The 12th Invest in ME Conference, Part 1
OverTheHills presents the first article in a series of three about the recent 12th Invest In ME international Conference (IIMEC12) in London.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

defreitas question

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by xrayspex, Jul 18, 2010.

  1. xrayspex

    xrayspex Senior Member

    I was researching defreitas for a thread at prohealth (yea I am simonedb over there) and found this abstract:
    Retroviral sequences related to human T-lymphotropic virus type II in patients with chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome.

    DeFreitas E, Hilliard B, Cheney PR, Bell DS, Kiggundu E, Sankey D, Wroblewska Z, Palladino M, Woodward JP, Koprowski H.

    Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Abstract

    Chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome (CFIDS) is a recently recognized illness characterized by debilitating fatigue as well as immunological and neurological abnormalities [Straus, S.E. (1988) J. Inf. Dis. 157, 405-412]. Once thought to be caused by Epstein-Barr virus, it is now thought to have a different but unknown etiology. We evaluated 30 adult and pediatric CFIDS patients from six eastern states for the presence of human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV) types I and II by Western immunoblotting, polymearse chain reaction, and in situ hybridization of blood samples. The majority of patients were positive for HTLV antibodies by Western blotting and for HTLV-II gag sequences by polymerase chain reaction and in situ hybridization. Twenty nonexposure healthy controls were negative in all assays. These data support an association between an HTLV-II-like virus and CFIDS.

    could someone please explain to me what was disputed and why she got disrespected? htlv 11 is admitted to exist so what was the prob?
    also why is hilary koprowskis name on her abstract!!!!!!????????????
    I just posted several things about his possible implication in one theory of causing aids from vaccines.....bizarre how his name turns up with defreitas when i was just reading tom curtis and edward hooper's account of him......he gave out CHAT that may have been contaminated to kids for polio in the 60s in africa, us and belgium etc
  2. xrayspex

    xrayspex Senior Member

    an aside, I guess, its just weird to me to realize defreitas worked for wistar as tht was koprowskis baby I believe, the polio vaccine guy that tom curtis etc write about.
    guess just a coincidence but sure is ironic, possibly........
  3. Stone

    Stone Senior Member

    Yes. This has been quietly bothering me too. I think there are some pieces missing. Pieces about how HIV got into the human population, pieces about DeFrietas' work which was discredited, and several other things that don't seem to add up. I've read around on some of these things but not all of it makes complete sense to me. I always come away with the sense that there's something that's not said and I just can't put my finger on it. I may never get it all to fit nicely together to my satisfaction, I'm afraid. I think there are some things people aren't exactly clamoring to get out there.
  4. She found the retrovirus in CFS. The CDC did a replication study, but couldn't (or wouldn't) find it. That killed the whole thing. There was this wierd bit about she was trying to get them to come to her lab to study her methods personally, but they didn't have enough money for a plane ticket? WTF? Like $500 or whatever?

    Then she had a car accident and was disabled and quit working (was that an amazing coincidence?)

    You're right, there's still stuff that doesn't add up.

    Anyway, you can read about it in detail in Osler's Web.
  5. knackers323

    knackers323 Senior Member

    so the only difference to what is happening now is that other people are have taken the lead and are trying to find the virus. why didnt that happen back then too?
  6. Mithriel

    Mithriel Senior Member

    The WPI is independently funded so no one can shut them up.

    Mikovitz is older, already established and well connected to the likes of John Coffin and the cancer research people.

    Biological techniques are much simpler and widely available than they were all those years ago. There are some very powerful tools available and much more knowledge of how cells work.

    The internet makes information easily available to lots of people.

    Reeves does not have the power Stephen Straus had?

    Patients now who they are up against.

  7. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    I never really read up on this but yesterday in the evening i searched for some info on DeFreitas and i feel similarly. It just doesn't really make sense.

    Her paper was published in PNAS, so not just in any random journal, and looking at the prevalence numbers and some other things it looks quite robust. Of course i can't judge the biology and technical stuff. But i think it was a blinded study and she could find the virus in the CFS cases but not in the non-exposed controls. So if she wasn't cheating in some way there must have been something there, right? But what? Chance is very unlikely.

    I don't understand why this work then stopped. Even if she could not work on it anymore for health reasons, if there would have really been something about it, why didn't someone else pick this up and continue? Even if the CDC can't find it, if it's there, it's there and you can prove it again and again and again until everyone has to accept it. You could get rich and famous, so i don't see how it's possible that no one would do it.

    And then there's the fact (at least the WPI says so) that this was another virus than XMRV. This would mean that either DeFreitas was wrong, the "XMRV people" are wrong or, one or both of those viruses is just a passenger or that neither XMRV or the DeFreitas virus can cause CFS on their own and are the single cause.
    And i think it took a couple of years until DeFreitas was "proven" wrong. This is a bit scary, that's why i can't wait to see the Alter and Bateman papers.
  8. xrayspex

    xrayspex Senior Member

    hmmmm, some stuff doesnt add up most definitely.
    I did read Osler's Web, but I still have so many unanswered questions. In the book review I posted, I think thats where i read it, still early for me so fuzzy, writer makes the point that an older or more educated or well to do population of sick people can be a good thing as far as getting stuff done on an illness, I don' know if aging cfs folks get more respect at 50 than at 30 y/o, taken more seriously, but at any rate having a private org pick up the research has been obviously key......I still don't get it about the connection of koprowski and the patent as well that defreitas got on this in early 90s and then her just fading out w/the rest of it....huh?
  9. glenp

    glenp "and this too shall pass"

    Vancouver Canada suburbs
  10. xrayspex

    xrayspex Senior Member

    thanks Glen I watched that vid before, it is just great.

    But go read the paper on line from Rolling Stone 1992 by Tom Curtis on The origin of aids, read him or hooper, I posted links in the macaque thread, and then after you have a refresher on who Koprowski and Wistar are, and then reflect on that is where Defreitas worked, its like, whaaaaaaa?
  11. muffin

    muffin Senior Member

    A friend and I tried in vain to locate her after the WPI study came out. I don't know that anyone really knows where she is now but she did have an accident and apparently was in very bad shape and a great deal of pain afterwards. Also, apparently, she moved in with her mother since she was in such bad shape. God bless her where ever she is.

    None of the Defreitas study makes sense to me either. Hillary Johnson's Osler's Web does a great job of describing that period but we don't really know the real dirt and games that the CDC and NIH played with her study. The CDC did two studies and they came out as opposite results (just to make sure her work was damaged). Then NIH killed off any further funding for this type of Retrovirus.
    Hope I got the above correct. We know the CDC would try to damage any and all studies that deal with real research and a new Retrovirus, but the question is "why"? Who got to them? How did the insurance companies get to those at the CDC, assuming that it was the insurance companies and others with a monetary vested interest. This is the story that needs to come out on the CDC and the other Federal health orgs that also did their best to damage or kill off research/funding for her Retrovirus and any other new Retrovirus research. What, was HIV research costing too much and so the nation did not need yet another Retrovirus? Anyone who gets the real dirt on this whole period and issue is the big winner!
  12. glenp

    glenp "and this too shall pass"

    Vancouver Canada suburbs

    Wistar Institute, Dr. Elaine DeFreitas, and the Cheney-Bell-DeFreitas Work: Startling Revelations from Wistar's World Patent and Serious Reasons for Concern Now Revealed!
    By Alan Cocchetto

    As many of you can remember, Dr. Elaine DeFreitas, Dr. Paul Cheney, Dr.
    David Bell, and others published the work done at Wistar, in the Proceedings of the
    National Academy of Science in April 1991. This created quite the excitement
    and stir as information was released by personal interviews that even made the
    cover of the CFIDS Chronicle.
    It would not be surprising if many of the researchers involved with
    Wistar scientists were unaware of a world patent that was subsequently issued in
    April 1992, one year after the PNAS(Proceedings of the National Academy of Science)
    article! I myself was quite surprised since the contents of this patent have
    major implications due to the depth and scientific quality of the work. I
    certainly believe too that this has worldwide implications and therefore needs to be carefully
    scrutinized by the scientific community.
    I am reporting on the detailed scientific information disclosed in the
    world patent (#WO9205760) issued to Elaine DeFreitas and Brendan Hilliard, inventors
    assigned to Wistar Institute. This patent was applied for in August 1991
    after the PNAS article was published.
    The title of the patent is "Method and Compositions for Diagnosing and
    Treating Chronic Fatigue Immunodysfunction Syndrome. The abstract reads as follows:
    "The present invention provides compositions and methods for diagnosis,
    treatment and prophylaxis of Chronic Fatigue Immunodysfunction Syndrome (CFIDS) based
    on the detection of the presence of a novel CFIDS-associated virus, CAV, in
    the body fluids or tissues of a patient."
    In the first page of the patent disclosure, the following is stated:
    "The invention described herein was made in the course of work under grants or awards from
    The United States National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health and
    Human Services."
    The inventors cover the working case definition of CFIDS and various
    outbreaks associated with the illness. The inventors then provide information
    associated with the field of retrovirology, disclosing various families and specific viruses
    associated with each of them.
    The summary of the invention is as follows: "The present invention
    provides a novel, substantially isolated Chronic Fatigue Immunodeficiency
    Syndrome-associated virus, hereafter referred to by the name CAV.
    Polynucleotide sequences of CAV and polypeptides of CAV are useful as diagnostic reagents in
    the diagnosis of CFIDS patients. Polynucleotide sequences of CAV and polypeptide
    sequences of CAV are useful in therapeutic or vaccinal compositions for the
    treatment or prevention of CFIDS. Also disclosed by this invention are
    methods and assays for diagnosing and/or treating CFIDS patients. Antibodies to CAV
    antigenic regions and in vitro cells containing CAV polynucleotide sequences
    or polypeptides are also described."
    The inventors go on to report two major CAV DNA nucleotide sequences as
    well as electron photomicrographs of T-cells and B-cells infected with the
    CAV. In the initial descriptive reference to retroviruses in this patent, the
    inventors state:
    "CAV may be morphologically characterized as a retrovirus, particularly a
    non-C retrovirus which is capable of infecting humans. Electron microscopy of viral
    particles formed in infected human cell cultures suggests that CAV is a
    non-C-type retrovirus because of its diameter, morphology, formation and location of
    intracellular virions. More specifically, CAV-infected cells could be
    characterized by electron-dense circular virions, some with electron-luscent cores and
    others with electron-dense cores, associated with the rough endoplasmic reticulum and
    inside large abnormally distended mitochondria in the cells. All particles are the
    same shape and size, 46-50 nm. No extracellular virus is observed. No forms
    budding from the cytoplasmic membranes are observed. Thus, CAV-infected cells could
    also be characterized by the presence of intracytoplasmic particles.... The
    apparent location of its virions in the mitochondria distinguishes CAV from HIV."
    [Mr.Cocchetto's emphasis here.]
    The inventors then provide additional characteristics of the retrovirus
    such as its ability to infect both T and B-cells and that the primer binding site is for
    the transfer RNA, or tRNA, of lysine indicating that CAV is a non-C type retrovirus.
    The inventors examined low molecular weight sas proteins and found the
    presence of p11-12, p13-14, and p27-28. Classes of primate and nonprimate animal
    retroviruses have such characteristically sized sas proteins.
    The inventors disclose that the virus has the ability to induce the
    presence of viral pap proteins in the nucleus and cytoplasm of cells which it infects.
    This characteristic of viral pap protein localization also indicates a non-C type
    retrovirus. Summaries of correlations of CFIDS retrovirus to known retroviruses are
    included with extensive descriptions and explanations. Full disclosure of the methods
    appear to be very specific and extensive. The entire patent is approximately 40
    pages. If the NIH ignored the depth of this work, since they chose to fund Sidney
    Grossberg, who only had a theory, then the NIH dropped the ball on this one and the
    agency should be held accountable! The inventors even state "The ability to
    screen blood samples infected by CAV enables producers and distributors of blood
    products, e.g. the American Red Cross, to identify and discard donated blood
    samples which are intended for use in transfusions or in the isolation of
    plasma, therapeutically useful blood proteins and blood cells. If unscreened, the
    use of such blood and blood-derived products could contribute to the spread of CFIDS."
    The implications here are staggering!
    The inventors mention various cell lines including T-cell
    lymphoblastoid and B-cell lymphoblastoid lines as well as a macrophage monocyte cell line that
    have all been identified to support the growth of CAV. They then disclose the primer
    sequences for CAV and then state that "body fluids of CFIDS patients have
    shown reactivity with antigens of HTLV-I by Western blot.... Moreover, the
    majority of CFIDS patients have serum antibodies to a P27 protein on the HTLV-I Western
    blot. P27 is presumably a product of the tax gene." "In still another
    aspect, the invention provides a diagnostic method for detecting CAV in a patient sample
    by a conventional reverse transcriptase assay as described in Example 10 below.
    This assay may be performed on body fluids of a suspected CFIDS patient, using a
    polyriboadenylate template primer and the divalent cation Mn++. No other
    known human retrovirus employs this primer or cation in this assay."
    Of course, all inventors identify their test kit - one that is necessary
    for hospitals, doctors, etc. to officially diagnose the patient as having this illness.
    "The methods, probes, primers, and antibodies described herein may be efficiently utilized
    in the assembly of a diagnostic test kit, which may be used by health care providers
    for the diagnosis and/or treatment of CFIDS."
    The inventors also discuss the details of a CFIDS vaccine and the vaccine
    composition! Furthermore, they disclose that "For performance of these
    experiments, patient body fluid samples were obtained from clinical practices
    in North Carolina and New York. The investigators were all blinded by coded
    samples in each experiment."
    Under the heading "Morphometric Analysis of CFIDS Retrovirus" the
    inventor disclose: "Electron-dense circular virions, some with electron-luscent cores
    and others with electron-dense cores, were seen associated with the rough
    endoplasmic reticulum and inside large abnormally distended mitochondria inside the
    cells. All particles were the same shape and size, 46-50 nm. No extracellular virus was
    observed. No forms budding from the cytoplasmic membranes were observed.
    These observations suggest that CAV is a non-C type animal retrovirus for
    three reasons: First, human C-type viruses like HTLV-I and HTLV-II do not appear to
    form intracellular virions. The only human C-type forming intracellular
    particles is HIV and these are found intracisternally in conjunction with budding forms.
    Circular C-type virions are usually formed as the virus buds from the cell's
    cytoplasmic membrane. Second, neither HTLV-I, II, nor HIV virions have ever
    been found inside mitochondria. Third, the diameter and morphology of these
    virions suggest that they may be Primate D-type retroviruses or spuma
    Extensive test results are disclosed at this point and the inventors
    reveal: "The results of the same PCR analyses of blood samples from adult CFIDS patients
    was compared with persons with whom they live or closely associate, e.g. roommates
    and friends (called Exposure Controls). Nonexposure controls are healthy
    persons selected at random who have not come into contact with CFIDS patients nor
    experienced symptoms associated with CFIDS." The inventors report their data
    from CFIDS patients including pediatric CFIDS patients! To quote the patent,
    "the positive results seen in the Exposure Controls support the possibility that
    this CAV is capable of casual transmission to non-infected persons, as is the case
    with many non-human retroviruses." [Author's emphasis here.] Now, if the
    NIH ignored this last comment, then something is dramatically wrong with the
    agency that is supposed to protect and safeguard the welfare of the citizens
    of the United States! Again, the implications here are just staggering! This is
    especially alarming in light of the testing, revealed by the inventors, which continues
    as follows:
    Since the inventors ran four different tests on each patient, exposure
    control, and non-exposure control, then I will report on the high values from each test
    group. For the first group, the patients tested with a positivity of 82%, exposure
    controls at 43%, and non-exposure controls at 0%. With the first group, there were 11
    patients, 14 exposure controls, and 4 non-exposure controls.
    With the pediatric group, the patients tested with a positivity of 74%,
    exposure controls at 43%, and non-exposure controls at 0%. With the pediatric group,
    the sample size was 19 patients, 7 exposure controls, and 4 non-exposure controls.
    The inventors then disclose more PCR work, citing "partial viral DNA
    sequence was obtained by the procedure described below from CFIDS patient NY1-12 using
    the HTLV-II crap specific primers g2-1 and g-2-2 of Table III... Figs. 1A
    and 1B illustrate the partial putative CAV viral DNA sequences obtained. Upon
    analysis on GenBank and EMBL, the putative CAV sequences of Figs. 1A and 1B have not
    been found to be significantly similar to the sequences of any known
    retrovirus. Thus, these sequences suggest that CAV may not be identified as any other
    known human or animal virus." [Author's emphasis.]
    At this point, the inventors disclose several other tests completed on
    patient, exposure, and non-exposure controls. These were primarily specific protein
    and retroviral tests and probes. Additional testing reveals the following
    results with corresponding comments by the inventors:
    tRNA primer techniques using sense and antisense methods revealed that
    10 out of 10 CFIDS patient DNA samples showed the same sized products using the
    primer for the monkey D-type retrovirus (MPMV). The inventors suggest that
    these results, from this test, imply that CAV "is either a type of lentivirus,
    primate D-type retrovirus, or Foamy (Spuma) virus, all of which us a tRNA lysine primer."
    Characterization of cracr proteins of CAV reveals that "animal
    retroviruses that have been shown to express cracr proteins of these molecular weights are:
    primate D-type retroviruses; primate C-type; lentiviruses (EIAV but not HIV); mouse
    B-type (MMTV); avian C-type retroviruses, and perhaps Foamy (Spuma) viruses.
    Location of crap proteins in the nucleus reveals that "more than 50% of
    patient samples tested (and none of controls) revealed cells staining for crap
    proteins. Most importantly, the staining is found in both the cytoplasm and nucleus of the
    positive cells. The only known retroviruses to display nuclear staining for viral
    proteins are the Foamy virus group."
    The last test was for reverse transcriptase (RT) with the inventors
    "CAV appears to prefer a template-primer of polyzA-oligo-(dT) with Mn++.
    Among the retroviruses that show the same RT characteristics as that of CAV
    (polyzA-oligo(dT) template-primer and Mn++ preferences) are the Spuma (foamy)
    virus and the monkey D-type retroviruses."
    Any way you cut this, the only conclusion that can be reached is that
    this work is very thorough and extensive. It has been funded by the NIH! And I
    believe that, much like the work revealed by Grossberg's patent (also funded by the NIH),
    the NIH certainly has more than a singular idea about what is happening to us as
    patients, all the while denying the existence of retroviral involvement and
    not providing details to outside scientists for additional examination and perhaps
    subsequent replication! Any retrovirus that can invade the mitochondria
    directly indicates trouble! Why? Because the mitochondria are the energy powerhouses
    in the body and a direct infection of them spells major trouble --- alteration of
    mitochondrial function and dysfunctional energy production! This could very
    well account for the patient's lack of stamina and that 'F-word', fatigue!
    As far as I'm concerned here, there needs to be a criminal investigation
    of the NIH regarding why they refused to fund upon submission of all this data as
    well as the involvement of the NIH in Grossberg's work. They are supposed to fund
    based on productivity and Grossberg had none in comparison. Maybe then, some heads
    will roll and we'll begin to get some real answers! After all, each and
    every patient certainly deserves this and so much more!
    [Ed. Note: Dr. DeFrietas presented much of this work at the Albany Medical
    Convention in 1991. She also submitted a paper of the work to the PNAS three
    times but was turned down. Why? Were the same people at the NIH who refused
    to fund her threatening the publication in some way? The refusal to fund her
    with the CFIDS Assoc. pulling her funding lost us more than a decade of work!]

    The National CFIDS Foundation * 103 Aletha Rd, Needham Ma 02492 * (781) 449-3535 Fax (781) 449-8606
  13. glenp

    glenp "and this too shall pass"

    Vancouver Canada suburbs

    Check this - link at facebook

    Comments on world patent issued to Dr DeFreitas in 1992

    Note: Dr. DeFrietas presented much of this work at the Albany Medical Convention in 1991. She also submitted a paper of the work to the PNAS three times but was turned down. Why? Were the same people at the NIH who refused to fund her threatening the publication in some way? The refusal to fund her along with the CFIDS Assoc. pulling her funding lost us more than a decade of work!]
  14. knackers323

    knackers323 Senior Member

    so has the DeFreitas work ever been followed through to its conclusion? or is it possible that it might turn out that xmrv isnt our underlying problem but the virus she found is, and nothing is being done about it?
  15. xrayspex

    xrayspex Senior Member

    thanks- I saw the cochetto article before, think I used an excerpt on spacee's defreitas link at PH yesterday. didnt see the newsweek, thats good, but scary, that so much did get reported but to little avail......and with the kids, makes ya wonder if all this ad/d and ritalin and concerta etc if some of them don't have immune probs so they give them speed and a dif cultural spin dx to obfuscate the truth.
    I also saw the FB posts about defreitas at WPI 9 mo ago.

    I dont see anyone address or consider hilary koprowski's role though ever in any of my research.

    I would love to interview Elaine, if anyone knows how to put me in touch with her.....I thought I saw her on twitter posting on pandas?????
  16. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member

    De Freitas was pushed into trying to prove the retrovirus theory, before she was really ready to do so, with double blind tests. They failed and other researchers with similar ideas could not get funding. The same happened in New Zealand with Dr Holmes.

    Both deFreitas and Holmes were laughed at and harassed by other researchers. Then the idea died after the car accident and the lack of funding. No one who wanted to look at the idea could get it funded.

    It is a story of how bad funding was in to physical causes of CFS and not necessarily related to the retrovirus theory or deFreitas/Holmes.

    Some other ME researchers really pushed to bury the idea. in the UK the Behan/Gow camp were big enemies of the retrovirus idea. They helped to bury it here.

    If Dr Cheney/Peterson/Bell etc could have got money to investigate physical causes of the CFS, then we would not be in the current mess. We could not get the money to investigate CFS, it became a psychological illness. Immunologists and retro-virologists (with a few exceptions) did not want to get involved.

    It was the injection of research funding that has got us here from the WPI.
  17. xrayspex

    xrayspex Senior Member

    ukxmrv----when you have time though could you refresh yr memory on koprowski and if there is any significance to defreitas working with him and for him? his name is on her cfs and htlv11 abstract.
    info on him, curtis researched him on the aids question:

    "Like Salk and Sabin, Koprowski had the best intentions: He wanted to eradicate a debilitating and deadly scourge. But with what we know now, it's clear there was a certain hubris involved in the rough-and-ready campaigns to conquer polio. There is evidence that all three pioneers used vaccines inadvertently contaminated with viruses from a species dangerously close to our own. If the Congo vaccine turns out not to be the way AIDS got started in people, it will be because medicine was lucky, not because it was infallible."

    The origin of Aids by Tom Curtis

    and the book The River by Hooper goes further, I dont know what the update is...sure don't hear much about it do ya
  18. Impish

    Impish Senior Member

    Victoria, BC
    The whole vaccine/hiv thing was disproven long ago. By taking samples of the virus over time and figuring out how much it mutates you can create a timeline for when it crossed into humans. Research suggests that some strains of HIV were in humans in 1908. The virus didn't get out of Africa until travel became more common and there were larger concentrated populations for the virus to live in.

    Direct evidence of extensive diversity of HIV-1 in Kinshasa by 1960 -
  19. muffin

    muffin Senior Member


    1) What other countries/researchers in those countries were also involved in Retrovirus research in addition to the US, UK, New Zealand? Names if anyone knows please.
    2) Enemies of the Retrovirus theory in each of those countries, if known please.
    3) What were the reasons for NIH and other orgs to stop all funding on this Retrovirus research when they were spending millions/then billions on HIV - another Retrovirus?
    4) Why has no one or no org on their own try to find out more about this retrovirus or research on retroviruses generally? Funding is part of the issue, must be complicated and requires a great deal of money - but, if WPI can do it, then why couldn't some other group do it?

  20. xrayspex

    xrayspex Senior Member

    Muffin, and that all ties into why i am harping on aids and Koprowski--------this is what was recently posted about defreitas thread at PH:
    "I do share your suspicion re: Koprowski, and wonder if he encouraged DeFreitas to reveal her data at a conference prior to publication in order to sabotage it, given his record with the polio vaccine. Contaminated vaccines seem like a very plausible way for a mouse virus to get into the human population. It would also explain the suppression/denial of CFS as a legitimate disease. "

    Koprowski may be the one that pushed her into prematurely trying to prove retroviral link like above quote states..........why? well like I have been saying, it sure is interesting after you read Tom Curtis interview w/Koprowski in Rolling Stone about aids in '92....and I think Gallo, Mr HIV discoverer himself told Curtis his speculation about polio vax could be plausible.

    And what about SV40? from wiki:
    SV40 is an abbreviation for Simian vacuolating virus 40 or Simian virus 40, a polyomavirus that is found in both monkeys and humans. Like other polyomaviruses, SV40 is a DNA virus that has the potential to cause tumors, but most often persists as a latent infection.

    SV40 became a highly controversial subject after it was revealed that millions were exposed to the virus after receiving a contaminated polio vaccine. [1]

    So if one virus has been linked to vax couldnt others? the 50s and 60s sounded pretty unsavory, the whole vax approach, read Edward Hooper's 1000plus page book on it.

    or a recent reported vax contamination:

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page