Talk:Oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis

message: Editor Gongwool has found an up to date textbook (2015) that provides a current view of OPV-AIDS.
Four of the five pages relevant to OPV-AIDS (pages 217,218,219,226 & 305)are readable at Google books  Page 218 is not readable there. In the chapter "Science as a Social Process", pgs 217-219 form a section titled, "Peer Review and the origin of AIDS", pg 226 is questions for students, and page 305 is "Bibliography". Curiously Worobey et al 2008, 'Direct evidence of extensive diversity of HIV-1 in Kinshasa by 1960' http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7213/abs/nature07390.html is not included in the bibliography.
Salient features of Jenkin's presentation:
*Pascal's place in the history of OPV-AIDS is aknowledged. Jenkins, (pg217), "The tainted polio vaccine hypothesis for the origin of AIDS was initially developed by Louis Pascal, described by Brian Martin at the University of Wollongong in Australia as “an independent scholar . . . based in New York City.” "
*Also aknowleged is that the OPV-AIDS hypothesis allows for chimanzee material to have been used in the production of CHAT. Jenkins, (pg217), "the hypothesis was modified to suggest that Koprowski’s team in the Congo had a chimpanzee colony as well as monkeys and used some material from chimps when they made polio vaccine.
*On the disproof of OPV-AIDS Jenkins writes, (pg 218), "Although Hooper and Martin are still promoting the tainted polio vaccine hypothesis, recent genetic work has convincingly disproven it." Jenkins then presents the background and implications of Worobey et al 2008 Worobey, M., Gemmel, M., Teuwen, D. E., Haselkorn, T., Kunstman, K., Bunce, M., Muyembe, J.-J., Kabongo, J.-M. M., Kalengayi, R. M., Van Marck, E., Gilbert, M. T. P. and Wolinsky, S. M. (2008) Direct evidence of extensive diversity of HIV-1 in Kinshasa by 1960, Nature, 455 (2 October), pp. 661-664.  then criticises Brian Martin saying BM, "simply mischaracterized Worobey’s argument as theoretical". Jenkins, (pg218) then writes, "The results of Worobey’s group that were described in a paper in Nature in 2008 were a smoking gun that caused all but a few diehards to reject the tainted polio vaccine hypothesis for the origin of AIDS, ..."
The current WP:OPV-AIDS article is at variance with Jenkins on:
*Pascal's place in the history of OPV-AIDS
*the hypothesis' inclusion of chimpanzee material as the source of SIV.
*the date from which all reasonable people rejected OPV-AIDS.
SmithBlue (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up to date textbook source on OPV-AIDS "Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology" By Stephen H. Jenkins 

message: User:Alexbrn I suggest that a reference to SV40 has validity in this article as there is easily a lack of clarity between facts concerning SV40 and speculation on HIV that confuses the two in the minds of the public. Why was did you undo this addition as an "unsourced citation" when I included a link to the Wiki SV40 article? If that isn't sufficient as a citation, then add a citation from the Institute of Medicine's 2002 report which confirms that both IPV and OPV vaccines were contaminated with SV40, although the main risk was from IPV as the IOM only could confirm that 10,000 Americans in a OPV trial were exposed to SV40. Also can include a law review reference on SV40 which reports many more were exposed to SV40 world wide via OPV. Same argument re XMRV. However it was introduced into the human population, it was undoubtedly from laboratory work and is speculated to be vaccine related although it could have been by some other method and is documented in Wiki. As I suggested on another entry of mine you undid, if you don't agree with the citations then improve them rather than removing the edits in order to present an honest and accurate representation of historical and scientific fact rather than a POV. 
:UNDONE EDIT: Although a vaccine origin of HIV/AIDS has been only speculative, it is well documented that the early polio vaccines cultured from African Green Monkey kidney cells were contaminated with Simian Virus 40 (SV40). SV40 constitutes the first known instance of animal DNA insertion into the human genome. Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) is another well known animal virus found in humans that is suspected of having vaccine origins.
SV40 IOM: https://www.nap.edu/read/10534/chapter/1
SV40 Law Review: Simian Virus 40 (SV40):A Cancer Causing Monkey Virus from FDA-Approved Vaccines. Michael E. Horwin, M.A., J.D. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, Volume 13, Number 3, 2003.
Excerpt republished with permission: http://sv40foundation.org/CPV-link.html
On XMRV: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3109487/
Seabreezes1 (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the proposed content and source? Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness to include SV40 

message: HIV belongs to Ortervirales, poliovirus to Picornavirales. They are both RNA viruses, but that's it, right?
Just wondering. To me, a layman, that sounds like a very convincing argument, so I would have expected virologists to use it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The degree of similarity between the two viruses has no bearing on the theory in question.--Marco491 (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, the OPV hypothesis is not like the SARS-CoV-2 lab leak hypothesis.  Nobody could genetically engineer viruses back in 1950s.  However, they bread viruses in tissue culture that was derived from primates, probably including Chimpanzees.  The meant that other, unrelated virus could come from the primates to the competed vaccine. Tuntable (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I believe the misunderstanding arises from the fact that paragraph "Development of hypothesis" does not explain at all that the hypothesis is based on accidental contamination of the polio vaccine with SIV virus. In fact, I think that paragraph needs an improvement.--Marco491 (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did nobody ever mention that HIV and poliovirus are completely different? 

message: The "Development of hypothesis" section needs in my opinion to be expanded. In it, Curtis' article on Rolling Stone is mentioned, but his thesis was not explained. W. D. Hamilton was said to have considered the hypothesis worthy of serious investigation, but it is not clear what the hypothesis is. Hooper's book is cited but almost nothing is said about the theses it contains.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco491 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  And a link to Hooper's 2004 paper/page would be good. Tuntable (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of hypothesis 

message: The box on the right states that the article is part of a series in "Alternative and pseudo-medicine". But the theory in question has nothing to do with this. A series of "Conspiracy theories" are also cited in the box, but again, the topic in question has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. The thesis supported by the main proponents of this hypothesis is an accidental contamination of polio vaccines with SIV viruses (see also the discussion "Should this really be called a hypothesis?" on this page). I therefore think that the categorization of this page as "alternative medicine" and as "conspiracy theory" is inappropriate should be changed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco491 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "Alternative medicine sidebar" side bar because it wasn't relevant to the topic of the article. Some examples of pages linked with "Alternative Medicine", in fact, are: "Acupuncture", "Qigong", "Yoga as therapy", while this article does not present any type of alternative medicine, since it talks about the theory of contamination of polio vaccines with SIV viruses. In the future, a more relevant side bar may be associated.--Marco491 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Actually, the HIV/OPV theory is a conspiracy theory.  That a large number of seniour virologists have conspired to suppress it with bogus science.  There is also a large amount of evidence that HIV/OPV is actually true.  However, as the conspiracy has so far been successful, we cannot say that here.  Maybe once the Covid-19 lab leak becomes recognized, HIV/OPV can be revisited. Tuntable (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative and pseudo‑medicine ?