Talk:SV40

message: Hello, please help me understand something ... Wikipedia shows no edits from either of these IPs except for SV40 and you continue to engage in an edit war with users ... what is your reasoning? If you are a medical expert on SV40 then please help us make this page better but I have yet to see you make a single constructive edit.  Furthermore making malicious edits to the page and substituting references to make it look like I'm calling something else into question is a personal attack that I do not appreciate.  Boston2austin (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok what we do in these situations is you state your objections, like you did above, then we all decide what we should write the article like and change it accordingly. Although I have not checked, it sounds like your suggestions are reasonable and the text should be changed accordingly. However, we do not want to delete real research papers if they are references and relevant.--Filll (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is the version you suggested:
Some have hypothesized that SV40 can cause cancer in humans. This hypothesis is supported by studies indicating that SV40 is present in  an increased subset of human tumor tissues, such brain tumors, bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, as compared to controls.Am J Med. 2003 Jun 1;114(8):675-84 . In addition, SV40 may act as a cocarcinogen with crocidolite to cause mesothelioma   (review 
)   
However, the United States National Cancer Institute has recently stated SV40 "likely does not cause cancer in humans", but they went on to say "additional laboratory research is needed to better define methods for SV40 detection, as laboratory studies looking for SV40 DNA in human tumors have offered conflicting results."  In addition they have stated "There is also a need to conduct additional studies evaluating cancer patients and controls for antibodies to SV40, which would be present in cancer patients if SV40 causes cancer."
Studies Find No Evidence That SV40 is Related to Human Cancer, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health website, Posted: 08/23/2004, Updated: 03/01/2005 
The phrase "This hypothesis is supported by studies indicating that SV40 is present in  an increased subset of human tumor tissues" makes no sense. 
We also do not remove cited reliable sources.
That is a start. There is probably more. But that is a start. --Filll (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I replaced the summary of the results with a direct quote from the conclusion of the report. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User: 141.158.252.27 / 151.201.157.162 

message: The intro states "SV40 became a highly controversial subject"... Though I'm sure the polio vaccine infection may have outraged or scared people, I'm not sure saying the virus itself became a controversial subject is entirely correct. Firstly, it implies there was some kind of positive/negative divide of opinion, as if some scientists were in favour of contaminating vaccines with a virus and some were opposed. Secondly, the virus itself isn't really a subject that can be controversial; issues can be controversial: wars, government decisions etc. but self-propagating molecules less so Jebus989✰ 17:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SV40 controversial? 

message: And why not include this reference? which was once removed by lack of sources, but now its sources are included.
In fact, truth might never came from "disclosed" sources. 
But because this subject is related to SV40, i admit it must be included, as an informative brief.
According to www.naturalnews.com/033584_Dr_Maurice_Hilleman_SV40.html  Naturalnews.com] where a suspicious footage is available, interviewing Dr Maurice Hilleman there is some speculation that those wild monkeys were carriers of many wild viruses which could not be detected and thus inactivated by the methods at that time, making the vaccine contaminated with viruses like the SV40  but also AIDS  virus. The OPV hypothesis is well discussed and the subject was further investigated by scientists which later refuted such hypothesis with an article on the journal Nature . Although some evidence according to Edward Hooper, who wrote a book where suggests historical and scientific subjects, to demonstrate that the theory was buried prematurely, and that the OPV theory relates to a different polio vaccine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.81.110.27 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  OPV and AIDS Origin 

message: However, the United States National Cancer Institute announced in 2004 that although SV40 does cause cancer in some animal models, "substantial epidemiological evidence has accumulated to indicate that SV40 likely does not cause cancer in humans".
The citation for this passage gives a 404 error. Further, it seems that issues related to this topic discussed back in 2008 were not adequately resolved. 
--Ryan W (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Marked as a dead link Jebus989✰ 10:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Link goes nowhere

message: It wasn't until 1982 or 1987 in the United Kingdom that the seed vaccine that was being used to create the polio vaccine was finally renewed, leading to there being a SV40-free version of the vaccine. I've updated the end date now to reflect this, and remove the systemic-bias that focused on the United States situation. --Rebroad (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  misleading dates in the first paragraph