SV40 from other viruses: BKV and JCV, which are so common that the majority of the US population carries them.
Quote:
I've continued to pile on the sources because you continue to twist it. Among my sources are sworn congressional testimony & an actual letter to the NIH from an independent lab as to why they were removing themselves from participating in a NIH sponsored study: They didn't want to ruin their reputation.
Congressional testimony based on testing we now know was inadequate.
Quote:
Many of my sources used the ELISA method & there is no better method available.
It does not work if the ELISA cannot tell SV40 from BKV or JCV.
Yes, there is a better method. It's called polymerase chain reaction - PCR - and the laboratory using it has to be scrupulous to make sure materials being tested are not contaminated by SV40 being used for research purposes in the same lab that is doing the testing. That is another reason early research cannot be trusted. Such contamination happened.
Quote:
It states: "Author: James A. DeCaprio. Employment: Novartis Pharmaceuticals (B)
Dollar Amount Codes (A) < $10,000 (B) $10,000-$99,900".
He is straight from Pharma with a wad of cash in his pocket.
His potential conflict of interest is disclosed. Can you point to anything in the article that is inaccurate? Be specific, please.
Quote:
You don't really believe that Mr.James A. DeCaprio from Novartis Pharmaceuticas, who wrote your " excellent summary" was just playing kindly benefactor for the cause of cancer research; do you? And I highly doubt he is paying hush-money out to protect a decades long conspiracy either.
What Mr.James A. DeCaprio IS doing at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; is making his contribution to fight an attempt to place SV40 on the list of "Known Carcinogens",maintained by the International Agency for Research in Cancer (World Health Organization).
It's a bit petty to refer to Dr. DeCaprio as "Mr.", isn't it? He does actual research on SV40. Unlike those who take a pre-conceived notion and then try to prove it, he goes where the evidence takes him, and his conclusion is that the evidence does not support SV40 causing cancer.
Do you have a link to anything he has said to WHO about SV40? I cannot seem to find one.
Quote:
When Dr. Gadzar, formerly with the NIH, testified for congress & said:
"SV–40 is one of the most potent cancer-causing agents discovered for human cells. It’s—because of—perhaps it’s the most potent transforming agent, cancer-causing agent for human cells."
... He was right. And he wasn't the only one, by far; that knew it.
Do you mean the Dr. Gazdar who was involved in this research? I cannot find any reference to a Dr. Gadzar.
Ever since the strange sv40 cancers started appearing in humans, it was noted that the sites of the cancer were atypical because they are not in easy areas of the human body to "get to". Not only was sv40 crossing barriers ... it was crossing the Blood Brain Barrier.
SV40 is not just any virus. It's a Viral Vector.
Combined in the right way; it will transport chemicals anywhere it can go; meaning it can be used as a chemotherapy agent. It's been developed already to treat Prostrate cancer & if the patient survives the 5 year mark it has successfully treated cancer; no matter if the patient develops an sv40 cancer down the road, they will have already made millions.
Unless the WHO places it on a known Carcinogenic list, of course.
Trilexium & Anisina, from both Pfizer & Merck & Co are two such agents.
If SV40 could not cause cancer in humans; SV40 could not (initially) TREAT cancer in humans.
Many viruses can infect the brain. There is nothing unusual about that.
I do not know what you think a vector is. In the case of a virus being used therapeutically it just means the virus - which has been modified and is no longer the wild virus - is a carrier for the therapeutic agent of interest.
Trilexium and Anisina are not virus based and are made by Novogen. Yes, getting drugs across the blood brain barrier is difficult. That is why it is a breakthrough when drugs for brain cancer are able to do that. It has nothing to do with viruses, though.
There is no reason to think that only a cancer causing virus could be used to treat cancer. One area of research right now involves using genetically modified poliovirus to treat brain cancer.
Which brings us back to the fact that SV40 has not been unequivocally shown to cause cancer in humans. Do you really think that scientists would use SV40 if they thought they would cause cancer down the road with it?
Additional information regarding the "how not to" cause SV40 in humans, since SV40 does cause cancer in humans:
"Simian virus 40 (SV40) vectors are efficient vehicles for gene delivery to hematopoietic and hepatic cells. To ensure their replication incompetence and because of safety considerations, it is critical that the vectors do not contain T-antigen sequences." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...42682202917915
"The pGL4.13[/b][luc2/ [b]SV40 Vector contains the luc2 reporter gene and the SV40 early enhancer/promoter for use as an expression control or a co-reporter vector."
GenBank® Accession Number: AY738225. http://101.200.202.226/files/prod/ma.../541803001.pdf
Just for fun as I honestly have no clue as to what this means, this linked PDF product info statement contains this footnote:
"GenBank is a registered trademark of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."
Yes, SV40 is used in all sorts of research and has been for a long time. Your point?
"GenBank ® is the NIH genetic sequence database, an annotated collection of all publicly available DNA sequences (Nucleic Acids Research, 2013 Jan;41(D1): D36-42). GenBank is part of the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration , which comprises the DNA DataBank of Japan (DDBJ), the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), and GenBank at NCBI. These three organizations exchange data on a daily basis."
Your newspaper articles make the point for me. People were scared of polio. Reports about the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine were front page news: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sla...l-original.jpg
People were not afraid of dying so much as they were afraid of permanent paralysis, including being confined to an iron lung.
I actually found many more accounts of "Polio Patriotism" from 1962 in anticipation of the Sabin formula on sugar lumps.
With huge headlines in the newspapers reading "KO. Polio!" it would have been hard to miss.
To avoid being accused of "trivializing" the Polio experience that preceeded my existence, I set out to gain some data-based perspective.
In 1954, the year prior to the start of the mass-immunization campaign, the dreaded Polio caused these deaths:
Acute poliomyelitis ----------------------- 1,362
Late effects of Acute poliomyelitis --------- 132
To equal 1,494 total.
So I wondered; "What else, in 1954, was causing similar numbers of deaths?" And I found one that was close:
Blow from falling object ------------------ 1,255
Yes. You had almost as much of a chance of dying from something falling out of the sky & landing on you as you did from dying from Polio. Just to bring the odds a little closer, I found that if I included:
Execution -------- 82
... It would bring my non-Polio risk number to 1,337. Which is close but Polio does still deserve to be considered the more serious risk. After all, random objects falling from above combined with being executed killed 11.7% less U.S. citizens in 1954 than Polio did.
Unfortunately, somewhere between 1954 & 1965, the CDC stopped offering data on both falling objects & execution, instead opting to lump them in with: "Accidents; Other" & "Homicide". Which I suppose is for the better anyway because in 1965: Acute poliomyelitis ------ 0.0. So I've lost all data to continue my comparative analysis. But given this new perspective, I wonder at oddities such as this:
RESOLUTION: Designating 2004 as ‘‘The Year of Polio Awareness’’ (2003 Bill/Senate):
[b]"...to take immediate action to educate the people of the United States about the need for polio vaccination ... [b]"
Now; either the risk of Polio is being inflated or the Senate is not giving the risk of death by falling object & execution the attention it deserves. If they are going to recognize Polio, 50 years later, with an entire "Year of" ... the least they could do is have a PSA here & there encouraging the use of life-saving helmets. Maybe bullet-proof helmets; since Execution is a factor.
How about "Compulsory Bullet-Proof Helmets"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
You are bound and determined to try to show that the people who made the decision to use up vaccine that might (or might not) contain SV40 knew that it could cause cancer in humans. They did not. Humans are not hamsters. There was no known human illness from SV40 at that time.
No.
I just like having you state for the record as many times as possible that someone besides the person or the parent of the person being vaccinated; made the decision to use a product that was known to be contaminated with a virus that was known to cause cancer in animals. Thats all.
With all the recent legislation regarding compulsory vaccination it's important for people to be aware of what kind of decisions these "experts" have made in the past & might make again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Your implication that SV40 would cause 125 cancers per 100,000 is a bit dishonest, in my opinion.
And it would be dishonest if thats what I was implying.
But I'm not. I'm STATING (see above link) that in 1954 the mortality rate from cancer was 125 deaths per 100,000 population. And the mortality rate from Polio was 1 per 100,000.
Why would I have to imply anything at all with stats like that? I actually tend to believe that most of us CAN think for themselves. No implications neccessary.
I actually found many more accounts of "Polio Patriotism" from 1962 in anticipation of the Sabin formula on sugar lumps.
With huge headlines in the newspapers reading "KO. Polio!" it would have been hard to miss.
To avoid being accused of "trivializing" the Polio experience that preceeded my existence, I set out to gain some data-based perspective.
In 1954, the year prior to the start of the mass-immunization campaign, the dreaded Polio caused these deaths:
Acute poliomyelitis ----------------------- 1,362
Late effects of Acute poliomyelitis --------- 132
To equal 1,494 total.
So I wondered; "What else, in 1954, was causing similar numbers of deaths?" And I found one that was close:
Blow from falling object ------------------ 1,255
Yes. You had almost as much of a chance of dying from something falling out of the sky & landing on you as you did from dying from Polio. Just to bring the odds a little closer, I found that if I included:
Execution -------- 82
... It would bring my non-Polio risk number to 1,337. Which is close but Polio does still deserve to be considered the more serious risk. After all, random objects falling from above combined with being executed killed 11.7% less U.S. citizens in 1954 than Polio did.
Unfortunately, somewhere between 1954 & 1965, the CDC stopped offering data on both falling objects & execution, instead opting to lump them in with: "Accidents; Other" & "Homicide". Which I suppose is for the better anyway because in 1965: Acute poliomyelitis ------ 0.0. So I've lost all data to continue my comparative analysis. But given this new perspective, I wonder at oddities such as this:
RESOLUTION: Designating 2004 as ‘‘The Year of Polio Awareness’’ (2003 Bill/Senate):
[b]"...to take immediate action to educate the people of the United States about the need for polio vaccination ... [b]"
Now; either the risk of Polio is being inflated or the Senate is not giving the risk of death by falling object & execution the attention it deserves. If they are going to recognize Polio, 50 years later, with an entire "Year of" ... the least they could do is have a PSA here & there encouraging the use of life-saving helmets. Maybe bullet-proof helmets; since Execution is a factor.
How about "Compulsory Bullet-Proof Helmets"?
No.
I just like having you state for the record as many times as possible that someone besides the person or the parent of the person being vaccinated; made the decision to use a product that was known to be contaminated with a virus that was known to cause cancer in animals. Thats all.
With all the recent legislation regarding compulsory vaccination it's important for people to be aware of what kind of decisions these "experts" have made in the past & might make again.
And it would be dishonest if thats what I was implying.
But I'm not. I'm STATING (see above link) that in 1954 the mortality rate from cancer was 125 deaths per 100,000 population. And the mortality rate from Polio was 1 per 100,000.
Why would I have to imply anything at all with stats like that? I actually tend to believe that most of us CAN think for themselves. No implications neccessary.
I stopped looking at much of this because it has gone so far afield from the original debate but this caught my eye, perhaps because my father contracted polio as a child and suffered permanent weakness in one leg such that it had about half the muscle mass as the other and was 3 inches shorter than his "good" leg. He had to have outrageously expensive shoes made to walk normally - hundreds of dollars a pair back in the '70's when I was a kid. Just one relatively MINOR case of polio.
You're quite foolish if you choose to only look at polio fatalities and not all the cases of varying degrees of paralysis and permanent weakness, shortened limbs, etc. that resulted from the virus.
Here are some numbers showing about 10 times as many cases total as those resulting in fatalities. Also, it is unclear if you are reporting on paralytic or acute poliomylitis, but it appears you're not counting both or your numbers would be double.
I'm not sure what you're trying to show by minimizing the permanent damage done to MANY, MANY individuals...even if they didn't actually die.
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.
