From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 JAmes 2 Neutrality 3 == 3.1 How aids started 3.2 Book "The River" 3.3 SV40

[edit] JAmes

I'm concerned about the accuracy of this statement:

It is accepted that SV-40 slightly increases the risk of particular varieties of cancer.

My understanding is that the evidence shows the opposite: SV40 is generally believed not to increase the risk of cancer in humans. Here's what the CDC has to say on the subject. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/cancer/default.htm#10 --Molybdenumblue 20:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A meta-analysis of molecular, pathological, and clinical data from 1,793 cancer patients indicates that there is a significant excess risk of SV40 associated with human primary brain cancers, primary bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Experimental data strongly suggest that SV40 may be functionally important in the development of some of those human malignancies. Therefore, the major types of tumors induced by SV40 in laboratory animals are the same as those human malignancies found to contain SV40 markers. The Institute of Medicine recently concluded that "the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions." (Vilchez RA, Butel JS: Emergent human pathogen simian virus 40 and its role in cancer. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004 Jul;17(3):495-508

The quoted sentence is too categorical however. How about this version: "It is accepted that SV-40 probably increases the risk of some forms of cancer."Denis Diderot 00:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm, that's one paper (albeit a recent one); has that definitely convinced the entire scientific community working in this area, or would a more accurate statement be that "Recent work indicates that SV-40 may well increases the risk of some forms of cancer."? (The Institute of Medicine quotation seems right on point - "the biological evidence is of moderate strength". Not exactly "accepted that [it] probably increases"!) I would have thought that if the Vilchez/Butel paper was that definitive, the CDC page would not say what it does (although it's possible the page is just old, and they haven't gotten around to updating it). Noel (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This statement is not neutral:

CHAT was an oral vaccine; it was often squirted from a syringe into the back of the patient's throat. Oral transmission is a proven, though inefficient, route for HIV infection. Cases have been confirmed of HIV being spread by oral sex and breast feeding.

It is true that oral transmission may be possible, but the studies are largely anecdotal. Full-scale, clinical studies trying to test this mode of transmission are at best split.

Since this is the only statement currently on the Talk pages regarding any violation of the NPOV policy, I'm removing the Article NPOV notice and placing a Section NPOV notice in the section containing this statement. --NightMonkey 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading the section a bit more closely, I decided that it needs citations, and may have unverified claims, rather than needing a ham-handed Section-NPOV claim. Citations, people, please! :) --NightMonkey 12:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to "The OPV AIDS hypothesis is contradicted by a large mass of scientific evidence, and is considered to be incorrect by the scientific community.[1][2][3][4][5][6]", can we consider the journal Nature to represent the whole of the scientific community? Should we question the neutrality of Nature, considering their refusal to publish material favourable to this hypothesis by the late W._D._Hamilton Benvenuto 08:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not Nature making the claim. It's a series of independent papers by a number of scientists which were published in Nature - which is amongthe top 3 to 5 most influential and respected scientific publications in the world. These papers all reinforce the fact that the OPV-AIDS hypothesis is incorrect, at least as currently proposed. You're free to believe it or not believe it, but for Wikipedia purposes the sourcing is solid. Nature "refuses to publish" things all the time - it's called peer review. They've "refused to publish" some things I've sent them, although I stop short of calling it a conspiracy. MastCell ^Talk 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a scientist but I am an academic. I understand the process of peer review, but does that apply to the letters section of Nature as well? I am not a "conspiracy nut", but like Julian Cribb I do question wether it is possible that an editorial policy exists biased against discussion of this hypothesis in some of the scientific press. Cribb and other believe this stems from a fear that ANY linkage between OPV and HIV will bring immunisation efforts in the developing world to a grinding halt (by the time the garbled message gets to the popular press) Benvenuto 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When have garbled popular-press messages ever scared people away from vaccination? Oh, wait. No seriously, I don't think Nature is biased here, except to the extent that any scientific journal is biased against publishing ideas that lack a sound scientific basis or are undercut by the weight of evidence. MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==

This article repeatedly uses the language ``some people believe and the like to discredit scientifically accepted information. It seems necessary to examine the use of such statements in this aticle.

[edit] How aids started

It would seem damning evidence that the first AIDS case appeared in 1959, within the range that experimental vaccines were tested in the very same region. The refuted argument in 2004 was not valid since the samples did not come from the original lab. In fact, all samples have been "lost" or destroyed, which would almost infer a cover-up on the part of Wistlar. Chimps were brought in by locals from surrounding areas for testing, and in the race to come up with the first viable vaccine, I wonder how careful Koprowski actually was in his search for fame and glory.

[edit] Book "The River"

• The River, A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS, de Edward Hooper, ISBN 0316372617 ISBN 0713993359 ISBN 0920674232 ISBN 0140283773 ISBN 0316371378 is missing. Please add it to the article, Scriberius 00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SV40

• Someone needs to edit this section. It sounds like the vaccine was made using rhesus monkey kidney cells. "..contaminated polio vaccines produced in Asian rhesus monkey kidney cells..."

Is this how it was made???

That would not have been so bad. The problem was that Koprowski used Chimpanzees instead of monkeys. By 1950 it was already known that Chimp tissue hosted too many other viruses and microorganisms for tissue culture purposes, and it was recommended that monkeys be used instead. For whatever reason Koprowski, Osterreith and co. used chimps (at least that is what is claimed in The River and the documentary based on it, which are extremely disturbing). 66.108.105.21 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth