This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

VirusesMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofviruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. SkepticismLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofscience,pseudoscience,pseudohistory andskepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guidelineWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typicallyreview articles. Here are links topossibly useful sources of information aboutSV40. PubMed providesreview articles from the past five years (limit tofree review articles) TheTRIP database providesclinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include:Centre for Reviews and Dissemination andCDC

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than400 days may be automatically archived byClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

=Reasoning

The NCI article does not state what is now stated in the article, that SV40 does not cause cancer, rather they say that "that SV40 likely does not cause cancer in humans. However, additional laboratory research is needed". This is a far different statement then saying "the United States National Cancer Institute has announced that there is no evidence that SV40 causes cancer in humans". This statement is simply incorrect, and puts a a level of assuredness into the statement that simply is not there.

The removed sentence, (that was undone) "This announcement is based on two recent studies.ref", was removed because the noted references were not what the NCI article was based on. The NCI article referenced at least 6 sources, not 2. The 2 references removed are a non sequitur, and do not refer to the section they are in. In addition, there are many references on SV40, many primary studies showing cancer association with various types of tumors in human and animal models, these 2 do not have any special meaning as compared to the rest, and do not trump all these studies. The article in its current version is showing unsupported bias. To the contrary of what is being stated, there is substantial evidence that SV40 does cause cancer in humans and laboratory animals, and the greater question is to what level this is occurring. NCI calls for more study, they have not concluded, as the article implies, that this is a resolved issue. Further, there are other researchers who disagree.—Precedingunsigned comment added by141.158.252.27 (talk)21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit:[2],in addition to introducing bad English, removed two sources. I agree that more content is needed with caveats from the NIH press release, but this is not the way to do it. Sorry. I do not mean to offend you.--Filll (talk)16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I think we need to put a flag stating "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I believe this article states unsupported positions, and draws unproven conclusions. While arguing "bad English" and "reference removal", undoing changes has reintroduced a bias to this article.141.158.252.27 (talk)19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please propose a version of the text you would suggest here and we can discuss it and propose and counterpropose to see if we can reach a consensus. Fair?--Filll (talk)19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, but it was undone. Look the changes in the undone version, and tell me what you object to.141.158.252.27 (talk)19:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.^[1]. In addition, SV40 may act as a cocarcinogen withcrocidolite to causemesothelioma^[2] (review^[3])

However, theUnited StatesNational 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."^[4]

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)[reply]

Useful sources:

• Shah KV (2007). "SV40 and human cancer: a review of recent data".Int. J. Cancer.120 (2):215–23.PMID 17131333.
• Lowe DB, Shearer MH, Jumper CA, Kennedy RC (2007). "SV40 association with human malignancies and mechanisms of tumor immunity by large tumor antigen".Cell. Mol. Life Sci.64 (7–8):803–14.PMID 17260087.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Poulin DL, DeCaprio JA (2006)."Is there a role for SV40 in human cancer?".J. Clin. Oncol.24 (26):4356–65.PMID 16963733.

Hope you find these useful, probably best to use reviews to deal with this issue, since it is pretty controversial and, as noted in the reviews, some of the earlier data are now seen as unreliable.Tim Vickers (talk)18:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the recent changes make for a more balanced discussion. But I still have a problem with the following statement:

"However, the United States National Cancer Institute has announced that there is no evidence that SV40 causes cancer in humans.[8] This announcement is based on two recent studies.[9][10]"

I dont think that is necessarily NCI's position. They state that these several studies do not did not find clear evidence that SV40 causes cancer, but I don't believe that is there final position. They call for more study of the issue in the article, and recognize there is already certain information indicating these viruses do cause cancer. Further I do not believe that it can be stated without reservation that a US government agency has an unbiased view of the situation. I believe it is a medical doctrine that vaccines are good for society, not necessarily individuals. As such, criticisms of vaccines based on individual adverse reactions is frowned upon. Therefore there is a general attitude in medical circles and in the government that questions of safety of vaccines should be made by authorities, and once they decide, individuals should be encouraged to abide by these decisions. Further, since Merck possibly exposed millions of people to these viruses in the late 1950's, with the governments blessing, the liability level of Merck and the US Government, if the vaccines were found to be carcinogenic, could surpass the GNP of the nation. Any such statement by any US government agency would never pass US government lawyers without 100% proof, which is impossible. Therefore, any such talk of mass exposure of the public to cancer causing vaccines is discouraged by the pharmaceutical industry and the US government.68.163.8.183 (talk)—Precedingcomment was added at15:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the result of a scientific study, you can report

1. no evidence
2. evidence
3. the study protocol was bad and the study needs to be redone

The studies found no evidence. Of course, scientists willalways want to do more study, whether they find evidence or not. If there was a big conspiracy like you say, they would have reported their results differently.--Filll (talk)16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I never used the word conspiracy, and don't claim it’s a conspiracy. Any entity will minimize its risk of liability by claiming, "no evidence", "not enough evidence", and they may or may not be correct, since the weight of evidence is always an opinion in the eye of the beholder. When one's liability is at stake, one will always lean toward the idea that the evidence is incomplete, insufficient, or just simply confuse the issue by referencing to various conflicting results. Look at cigarette companies, they did it for years. This is not a conspiracy as you describe it; it’s simply the result of all interested parties taking the position that suits them best.

As far at the results of scientific studies, you can either support a hypothesis or not support it. Not supporting it by any design doesn’t "prove" that the hypothesis is incorrect, it simply adds weight in that direction, to possibly be over ridden by a subsequent study. Things are never as clear as "evidence" or "no evidence". Probability and statistics can be made to prove many inaccuracies based on levels of certainty etc.151.199.230.59 (talk)—Precedingcomment was added at15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 soJebus989^✰17:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Naturalnews.com] where a suspicious footage is available, interviewingDr 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 theSV40 but alsoAIDS virus. TheOPV hypothesis is well discussed and the subject was further investigated by scientists which later refuted such hypothesis with an article on the journalNature^[1]. Although some evidence according toEdward Hooper, who wrote a book where suggests historical and scientific subjects, to demonstrate that the theory was buried prematurely, and that theOPV theory relates to a different polio vaccine.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2.81.110.27 (talk •contribs)21:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Marked as adead linkJebus989^✰10:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi! Check out the evaluation I made on this article.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SpringBio2022/Evaluate_an_ArticleSpringBio2022 (talk)22:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC452549/#:~:text=The%20polyomavirus%20simian%20virus%2040,and%20lymphomas%20in%20laboratory%20animals.216.198.190.203 (talk)12:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What, with primary research from twenty years ago?Bon courage (talk)12:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://tlcr.amegroups.org/article/view/35999/24352

Janet has been at this for a while. I understand that cancers often have SV40 sequences - but the correlation for vaccines is not strong. Nevertheless, I would personally be cognizant since SV40 large T antigen is one of the most effective immortalization methods known (David Ron’s protocol).

At the end of the day, we may never know since this is considered backwater - much like Crispr, which was first discovered in the 80s and received absolutely zero attention in the USA (hence all the research was done in Japan, France, and Spain). As an interesting note, the Nobel prize was for essentially a cloning experiment of crispr… with no recognition of the people who actually figured out what Crispr was (Mojica and Brouns and Van der Oost).2601:14D:4E80:91C0:BDB5:B318:D36A:F3DC (talk)21:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also primary research so of not use to Wikipedia.Bon courage (talk)02:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Primary literature is what you want your doctor to know.38.124.146.146 (talk)22:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since SV40 is within the preserve of science, primary scientific literature would be the appropriate choice.38.124.146.146 (talk)22:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:MEDRS.Bon courage (talk)02:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class virus articles
• Mid-importance virus articles
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles