Hi, your friendly, local pathologist here. I'm the kind of doctor that diagnoses liver diseases, cancer, lots of infections, inflammatory processes, benign tumors, and runs the lab that a lot of other doctors use the results from to inform a lot of their other decisions.
If you really want to learn about this stuff, Robert Weinberg's The Biology of Cancer is where to start. It introduces concepts starting where a high school student could understand and carefully walks through the history of our development of knowledge until, by the end, the pithy chapters are helping novel concepts for real science flower in your brain all on their own. It's the best book of biological science I have ever read. 10/10, will read again.
Does SV40 cause cancer?
Did and does SV40 inadvertendly inside the Polio Vaccine in the late 1950ies and 60ies cause cancer?
Does the Pfizer proces 2 SV40 promotor in the Covid Vaccine cause cancer?
Is SV40 DNA (or its fingerprints) found inside actual cancer tissue these days? What type of research is performed on it?
Does DNA contamination in general cause cancer?
I don't know if you're friendly enough to address these isssues. Probably not.
SV40 can 'immortalise' cells, turning off regulatory functions which prevent uncontrolled division, which is an important part of carcinogenesis. This has been shown to contribute to cancer in experimental systems.
> Did and does SV40 inadvertendly inside the Polio Vaccine in the late 1950ies and 60ies cause cancer?
The evidence suggests not significantly, although it's impossible to rule out for some unlucky individuals.
The SV40-exposed cohorts rates of cancers don't differ that greatly from unexposed groups, so we can say with certainty that the rate is much less in humans than seen in laboratory systems. There were suggestions of differences for some cancers, but these are heterogeneous and often confounded, and the general consensus now seems to be the effect was small if not zero. I don't think there's a definitive answer on why - possibly the exposure was sufficiently low or the virus was not effective at infecting humans to significantly affect the carcinogenic processes.
> Does the Pfizer proces 2 SV40 promotor in the Covid Vaccine cause cancer?
Certainly not by the mechanism intact SV40 causes cancer.
That depends on the production of particular SV40 proteins which interfere with cell functions, which aren't present in that promoter.
> Does DNA contamination in general cause cancer?
In general, no.
Cells are constantly exposed to both native and foreign DNA fragments, and have plenty of mechanisms for dealing with them. Even if fragments were somehow incorporated and expressed, most are not inherently carcinogenic.
Thanks, at least you seem to be aware that there was a process 1 (PCR) and 2 (Plasmide DNA template), and that the inclusion of SV40 promoter in the real production process 2 was intentionally hidden by Pfizer.
Difference between 1 and 2 should have been enough in itself to shut that vaccine down.
>Certainly not by the mechanism intact SV40 causes cancer.
There are researchers that claim this makes it an even more virile cancer causing agent.
> There are researchers that claim this makes it an even more virile cancer causing agent.
This is exceedingly vague, but also seems to fall into "extraordinary claims" territory.
We know the proteins SV40 expresses that immortalise cells, and we know their targets. Moreover, we know that delivering the proteins independently of SV40 can still immortalise cells, but SV40 mutated to disable those proteins can't.
The claim that the promoter by itself is a stronger cancer causing agent requires it to have an entirely different mechanism of action, but also one which isn't activated by all the other ways DNA fragments containing promoters can get into cells - like, say, everyday viruses. At first glance it doesn't pass the sniff test.
> I don't know if you're friendly enough to address these isssues. Probably not.
A fantastic closing if the goal is to make people not answer your questions. I don't know if you're friendly enough to explain why you made your comment so hostile. Probably not.
Actually I am, it seemed to me the 'friendly' MD is not here to (try to) answer questions, he is just the typical self-assigned gatekeeping credentialist you see on these threads that come to stop any meaningful conversation.
Oh, so you thought you’d just act obnoxious enough that every reader would see you as the obstacle to meaningful conversation, to make him look reasonable.
You are ignorant and disrespectful and i'm higly disappointed from human to human.
"friendly enough to address these issues".
He is not part of some research group who is researching this type of topic. You assume he is a bad faith actor with your "probably not".
Either accept the status quo / research on this topic, or do the research yourself but don't take some potential conspiricy shit to hn by cheap shooting someone else with your 'probably not'.
And if you really struggle with this type of things, get help.
0xWTF · · focus · HN ↗
If you really want to learn about this stuff, Robert Weinberg's The Biology of Cancer is where to start. It introduces concepts starting where a high school student could understand and carefully walks through the history of our development of knowledge until, by the end, the pithy chapters are helping novel concepts for real science flower in your brain all on their own. It's the best book of biological science I have ever read. 10/10, will read again.
<a href="https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393887655" rel="nofollow">https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393887655
pieter_mj · · focus · HN ↗
sjmcmahon · · focus · HN ↗
> Does SV40 cause cancer?
Yes, in a range of animal models at least.
SV40 can 'immortalise' cells, turning off regulatory functions which prevent uncontrolled division, which is an important part of carcinogenesis. This has been shown to contribute to cancer in experimental systems.
> Did and does SV40 inadvertendly inside the Polio Vaccine in the late 1950ies and 60ies cause cancer?
The evidence suggests not significantly, although it's impossible to rule out for some unlucky individuals.
The SV40-exposed cohorts rates of cancers don't differ that greatly from unexposed groups, so we can say with certainty that the rate is much less in humans than seen in laboratory systems. There were suggestions of differences for some cancers, but these are heterogeneous and often confounded, and the general consensus now seems to be the effect was small if not zero. I don't think there's a definitive answer on why - possibly the exposure was sufficiently low or the virus was not effective at infecting humans to significantly affect the carcinogenic processes.
> Does the Pfizer proces 2 SV40 promotor in the Covid Vaccine cause cancer?
Certainly not by the mechanism intact SV40 causes cancer.
That depends on the production of particular SV40 proteins which interfere with cell functions, which aren't present in that promoter.
> Does DNA contamination in general cause cancer?
In general, no.
Cells are constantly exposed to both native and foreign DNA fragments, and have plenty of mechanisms for dealing with them. Even if fragments were somehow incorporated and expressed, most are not inherently carcinogenic.
pieter_mj · · focus · HN ↗
>Certainly not by the mechanism intact SV40 causes cancer.
There are researchers that claim this makes it an even more virile cancer causing agent.
sjmcmahon · · focus · HN ↗
This is exceedingly vague, but also seems to fall into "extraordinary claims" territory.
We know the proteins SV40 expresses that immortalise cells, and we know their targets. Moreover, we know that delivering the proteins independently of SV40 can still immortalise cells, but SV40 mutated to disable those proteins can't.
The claim that the promoter by itself is a stronger cancer causing agent requires it to have an entirely different mechanism of action, but also one which isn't activated by all the other ways DNA fragments containing promoters can get into cells - like, say, everyday viruses. At first glance it doesn't pass the sniff test.
lazyasciiart · · focus · HN ↗
A fantastic closing if the goal is to make people not answer your questions. I don't know if you're friendly enough to explain why you made your comment so hostile. Probably not.
pieter_mj · · focus · HN ↗
lazyasciiart · · focus · HN ↗
Glemmlko · · focus · HN ↗
"friendly enough to address these issues".
He is not part of some research group who is researching this type of topic. You assume he is a bad faith actor with your "probably not".
Either accept the status quo / research on this topic, or do the research yourself but don't take some potential conspiricy shit to hn by cheap shooting someone else with your 'probably not'.
And if you really struggle with this type of things, get help.
pieter_mj · · focus · HN ↗
Admittedly yes. However, this does not make me ignorant.
The type of questions I wass asking should have been an indication that I'm interested and researching.
Glemmlko · · focus · HN ↗
You are fully capable of doing proper research yourself especially when you are that interested in this.
You assume that a random doctor on HN can answer you a Pfizer specific 'secret' thing you can't find out yourself?
Come on...