Talk:SV40

OPV and AIDS Origin

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 Template:Unreliable fringe source 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)

Template:Reflist-talk

Link goes nowhere

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)

Marked as a dead link Jebus989^✰ 10:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

misleading dates in the first paragraph

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)

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

Cancer link portion needs updated

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

See WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate content describing anti-vaccine concern

Header contains the phrase "Nevertheless SV40 has become a cause célèbre for anti-vaccination activists, who have blamed it for multiple ills, including cancer and HIV/AIDS." with citation.

At the bottom, a the separate section "Culture and society: SV40 has become a totemic subject among anti-vaccination activists, where its presence in contaminated vaccine is accused of being a cause of a cancer "epidemic" and of being responsible for HIV/AIDS.""

Both sections have essentially the same information, and both link to the same source.

Propose removing the bottom section, any thoughts? Testtubewaltz (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY. There needs to be something in the lede summarising this content. Bon courage (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)