New York Moms Call HPV-Vaccination Law Unconstitutional

Preface by TLB Staff Writer: Christopher Wyatt

The HPV vaccine is one of the more sinister vaccines due to the fact it is unnecessary and has an unusually high number of reported adverse reactions. If this vaccine had any sort of actual merit why would they have to get a law passed so that children can go behind the backs of their parents to be injected with it?

Vaccinating children without the consent of a parent or a guardian is a reality that anti / non vaxers have to address. Instead of burning our heads in the sand and running from this fight we must face it with proactive measures. This requires going directly to the people and educating them on the seriousness of the issue.

As a movement we must find the courage to reach out to the older children who will receive this damaging vaccine and we must warn as many parents as possible. We have a moral duty to defy expectations, change tactics, and win the war for human health!

What they are doing is unspeakable and we must stand against it! (CW)

New York Moms Call HPV-Vaccination Law Unconstitutional

By Pamela Baker

UTICA, N.Y. (CN) – A new New York law that lets doctors administer the HPV vaccine to children without their parents’ consent has triggered a federal complaint from five suburban moms.

“Plaintiffs here are not intrinsically opposed to the HPV vaccine, and their children are otherwise completely vaccinated,” the March 3 complaint states. “But, they are concerned that their children may receive the vaccine without their awareness and involvement. They are concerned that if their children experience an adverse reaction to the vaccination, they may not associate the reaction with the vaccination and may not have sufficient knowledge to properly seek treatment for their children.”

New York public health law has since 1972 established the rights of minors to receive confidential sexual and reproductive health care services. The original statute says health care providers need not get consent from the parents or guardians of minor patients to treat or prescribe to them if they have either been infected with or exposed to a sexually transmitted disease.

Spread of the human papillomarvirus – a proven cause of certain cancers that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes is the most common sexually transmitted infection – inspired lawmakers to expand the scope of that law last year to cover the HPV vaccinations Gardasil and Gardasil-9.

Made by Merck, the vaccines are approved for use in women and men ages 9-26 and protect against four and nine strains of HPV, respectively. Administered to more than 46 million people since 2012, the CDC notes that clinical trials show Gardasil is 100 percent effective in preventing the strains that cause cervical cancer and 99 percent effective in preventing the strains that cause genital warts.

The New York Department of Health’s No Consent or Knowledge Rule went into effect in May 2016, inspiring Friday’s lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Lina Cole and the mothers behind the complaint are all mothers of children between the ages of 11 and 16.

The 19-page complaint highlights a number of the vaccine’s side effects, including fever, nausea, and in rare cases death and seizure-like activity. Because all of their children have experienced reactions to prior vaccinations, the moms say that their children lack the “mental maturity to articulate, properly recall or associate any reaction they may suffer as a result of a vaccination.”

One of the plaintiffs, Lisa Boyle Meyer of Manhasset, says the HPV vaccine caused her 16-year-old daughter to suffer from ongoing paralysis in her legs that requires the use of a wheelchair.

Cole, Meyer and the other moms brought their complaint against New York Health Department Commissioner Howard Zucker. A representative of that agency declined to comment on the case, but noted it has not yet been served with the complaint.

The parents are seeking an injunction against the No Consent or Knowledge Rule and a determination that the law is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. They say they have a constitutional right to be present and have a decisionmaking role when medical procedures are being performed on their children.

Aaron Siri of the Manhattan firm Siri & Glimstad filed the complaint for the moms in Utica. Siri did not respond to an email requesting comment.



TLB recommends Courthouse News Service for more pertinent articles.


Visit Christopher Wyatt on both his FB page and personal blog

Sovereignty & International Law

Preface by TLB Staff Writer: Christopher Wyatt

The HPV vaccine is one of the more sinister vaccines due to the fact it is unnecessary and has an unusually high number of reported adverse reactions. If this vaccine had any sort of actual merit why would they have to get a law passed so that children can go behind the backs of their parents to be injected with it?

Vaccinating children without the consent of a parent or a guardian is a reality that anti / non vaxers have to address. Instead of burning our heads in the sand and running from this fight we must face it with proactive measures. This requires going directly to the people and educating them on the seriousness of the issue.

As a movement we must find the courage to reach out to the older…

View original post 630 woorden meer

Our Children Are Humanity’s Future: Is Our Latest Generation … Born To Fail?

Is Our Latest Generation … Born To Fail?

By: Roger Landry (TLB)

Our children today do not even come close to resembling what I experienced as a child three short generations ago.

Most close to my age remember walking through just about any typical American neighborhood and hearing the unavoidable sounds of children laughing, yelling and playing … you literally couldn’t avoid it. We remember looking out our windows in the morning to see many children making the trek to their local schools, running, laughing and causing harmless mischief along the way. It is hard to forget the cops and robbers, cowboy and Indian, or the war games we played for hours on end with toy guns that fired darts, pellets and even BB’s. Were there accidents … YUP, were there injuries … YUP, but we grew up to be (mostly) mentally stable, healthy and independent adults.

So what the hell has happened in three short generations?

If the alarm bells going off concerning our children today are not deafening you … your may be beyond this article to reach …

YEA it is that freaking bad!

Here are just a few easy to find general statistics concerning this last born generation …

  1. This generation suffers the highest level of Autism, ADHD, ADD, Diabetes, Food Allergies, Cancers, Autoimmune Disorders, etc…, of any generation ever born, making them the most chronically ill (sickest) generation ever born. Due to the above researchers are now stating that this generation with be the first generation in history to have a shorter lifespan (on average) than their parents!
  2. This generation is tied to electronic devices such as computers, smart phones, tablets, smart TV’s, etc…, from the time they are old enough to comprehend the functions and operation of these devices, making this the most physically isolated generation ever. Instant satisfaction or gratification supplants the need or want for physical and social interactions which may often lead to conflict or disappointment.
  3. This generation suffers the age of Common Core education where a group of corporatists (not educators) designed a system of education to make all our children “common”. When the hard work of excelling brings you no more recognition than those who care so little to as to even try … the drive to excel is assassinated or pronounced D.O.A. (dead on arrival).
  4. This generation is in danger by over-exposure  to the most politically correct, easily influenced, crybaby, self-centered generation ever born … the Millennials. Colleges today have puppy and playdough rooms where those who are triggered can retreat for self therapy and comforting isolation. These Millennials are the new parents or influencing parties (mentors) to this new generation.


So what is the takeaway point here …

The future of humanity is our children, this is not a maybe but indeed a cold hard statement of fact.

Over the last three generations (since the birth of the Baby Boomer generation) we have witnessed with each succeeding generation, a steady and geometric increase in health related issues, as well as a definite increasing lack of independence, lack of social skills, lack of tolerance, lack of emotional stability (over 20% of all youth in America are on psychotropic or psychiatric drugs today), lack of preparedness to face the real world, etc…

As America moves forward it is not callous or far reaching to state …


If you/we are looking for someone to blame, do not blame these children because as with each succeeding generation, they are a product of their upbringing and all we as parents or grandparents have exposed them to, or allowed then to get away with as each succeeding generation continues to push the envelopes across the spectrum. No do not blame the children … look in the mirror and stare into the eyes of the guilty.

Over protecting, over reacting, under focused, guilt ridden parents, who basically (not all) ignore their children as they watch them slide off into an instantly gratifying electronic media world … the ultimate baby sitter as mom and dad either have to work two jobs or more, or really just are not (via their own upbringing) interested in constantly entertaining or mentoring Junior. And when they are called to task by an outside authority the attempt is made to make up for all the (self justified) neglect in one massive reaction. Today this is not the exception … but much closer to the norm as has been the progressing case with each advancing generation.

So the question that begs answering is …

Is Out Latest Generation … Born To Fail?

What I present you with now is just one such reason why so much of what is stated above exists.



Of Nerf Guns and Eye Injuries

“Nerf gun” not “Nerve gas.”

The temporary injury of a girl whose brother hit her in the eye with a foam Nerf gun dart has made the news, at least in the Daily Mail. Love or loathe them, the fact that they ran a large article and four pictures on this one incident (and remember “incident” is the word we use when nothing much really happened), is a perfect example of the way we look at childhood.

It is always through the lens of what could go tragically wrong, and what we can do to prevent that rare problem from ever happening again. Here you go:

Is your child’s Nerf gun safe? Foam dart from the popular toy leaves girl, 9, hospitalised with a bleed in her eye

EXCLUSIVE: Abigail Earnshaw was hit in the eye by a foam dart from a Nerf gun

It immediately caused a dark patch of blood to slowly form across half of her eye

Luckily the youngster recovered fully and has been left with no lasting issues

But experts warn the popular toys could cause someone to go blind in the future

“Experts warn” has got to be one of the main reasons we don’t let our kids do anything these days. What are they saying here? The fact that something hitting someone in the eye COULD cause blindness? Of course it could. But no where does the article mention this fact, which I found on Thrillist:

Over 445,277,777 darts are made per year

Enough NERF darts have been sold in the past five years alone to circle the earth four times. Some complete nut did the math and found the staggering, complete number of darts NERF has ever made. 4,007,500,000 since the dawn of darts. Wow.

So rather than saying, “Parents, relax! This outrageously popular toy gets kids playing, interacting, and running around,” it found the one in a half-billion time a girl got a temporary eye injury.

That is what parents are up against: A reality-warping view that sees any childhood activity as too dangerous to allow. Is your child’s Nerf gun safe? Is your child’s walk to school safe? Is your child’s ___________ safe? I’ve seen articles on everything from sippy cups to stuffed animals: Are they safe enough?

Hell no! Take more elaborate, expensive, time-consuming, childhood-stifling precautions immediately!

We didn’t get our sons Nerf guns until we saw with our own somehow spared-from-foam-dart-blindness eyes how much fun they had playing with them at their friend’s place. After that, our home became an arsenal.

This doesn’t seem to have made our kids any more violent and they still have both eyeballs. Actually, four eyeballs, between the two of them, knock wood (cautiously, after donning a baseball glove,oven mitt or other hand protection).

The above attached article (Of Nerf Guns and Eye Injuries) originated on Free-Range Kids and is republished here under “Fair Use” (see disclaimer below) with attribution to author Lenore Skenazy and Free-Range Kids


TLB: It has taken us three generations to create the perfect storm of destruction for our children’s future on so many levels, but if we truly care about their future, and thus by default the actual future of humanity itself, then consider this … It is still us who have the most influence in this youngest generations life and …

It is not too late for Damage Control !!!


Roger LandryAbout the Author: Roger Landry (TLB) spent about three decades of his adult life either in, or working for the military, with about two decades working directly for the Military Industrial Complex facilitating DOD contracts. His awakening to Political, Economic, and Health realities was less than seven short years ago. Since that time he has founded The Liberty Beacon Project (TLB) consisting of over a dozen proprietary global websites, media projects such as TLBTV, and partner websites across the planet. He contributes regularly to multiple forums both in and outside of TLB Project. Most of his work can be found on the TLB Flagship website

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

TLB has other above the fold articles, videos and stories available by clicking on “HOME” at the top of this post. Never miss a new post, sign up for E-Mail alerts at the bottom of the Home page and get a link dropped right to your in-box. contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

The Discovery of Simian Virus 40 (SV40)

 What the CDC Won’t Tell You About SV40, Polio Vaccines and Cancer

Gepubliceerd op 16 sep. 2014

Anonymous – CDC admits, 98 million Americans were injected with vaccines containing cancer virus

Gepubliceerd op 31 jul. 2013

CDC admits, then retracts statistics reporting that 98 million Americans were injected with vaccines containing cancer virus

he Centers for Disease Control recently published valuable information about polio vaccines on their site, but afterwards retracted the information. Why has that information been taken down? Regardless, a Google snapshot of this information as it appeared on July 11, 2013 is cached here:

The saved CDC information comes right out and admits that more than 98 million Americans during a span of eight years were injected with a cancer-causing polyomavirus called SV40.

This fact alone should serve as a testament to anyone: always question medical professionals who say that you or your child needs a certain vaccine or prescription. So much “medicine” today is actually poison. Professionals are often duped into believing in the safety of a vaccine or prescription, when all along it may be laced with cancer-causing, health ravaging virus, heavy metals, fungus, formaldehyde, or neurotoxins.

What is SV40?
SV40 stands for Simian vacuolating virus 40 and was found in monkeys in 1960. This polyomavirus existed in contaminated batches of polio vaccinations in the 50s and early 60s. Fragments of this virus have shown up in human brain, bone, and lung cancers. This virus is known for causing cancerous tumors.

Uniquely, humans have built in tumor-suppressing genes. The SV40 virus effectively disables those genes, suppressing them through the SV40 T-antigens. This leads to mutated genes that spawn uncontrollable cellular proliferation, leading to cancer.

Michele Carbone, Assistant Professor of pathology at Loyola University in Chicago, has recently found fragments of the SV40 virus in 40% of human bone cancers and in 60% of mesothelioma cancers.

Experts in the field are beginning to conclude that the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines were responsible for injecting cancer-causing viral strains into people, mutating their genes and welcoming epidemics of cancer.

The contaminated vaccine has been estimated to have adversely affected 10 to 30 million people.

The discovery of SV40
SV40 was first found by Dr. Bernice Eddy when she studied the minced kidney cells of rhesus monkeys. “The cells would die without any apparent cause,” she reported. Taking the cells from the monkey’s kidney cultures, Dr. Eddy injected them into hamsters. Merck & Co. soon discovered this virus, which was identified and isolated by Dr. Eddy. It was named Simian Virus 40 because it was the 40th virus found in monkey kidney cells. In 1960, the discovery was complete. Merck scientists Dr. Benjamin Sweet and Dr. Maurice Hillman published the findings. Dr. Eddy went on to publish more information about the SV40 virus. A single dose was injected into 13 newborn hamsters and 10 newborn mice. What followed was cellular neoplasms that developed between 156 and 380 days.

Still though, at the time, medical professionals defended the SV40 tainted polio vaccines, despite the published dangers of the SV40 virus contaminating the vaccines.

A more recent report, published in 2005 by the the National Network for Immunization Information, downplays the situation:

“Although SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, it has not been conclusively established whether it has caused cancer in humans,” said the report. “Epidemiological studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955-1963 do not show an increased
cancer risk.”

With the CDC coming out and admitting that millions of Americans were exposed to cancer causing SV40 viruses in the polio vaccines between 1955 and 1963, there will be increased skepticism about vaccinations in the years to come.

Maybe that’s why billionaire vaccine pushers made the CDC take this important information off their site.

Regardless, now you know. Always make an informed decision. Don’t automatically trust a medical professional when they say, ‘you need this vaccine.’

The Quiet Killer ~ Exploding Autoimmune Epidemics ~ Vaccines & Man Made Cancer

Dr. Randy Tent

Gepubliceerd op 15 sep. 2013
No doubt one of the most important videos you’ll ever watch regarding the history of vaccines as well as how this relates to decades of autoimmune diseases, cancers, HIV and other chronic ailments.

Man made – YES, as difficult as this is to believe. The evidence is quite clear for those that take the time to listen to this presentation.

BOOKMARK THIS SITE – For a wealth of information on everything you need to know about vaccines, their ingredients, exemptions, laws, and the fraud that they truly are.

The Men Who Killed Kennedy “The Love Affair” Complete Episode 8…

Suzanne Humphries, MD, speaking on Polio at the Association of Natural Health Conference…

See CHART on page 626 — notice AUTISM …..
Vaccines CAUSE Autism folks……they know.

Simian Virus 40 (SV40): A Cancer Causing Monkey Virus from FDA-Approved Vaccines


The Creation and Production of the Polio Vaccines

In the 1950s, scientists like Doctors Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin had isolated the poliovirus strains to make vaccines.[1] Dr. Salk’s strains would be inactivated with formaldehyde and injected into children. Dr. Sabin’s strains would be attenuated or weakened by transferring or passaging[2] the live viruses through different host cells and then fed to children orally.

Because his goal was to create a live attenuated vaccine, Dr. Sabin had to isolate the poliovirus strains and then passage the strains through a myriad of host cells in order to attain the right virulence—strong enough to illicit an immune response, but weak enough so as to not cause polio in the recipient. Sabin’s oral polio vaccine (OPV) is a trivalent vaccine and was, therefore, comprised of three types – Type I, II, and III. For example, Type I has the following lineage: In 1941, Drs. Francis and Mack isolated the Mahoney poliovirus “from the pooled feces of three healthy children in Cleveland.” [3] Dr. Salk then subjected the strain to passages through fourteen living monkeys and two cultures of monkey testicular cultures.[4] In 1954, the strain (now called Monk14 T2) was given to Drs. Li and Schaeffer who subjected the virus to nine more passages through monkey testicular cultures.[5] Next, the strain (now called Monk14 T11) underwent fifteen more passages in monkey testicular cultures, eighteen passages in monkey kidney cells, two passages through the skin of living rhesus monkeys, and additional passages through African Green monkey skin and monkey kidney cell cultures.[6] This strain was now called MS10 T43 or LS-c. In 1956, Dr. Sabin took this virus and passaged it through seven cultures of African Green Monkey kidney cells.[7] That same year, the pharmaceutical company, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, passed the strain (now called LS-c, 2ab/KP2) through a rhesus monkey kidney cell culture.[8] The resulting material was called Sabin Original Merck (SOM) and was provided to Lederle in 1960 as the seed material to manufacture its polio vaccine. Types II and III were created in a similar fashion.[9]

Once their strains were isolated, pharmaceutical companies needed a method to propagate the viruses in order to produce the vast quantities of vaccine needed for nation-wide immunization campaigns. This required a substrate upon which the poliovirus could be efficiently grown and harvested. Kidney cells from rhesus monkeys were chosen because they were found to be an effective growth medium.[10] A small quantity of poliovirus could be added to the minced kidneys surgically removed from these monkeys and within a few days, large quantities of poliovirus could then be harvested from these same monkey cells.

There was a problem, however, with using these monkey kidney cells to both create the original vaccine strains and grow the vaccine in large quantities. Monkeys contain simian viruses.[11] When the poliovirus was passaged through the monkeys or grown on the monkey kidney cells for production, extraneous viruses became part of the final poliovirus vaccine.[12] As early as 1953, Dr. Herald R. Cox, a scientist working at Lederle Laboratories, one of the polio vaccine manufacturers, published an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal in which he stated, “[P]oliomyelitis virus has so far been cultivated only in the tissues of certain susceptible species—namely, monkey or human tissues. Here again we would always be confronted with the potential danger of picking up other contaminating viruses or other microbic agents infectious for man.”[13] In fact, in 1958, a scientific journal reported that “the rate of isolation of new simian viruses (from monkey kidney cells) has continued unabated.”[14] Additionally, in 1960, the pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. wrote to the U.S. Surgeon General:

Our scientific staff have emphasized to us that there are a number of serious scientific and technical problems that must be solved before we could engage in large-scale production of live poliovirus vaccine. Most important among these is the problem of extraneous contaminating simian viruses that may be extremely difficult to eliminate and which may be difficult if not impossible to detect at the present stage of the technology.[15]

The Discovery of Simian Virus 40 (SV40)

Between 1959 and 1960, Bernice Eddy, Ph.D., of the National Institute of Health (NIH) examined minced rhesus monkey kidney cells under a microscope.[16] These were the cells of the same species of monkeys used to create and produce the oral polio vaccine. Dr. Eddy discovered that the cells would die without any apparent cause. She then took suspensions of the cellular material from these kidney cell cultures and injected them into hamsters. Cancers grew in the hamsters.[17] Shortly thereafter, scientists at the pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. discovered what would later be determined to be the same virus identified by Eddy.[18] This virus was named Simian Virus 40 or SV40 because it was the 40th simian virus found in monkey kidney cells.

In 1960, Doctors Benjamin Sweet and Maurice Hilleman, the Merck scientists who named the virus SV40, published their findings:

Viruses are commonly carried by monkeys and may appear as contaminants in cell cultures of their tissues, especially the kidney . . . . The discovery of this new virus, the vacuolating agent, represents the detection for the first time of a hitherto “non-detectable” simian virus of monkey renal cultures and raises the important question of the existence of other such viruses . . . . As shown in this report, all 3 types of Sabin’s live poliovirus vaccine, now fed to millions of persons of all ages, were contaminated with vacuolating virus.[19]

The vacuolating virus was another name for SV40.

In 1962, Dr. Bernice Eddy published her findings in the journal produced by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. She wrote:

There is now an impressive list of oncogenic (cancer causing) viruses—the rabbit papilloma, polyoma, Rous sarcoma, the leukemia viruses . . . . It has been known for a number of years that monkeys harbor latent viruses . . . . The (SV40) virus was injected at once into 13 newborn hamsters and 10 newborn mice. Subcutaneous neoplasms indistinguishable from those induced by the rhesus monkey kidney extracts developed in 11 of the 13 hamsters between 156 and 380 days . . . .[20]

Subsequent studies performed in the early 1960s demonstrated that SV40 caused brain tumors in animals[21] and that SV40 could transform or turn cancerous normal human tissue in vitro.[22] A disturbing experiment performed during this era also suggested that SV40 could cause human cancers in man in vivo.[23] In 1964, Fred Jensen and his colleagues took tissue from patients who were terminally ill with cancer.[24] They exposed the tissue to SV40 and then after it was transformed, they implanted the tissue back into the patient.[25] These implants grew into tumors in their human hosts.[26] This suggested the possibility that SV40 could cause cancers in man.

New Regulations are Implemented

By 1960, the Salk injectable polio vaccine (IPV) had been administered to about 98 million American children and adults, and Sabin’s OPV had been administered to about 10,000 Americans and millions in the USSR where the clinical trials had been conducted.[27] It was estimated that 10% to 30% of the vaccines contained live SV40.[28] The federal agency in charge of vaccine licensing and safety at the time was the Division of Biologics Standards (DBS) of the National Institute of Health (NIH).[29] Incredibly, this agency did not order a recall of any of the SV40-contaminated vaccines.[30] The tainted vaccines continued to be administered until 1963 when they were all used and replaced by allegedly SV40-free vaccines as required by the new federal regulations promulgated in 1961.[31]

On March 25, 1961, the federal regulations that controlled the production of oral poliovirus vaccine were amended.[32] These new regulations did not require the vaccine manufacturers to discard their SV40-contaminated poliovirus seeds which were the source for all subsequent polio vaccines.[33] Instead, the rules required that “[e]ach seed virus used in manufacture shall be demonstrated to be free of extraneous microbial agents.”[34] The new regulations also required that each pair of monkey kidneys removed from a monkey for vaccine production “shall be examined microscopically for evidence of cell degeneration.”[35] Furthermore, fluid from the monkey kidney cells had to be combined with other tissue cultures in order to detect if there was any contaminating virus.[36] The regulations required that “[t]he cultures shall be observed for at least 14 days.”[37]

In essence these regulations required an SV40 test that was comprised of taking the monkey kidney cells upon which the vaccine would be grown and: 1) Looking at them through a microscope to see if they demonstrated SV40; 2) Taking fluids from them; 3) Introducing those fluids into other cell cultures; 4) Waiting 14 days; and 5) Seeing whether the other cell cultures were changed as a result of the presence of SV40. These tests were not designed to detect the contaminating viruses themselves. One cannot see SV40 or any virus with a standard light microscope or the naked eye. Instead, the government’s SV40 test relied on the observation of the presumed effect of an SV40 infection on certain tissue cells to demonstrate the presence of the virus.

On November 8, 1961, after the new regulations were in force, an internal Lederle Laboratories memo stated that three lots of OPV that had been released for clinical trials were probably contaminated with SV40.[38] The memo states, “The decision by Dr. Murray to allow SV40 to be present at the PCB-2 level was the basis for our allowing these lots to pass.”[39] The PCB-2 level comprised one set of fluids taken from the monkey kidney cells and introduced into other cell cultures to detect SV40.[40] It was used to perform the 14-day observation tests for the presence of SV40 and had indicated that these particular polio harvests were SV40 contaminated.[41] “Dr. Murray” referred to above is Dr. Roderick Murray who was the director of the Division of Biologics Standards (DBS) of the National Institute of Health (NIH) from 1955 to 1972.[42] It is unknown why, according to this internal memorandum, the DBS would allow polio vaccines to be released when the very tests designed to find SV40 produced positive results of SV40 infection.

A. The Scientific Rationale for the New Regulations

In 1962, an article received for publication on September 29, 1961, appeared in the Journal of Immunology; entitled, Studies on Simian Virus 40, it was written by scientists from the DBS of the NIH.[43] This article presented the rationale for the new SV40 safety regulations that would remain in place, ostensibly unchanged, for the next four decades.[44] The article’s lead author was Harry M. Meyer, Jr.[45] Dr. Meyer would succeed Dr. Murray as the director of the DBS and would hold this post from 1972 to 1987.[46]

This article discussed some of the challenges with SV40 and polio vaccine production including the fact that the time required for SV40 to show itself in tissue culture tests was “directly related” to the amount of SV40 present.[47] In other words, the testing required by the federal regulations for SV40 detection was dependent on the amount of SV40 present.

The authors also pointed out that it could take up to thirty-five days for SV40 detection when the virus was removed from the blood of an infected monkey.[48] Interestingly, however, the authors also stated that it took only eleven days for low doses of SV40[49] to be detected when it was removed from monkey kidney cells.[50] This was reportedly based on a single experiment. The eleven-day result was significant because the regulations only required fourteen days of observation.[51] If low doses of SV40 could be detected in eleven days then the fourteen-day observation period would be sufficient. A close reading of this article, however, reveals that this crucial study was at best incomplete.

B. A Critique of the Scientific Basis of the New Regulations

The authors of the Journal of Immunology article stated that 10 to 100 TCID50 or “Tissue Culture Infective Dose” of SV40 was detected in eleven days.[52] TCID50 is defined as that dilution of virus required to infect 50% of a given batch of inoculated cell cultures.[53] Therefore, a titer of 10 to 100 TCID50 represents a substantial amount of SV40 because one-half of the cells are infected. In other words, if it took a certain sized dose to infect 50% of the cells in eleven days, it would probably take a substantially smaller dose to infect 1% of the cells in the same period. This smaller dose would then take longer to infect 50% of the cell cultures. Therefore, this article left out the important fact that very low doses of SV40 would most likely not be detected in eleven days.

Second, the government scientists used pure SV40 as a surrogate for SV40-contaminated monkey kidney cells.[54] There is no study that demonstrates the validity of this. During vaccine production, polio seed virus is inoculated into monkey kidney cells in order to grow the vaccine. Samples of these cells are set aside and fluids are drawn off and injected into other cell cultures to test for the presence of SV40. Since these fluids are drawn from monkey kidney cells, they contain a variety of viruses, cellular components, growth medium, and other debris. The sensitivity of the SV40 test for detection of SV40 from this amalgam was the important public health question. The Division of Biologics Standards, however, did not perform this test, or if they did, they did not report their findings. Instead, they used pure SV40 without any other ingredients to determine that eleven days was sufficient.

This flaw in the methodology was demonstrated when the authors discussed the fact that after three weeks of observation, SV40 did not appear from the kidneys of four monkeys that were known to carry SV40 antibodies in their blood. The government scientists stated, “[T]he failure to demonstrate virus in the renal tissue of an appreciable number of rhesus monkeys that had been infected some time earlier was of interest.”[55] This is an admission that even after three weeks of observation (one week longer than the federally mandated two-week observation period) the SV40 from the kidneys of SV40 contaminated monkeys (not pure SV40) did not reveal itself in culture. Unfortunately, the government scientists did not act on this important observation other than to note that it “was of interest.”

Third, the eleven-day finding was apparently based on a single experiment.[56] There is no mention of it being repeated to ensure the accuracy of the results as required by the scientific method.

By 1965, it was well established in the scientific literature that there were several problems with the SV40 tests mandated by the Code of Federal Regulations. First, the fourteen-day SV40 tests were not long enough to detect the virus.[57] In fact, numerous experiments by leading virologists (all non-governmental scientists) found that it took from two to five weeks for the detection of low doses of SV40.[58] Second, there were more sophisticated microbiological tools available that could detect SV40 with greater accuracy.[59] These tests were all widely used and accepted virological techniques. Third, there were several more sophisticated measures available to eliminate SV40 from cultures used to make the poliovirus vaccine.[60] Nonetheless, despite the mounting scientific evidence that the SV40 tests were crude and unreliable, the regulations were not changed and oral polio vaccine manufacturers did not voluntarily adopt any technical improvements to ensure that SV40 was detected and eliminated from their products.

The Flawed Epidemiology

After SV40 was originally detected in the Salk and Sabin vaccines that had been administered to millions of children around the world, the scientific community held its breath and wondered if these children would be stricken with cancer.[61] Indeed, the pediatric cancer rate continued to climb through the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s.[62] But, the few epidemiological studies that looked for a direct link between SV40 and human cancer provided inconsistent conclusions. Some reports found that there was an increased risk of cancer from SV40 exposure[63] and others found that there was no risk.[64] Each of these studies suffered from major flaws including the fact that no one knew who actually received the SV40-contaminated vaccines and who did not, so it was impossible to compare an SV40-exposed group with a non-exposed group.[65]

SV40—A Human Carcinogen

By 1999, numerous pathologists, microbiologists, and virologists throughout the world had detected SV40 in a variety of human cancers such as brain tumors[66] including medulloblastomas,[67] bone cancers,[68] and mesotheliomas[69] a fatal lung cancer. These were the very same cancers that were created when SV40 was introduced into animals.[70] The advent of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology that could identify the genetic code of specific strands of DNA demonstrated with precision that it was this monkey virus that was being detected in human cancers and no other.[71] Moreover, the rates of these particular cancers had steadily increased over the last few decades.[72] The question that had been left unanswered for almost four decades now faced scientists again—was SV40 responsible for causing or contributing to human cancers?

Over the last forty years since its discovery, SV40 had become one of the most widely studied and best understood viruses in microbiology.[73] It was routinely used to create human cancers in the laboratory in order to test cancer therapies.[74] In addition, it is now known how this virus caused cancer on a molecular level. After careful study documented in peer reviewed publications, leaders in SV40 research announced that SV40 was a class 2A human carcinogen.[75]

The Government’s Response

Nonetheless, the various United States government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) disputed these conclusions. According to the CDC, “SV40 virus has been found in certain types of cancer in humans, but it has not been determined that SV40 causes these cancers.”[76] According to the National Intsitutes of Health (NIH), “the NCI is continuing to evaluate the possible link between SV40 infection and human cancers.”[77] A question has been raised whether this continuing evaluation is being performed with complete scientific integrity. One article written by an attorney and published in a peer reviewed scientific journal describes how the NCI deliberately compromised a study that would have demonstrated the association between SV40 and mesothelioma.[78]

While the United States government continues to evaluate whether or not SV40 represents a public health threat and whether SV40 is a human carcinogen, several scientists at the NCI concluded that SV40 contributed to the formation of mesotheliomas.[79] In fact, the federal government has licensed technology to target SV40 in the treatment of human mesotheliomas.[80]

SV40 and the Public Health

Despite the government’s foot dragging, in the last several years, scientists from around the world have made startling and disturbing discoveries. They have found SV40 antibodies in a significant percentage of people including children who were too young to receive the SV40 contaminated vaccines of the early 1960’s.[81] They have also discovered that cancers with SV40 are less likely to be responsive to chemotherapy and radiation because SV40 interferes with the genes necessary for cancer cells to die when they are exposed to chemo or radiation therapy.[82]

The Institute of Medicine Report

In July 2002, the National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Committee convened a study into SV40 and cancer which culminated in a report published in October 2002. According to the IOM report “SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer”:

The committee concludes that the biological evidence is strong that SV40 is a transforming [i.e., cancer-causing] virus, . . . that the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions, [and] that the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure from the polio vaccine is related to SV40 infection in humans.[83]


* Mr. Michael Horwin, M.A., J.D. and his wife Raphaele Horwin, M.A., M.F.S. testified in front of the U.S. Congress on June 7, 2000 in hearings entitled Cancer Care For The New Millenium – Integrative Oncology. Mr. Horwin is a magna cum laude law school graduate and winner of the National Scribes Award for article “War on Cancer”: Why Does the FDA Deny Access to Alternative Cancer Treatments?, 38 Cal. W. L. Rev. 189 (2001). He has written a number of articles on pediatric vaccines and health freedom that have been published in law and health publications. The Horwin’s lawsuit as described in this article is the first case alleging that Simian Virus 40 (SV40) was responsible for the cancer and death of a child, in this case, their son Alexander. As they do in all their writings, the Horwin’s dedicate this article to their son Alexander and to other children who have been injured or killed by the very vaccines designed to protect them. For more information, see the Horwins website:

[1] Aaron E. Klein, Trial by Fury: The Polio Vaccine Controversy 72–73, 138–43 (1972).

[2] Passaging is defined as successive transfer of an infection through experimental animals or tissue culture. Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1240 (27th ed. 1988).

[3] A.B. Sabin, A.B. & L. Boulger, History of Sabin Attenuated Poliovirus Oral Live Vaccine Strains. 1 J. Biol. Stand. 115, 115–18 (1973). The Mahoney virus was isolated in 1941 by Drs. Fancis and Mack.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. For information on Salk’s strains, see Edward Hooper, The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS 200 (1999).

[10] M.R. Hilleman, Discovery of Simian Virus (SV40) and its Relationship to Poliomyelitis Virus Vaccines, in Simian Virus 40 (SV40): A Possible Human Polyomavirus, 94 Dev. Biol. Stand. 183–90 (F. Brown & A.M. Lewis eds., 1998).

[11] Id. at 184.

[12] Id.

[13] Herald R. Cox, Viral Vaccines and Human Welfare, The Lancet, July 4, 1953, at 1, 3.

[14] Robert N. Hull et al., New Viral Agents Recovered from Tissue Cultures of Monkey Kidney Cells, 68 Am. J. Hygiene 31, 41 (1958).

[15] Kops, supra note 15, at 4745, 4747.

[16] Bernice E. Eddy, Tumors Produced in Hamsters by SV40, 21 Fed’n Proc 930, 930–35 (1962) [hereinafter Eddy I]; Bernice E. Eddy et al., Identification of the Oncogenic Substance in Rhesus Monkey Kidney Cell Cultures as Simian Virus 40, 17 Virology 65–75 (1962) [hereinafter Eddy et al. II]; Edward Shorter, The Health Century 195–99 (1987).

[17] Eddy I, supra note 34, at 930; Eddy et al. II, supra note 34, at 65.

[18] B.H. Sweet & M.R. Hilleman, The Vacuolating Virus, S.V.40, 105 Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 420, 420–27 (1960).

[19] Id. at 420, 426. These scientists called SV40 the vacuolating agent because it created tell-tale vacuoles in the kidney cell cultures of African Green Monkeys.

[20] Eddy I, supra note 34, at 930–35.

[21] Ruth L. Kirschstein & Paul Gerber, Ependymomas Produced After Intracerebral Inoculation of SV40 into New-Born Hamsters, Nature, July 21, 1962, at 299–300.

[22] In vitro means outside a living body. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 609 (1977). Harvey M. Shein & John F. Enders, Transformation Induced By Simian Virus 40 in Human Renal Cell Cultures, I. Morphology and Growth Characteristics, 48 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1164, 1164 (1962); Hilary Koprowski et al., Transformation of Cultures of Human Tissue Infected with Simian Virus SV40, 59 J. Cellular & Comp. Physiology 281, 281–92 (1962).

[23] In vivo means in a living body. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 609 (1977).

[24] Fred Jensen et al., Autologous and Homologous Implantation of Human Cells Transformed in vitro by Simian Virus 40, 32 J. Nat’l Cancer Inst. 917, 918–37 (1964).

[25] Transformed means “the change that a normal cell undergoes as it becomes malignant.” Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1733 (28th ed. 1994); see also Jensen et al., supra note 42, at 919.

[26] Jensen et al., supra note 42, at 931.

[27] Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Immunization Safety Review: SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer 4, 21 (Kathleen Stratton et al. eds., 2002), (last visited May 26, 2003) [hereinafter Immunization Safety Review].

[28] Id.

[29] National Institutes of Health (NIH) Division of Biologics Standards (DBS) was a forerunner of today’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Paul Parkman, Harry Meyer, Jr., MD Lecture, CBER Centennial—Slide Presentation (Sept. 23–24, 2002), at (last visited May 26, 2003). “The transfer of DBS to the Food and Drug Administration took place in 1972.” Id. The DBS became the FDA’s Bureau of Biologics (BoB). Id. “Later incarnations of this organization included the Center for Drugs and Biologics (CDB) and finally, the present day Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).” Id.

[30] Immunization Safety Review, supra note 45, at 21.

[31] Id.

[32] See Berkovitz by Berkovitz v. U.S., 486 U.S. 531, 540–41 (1988).

Under federal law, a manufacturer must receive a product license prior to marketing a brand of live oral polio vaccine. In order to become eligible for such a license, a manufacturer must first make a sample of the vaccine product. This process begins with the selection of an original virus strain. The manufacturer grows a seed virus from this strain; the seed virus is then used to produce monopools, portions of which are combined to form the consumer-level product. Federal regulations set forth safety criteria for the original strain, . . . the seed virus, . . . and the vaccine monopools, . . . . Under the regulations, the manufacturer must conduct a variety of tests to measure the safety of the product at each stage of the manufacturing process. Upon completion of the manufacturing process and the required testing, the manufacturer is required to submit an application for a product license to the DBS. In addition to this application, the manufacturer must submit data from the tests performed and a sample of the finished product.

Id. (citations omitted); see also Kops, supra note 15, at 4745–49.

[33] See 42 C.F.R. § 73.110 et seq. (1964).

[34] Id. § 73.110(b)(3); see also Kops, supra note 15, at 4745–49.

[35] 42 C.F.R. § 73.113(d); see also Kops, supra note 15, at 4745–49.

[36] 42 C.F.R. § 73.113(d).

[37] Id. According to Lederle Laboratories, they also perform a 14-day subculture. A subculture, however, is like starting new because fluids are drawn from the original culture and infected into a new tissue culture. See B. Brock et al., Product Quality Control Testing for the Oral Polio Vaccine, in Simian Virus 40 (SV40): A Possible Human Polyomavirus, supra note 28, at 217–19.

[38] Memorandum from Dr. James L. Biddle, to Dr. I.S. Danielson (Nov. 8, 1961), at (last visited May 15, 2003).

[39] The Lederle internal memorandum was submitted in response to discovery requests in polio litigation. Both of these scientists were Lederle employees at the time this memo was written. Id.

[40] Brock et al., supra note 55, at 217–19.

[41] Id.

[42] In the early 1960’s, the Laboratory of Biologics Control was reorganized, and elevated to Division level, becoming the Division of Biologics Standards. See Parkman, supra note 47. It was given a separate new building, more research and regulatory staff, and a new Director, Dr. Roderick Murray. Id. One of the first major products the new organization was called upon to approve was the live oral poliovirus vaccines. See id.

[43] Harry M. Meyer et al., Studies on Simian Virus 40, 88 J. Immunology 796, 796–806 (1962).

[44] See id. at 796.

[45] Id.

[46] See Parkman, supra note 47. “In 1972, Hank became responsible for directing the research and regulatory programs for all biologicals in the newly formed Bureau of Biologics and in 1982, became Director of the combined Center for Drugs and Biologics.” Id.

[47] It also discussed other problems with SV40 detection, including: 1) CPE was dose dependent; 2) One could not tell clinically or by autopsy whether a monkey is contaminated with SV40; 3) Some SV40-contaminated monkeys do not demonstrate antibodies; and 4) The key tissue culture test may not be reliable because it could contain SV40 itself. Meyer et al., supra note 61, at 796–806.

[48] See id. at 798.

[49] Low doses of SV40 are 10 to 100 TCID50.

[50] Id. at 799.

[51] 42 C.F.R. § 114 (a)(5).

[52] Meyer et al., supra note 65, at 799.

[53] J. Nicklin et al., Instant Notes in Microbiology 296–98 (1999).

[54] Meyer et al., supra note 61, at 796–806, 797, 799. SV40 Seed Pool A was passaged from SV40 strain 776. Id. at 797. At a concentration of 105 or 106 SV40 Seed Pool A demonstrated CPE in Cercopithecus kidney cells by the 3rd day. See id. at 799. At a concentration of 103 it demonstrated CPE in Cercopithecus kidney cells by the 7th day. See id. at 798–99. At a concentration of 10 or 100, it demonstrated CPE in Cercopithecus kidney cells by the 11th day. See id. at 799.

[55] Meyer et al., supra note 61, at 802.

[56] See id. at 803.

[57] Sara Stinebaugh & Joseph L. Melnick, Plaque Formation by Vacuolating Virus SV40, 16 Virology 348, 348 (1962). “[A]t the end point, the amount of CPE is variable and limited to portions of the culture, so that a good deal of time must be spent meticulously examining the cultures under the microscope. Furthermore the cultures must be held for 2-3 weeks to arrive at an end point . . . .” Id. (emphasis added); see also Harvey M. Shein & Jeana D. Levinthal, Fluorescent Antibody and Complement Fixation Tests for Detection of SV40 Virus in Cell Cultures, 17 Virology 595, 595 (1962). “In this laboratory in [Green Monkey Kidney] GMK cultures inoculated with small quantities of virus [(SV40)] (i.e., <100 TCID50), changes were not observed until five or six weeks after inoculation. Therefore to attain maximal accuracy with this method, a long period of observation is required.” Id. “Finally the demonstration that SV40 can multiply in cultures derived from [African Green Monkey Kidney] AGMK Cells without exhibiting any cytopathic effect detectable under non-stained, direct light microscope observations suggests that as far as this agent is concerned more attention should be given to the present safety tests used concerning vaccines prepared in monkey cells.” Mario V. Fernandes & Paul S. Moorhead, Transformation of African Green Monkey Kidney Cultures Infected with Simian Vacuolating Virus (SV40), 23 Tex. Rep. on Biology & Med., 242–57 (1965).

[58] See Fernandes & Moorhead, supra note 75, at 242–57.

[59] Stinebaugh & Melnick, supra note 75, at 348–50; Shein & Levinthal, supra note 75, at 595–97.

[60] See Shein & Levinthal, supra note 75, at 595–97.

[61] See Joseph F. Fraumeni, Jr. et al., An Evaluation of the Carcinogenicity of Simian Virus 40 in Man, 185 JAMA 713, 713–18 (1963).

[62] See Jack van Hoff et al., Trends in the Incidence of Childhood and Adolescent Cancer in Connecticut, 1935–1979, 16 Med. & Pediatric Oncology 78, 78–87 (1988); W. Archie Bleyer, What can be Learned about Childhood Cancer from “Cancer Statistics Review 1973–1988”, 15 Cancer 3229, 3229–36 (Supp. 1993); James G. Gurney et al., The Influence of Subsequent Neoplasms on Incidence Trends in Childhood Cancer, 3 Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 349, 349–51 (1994); Greta R. Bunin et al., Increasing Incidence of Childhood Cancer: Report of 20 Years Experience From the Greater Delaware Valley Pediatric Tumor Registry, 10 Paediatric & Perinatal Epidemiology 319, 319–38 (1996); J.G. Gurney et. al., Trends in Cancer Incidence Among Children in the U.S., 78 Cancer 532, 532–41 (1996); Andrine R. Swensen & Sally A. Bushhouse, Childhood Cancer Incidence and Trends in Minnesota, 1988-1994, 81 Minn. Med. 27, 27–32 (1988), (last visited May 26, 2003); Martha S. Linet et al., Cancer Surveillance Series: Recent Trends in Childhood Cancer Incidence and Mortality in the United States, 91 J. Nat’l Cancer Inst. 1051, 1051–58 (1999); Joseph J. Mangano, A Rise in the Incidence of Childhood Cancer in the United States, 29 Int’l J. Health Servs. 393, 393–408 (1999).

[63] M.D. Innis, Oncogenesis and Poliomyelitis Vaccine, Nature, Aug. 31, 1968, at 972–73; Jacqueline R. Farwell et al., Effect of SV40-Virus Contaminated Polio Vaccine on the Incidence and Type of CNS Neoplasms in Children: A Population-Based Study, 104 Transactions Am. Neurological Ass’n 261, 261–64 (1979); Jacqueline R. Farwell et al., Medulloblastoma in Childhood: An Epidemiological Study, 61 J. Neurosurgery 657, 657–64 (1984) [hereinafter Farwell et al. II]; Olli P. Heinonen, et al. Immunization During Pregnancy Against Poliomyelitis and Influenza in Relation to Childhood Malignancy, 2 Int’l J. Epidemiology 229, 229–35 (1973).

[64] Joseph F. Fraumeni, Jr. et al., Simian Virus 40 in Polio Vaccine: Follow-Up of Newborn Recipients, Science, Jan. 1970, at 59–60; Edward A. Motimer, Jr., Long-term Follow-Up of Persons Inadvertently Inoculated with SV40 as Neonates, 305 New Eng. J. Med. 1517, 1517–18 (1981).

[65] Regis A. Vilchex et al., Conventional Epidemiology and the Link Between SV40 and Human Cancers, 4 Lancet Oncology 188, 188–91 (2003).

[66] Huato Huang et al., Identification in Human Brain Tumors of DNA Sequences Specific for SV40 Large T Antigen, 9 Brain Pathology 33, 33–42 (1999); Hai N. Zhen et al., Expression of the Simian Virus 40 Large Tumor Antigen (Tag) and Formation of Tag-p53 and Tag-pRb Complexes in Human Brain Tumors, 86 Cancer 2124, 2124–32 (1999); F. Martini et al., Simian Virus 40 Footprints in Normal Human Tissues, Brain and Bone Tumours of Different Histotypes; in Simian Virus 40 (SV40): A Possible Human Polyomavirus, supra note 28, at 55–56; J. Wang et al., Simian Virus 40 DNA Sequences in Human Brain and Bone Tumours, in Simian Virus 40 (SV40): A Possible Human Polyomavirus, supra note 28, at 13–21.

[67] Huang et al., supra note 84, at 33; Zhen et al., supra note 84, at 2124; F. Martini et al., supra note 84, at 55–56.

[68] C.M. Matker et al., The Biological Activities of Simian Virus 40 Large-T Antigen and its Possible Oncogenic Effects in Humans, 53 Monaldi Arch. Chest Dis. 193, 193–97 (1998).

[69] Paul Rizzo et al., Simian Virus 40 is Present in Most United States Human Mesotheliomas, but it is Rarely Present in Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, 116 Chest 470S, 470S–473S (1999); Narayan Shivapurkar et al., Presence of Simian Virus 40 Sequences in Malignant Mesotheliomas and Mesothelial Cell Proliferations, 76 J. Cellular Biochemistry 181, 181–88 (1999).

[70] Paul Gerber & Ruth L. Kirschstein, SV40-Induced Ependymomas in Newborn Hamsters, 18 Virology 582, 582–88 (1962); Alan S. Rabson et al., Papillary Ependymomas Produced in Rattus (Mastomys) Natalensis Inoculated with Vacuolating Virus (SV40), 29 J. Nat’l Cancer Inst. 765, 765–87 (1962); Ralph L. Brinster et al., Transgenic Mice Harboring SV40 T-antigen Genes Develop Characteristic Brain Tumors, 37 Cell 367, 367–79 (1984); Robert H. Eibl et al., A Model for Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumors in Transgenic Neural Transplants Harboring the SV40 Large T Antigen, 144 Am. J. Pathology 556, 556–64 (1994); Claudia Cicala et al., SV40 Induces Mesotheliomas in Hamsters, 142 Am. J. Pathology 1524, 1524–33 (1993); Matker et al., supra note 86, at 193–97.

[71] Bharat Jasani et al., Simian Virus 40 Detection in Human Mesothelioma: Reliability and Significance of the Available Molecular Evidence, 6 Frontiers Bioscience e12, e12–22 (2001); J.S. Butel et al., Detection of Authentic SV40 DNA Sequences in Human Brain and Bone Tumours, in Simian Virus 40 (SV40): A Possible Human Polyomavirus, supra note 28, at 23–32.

[72] Alicia Ault, Monkey Virus in Humans may Trigger Cancer: Experts, Reuters Heath, July 2002, at (last visited May 15, 2003).

[73] See E. Fanning, Introduction to Simian Virus 40: Getting by with More than a Little Help from its Host Cell, in Simian Virus 40 (SV40): A Possible Human Polyomavirus, supra note 28, at 3–8.

[74] Id.

[75] Adi F. Gazdar et al., SV40 and Human Tumours: Myth, Association or Causality?, 2 Nat. Rev. Cancer 957, 957–64 (2002).

[76] Centers for Disease Control, Simian Virus 40 (SV40), Polio Vaccine, and Cancer Fact Sheet (2003), at (last visited May 15, 2003).

[77] Nat’l Cancer Inst., Simian Virus 40 and Human Cancer (2003), at (last visited May 15, 2003).

[78] Donald S. MacLachlan, SV40 in Human Tumors: New Documents Shed Light on the Apparent Controversy, 22 Anticancer Res. 3495, 3495–99 (2002).

[79] Ishrat Waheed et al., Antisense to SV40 Early Gene Region Induces Growth Arrest and Apoptosis in T-Antigen-Positive Human Pleural Mesothelioma Cells, 59 Cancer Res. 6068, 6068–73 (1999).

[80] David Shrump, Z. Sheng Guo, Ishrat Waheed (NCI), Adenoviral Vector Expressing a SV40 T Antigen Antisense RNA, Serial No. 60/124,776 filed March 17, 1999, at (last visited May 15, 2003).

[81] Janet S. Butel et al., Molecular Evidence of Simian Virus 40 Infections in Children, 180 J. Infectious Diseases 884, 884–87 (1999); Janet S. Butel et al., Evidence of SV40 Infections in Hospitalized Children, 30 Human Pathology 496, 496–502 (1999); Sanjeeda Jafar et al., Serological Evidence of SV40 Infections in HIV-Infected and HIV-Negative Adults, 54 J. Med. Virology 276, 276–84 (1998).

[82] All cells in the human body have various tumor suppressor genes and these genes tell individual cells to die when the cells become damaged and mutated. See The Chemotherapy Source Book 4 (Michael C. Perry ed., 3d ed. 2001). One tumor gene in particular, p53 is designed to kill cells through apoptosis or “cell suicide” so that mutated cells to not lead to cancer through uncontrolled multiplication and metastasis. Chemotherapy and radiation depend, to a large degree, on p53. Id. Chemotherapy and radiation create damage to cells which, in turn, leads to p53 being triggered which ultimately leads to apoptosis. Id. Without p53, cytotoxic therapies would simply create more mutations in already damaged cells. Id. Such cells would not die, and would likely become only more aggressive. Id. It is now known that SV40 binds to and inactivates the functioning of p53 so that the cells do not commit suicide even after they are damaged by chemotherapy or radiation. Id. This suggests that in cancers in which SV40 is present, radiation and chemotherapy will likely not be of any benefit. See id.

[83] Immunization Safety Review: SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer, supra note 45, at 6–8.

Uh, yeah… I’m an anti-vaxxer. Duh

“By now, everyone is familiar with the term ‘anti-vaxxer’. It is frequently used on the internet to describe some crazy, delusional whack job who is anti-science and a danger to society. These disgraceful humans are constantly spewing pseudo-science, and lie almost as much as a sleeping dog. Not only are they ignorant—because, well, science—but they […]

via Uh, yeah… I’m an anti-vaxxer. Duh. — Vaccines

Water Protectors, Police and Wildlife, Exposed To Rat Poison