What does that have to do with SV40 and cancer?

gotta love the wayback machine

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522..._factsheet.htm

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...nts%20&f=false

"61% of the neoplastic patients positive for SV 40 sequences were of an age excluding exposure to SV 40-contaminated polio vaccines, suggesting contagious transmission of SV 40 by horizontal infection."

See where it says "excluding exposure to SV 40-contaminated polio vaccines ?

See where it says "horizontal infection"?

Dude, read your sources and posts.

Possibly worth a gander:

https://www.chop.edu/centers-program...gredients/sv40

see where it says

More than 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine from 1955 to 1963 when a proportion of vaccine was contaminated with SV40; it has been estimated that 10–30 million Americans could have received an SV40 contaminated dose of vaccine.

In the 1950s, rhesus monkey kidney cells, which contain SV40 if the animal is infected, were used in preparing polio vaccines. Because SV40 was not discovered until 1960, no one was aware in the 1950s that polio vaccine could be contaminated.

Uhhh.

Yeah, vaccine not linked to cancer. Right in your own supporting documents.

Just lol

Except they admitted to it dum dum..


Former Merck vaccine chief admits Adding CANCER-CAUSING VIRUS to Vaccine

Even the spun narrative is false.

Epidemiologic studies showed no increased risk of cancers in those who received polio vaccine between 1955 and 1963.

So like jtaylor, you wanna bail on what you posted?

Now trying to move to a YouTube video?

Hoping I'll pretend you didn't link what you linked and quote what you quoted?

Such lulz

The video speaks for itself, an admission of SV40 in the vaccines and the harmful effects of it...from Merck. Not sure what else you need

gotta love the wayback machine

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522..._factsheet.htm

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...nts%20&f=false

"61% of the neoplastic patients positive for SV 40 sequences were of an age excluding exposure to SV 40-contaminated polio vaccines, suggesting contagious transmission of SV 40 by horizontal infection."

Because I asked my doctor if he was getting it and if he was giving it to his kids. He said yes on both accounts, so it was a no brainer for me.

I answered you. Now answer me on when we are all going to die Mr. Expert.

Lol

Why would your children need it? Not to dig into personal info, but are they severely immuno-compromised? Children were all but immune to covid.

SARSCOV2 emerged and spilled over into humans through the wildlife trade.

oh looky here..

Cancer risk associated with simian virus 40 contaminated polio vaccine



https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10472327/

RESULTS: Our analysis indicates increased rates of ependymomas (37%), osteogenic sarcomas (26%), other bone tumors (34%) and mesothelioma (90%) among those in the exposed as compared to the unexposed birth cohort.

CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that there may be an increased incidence of certain cancers among the 98 million persons exposed to contaminated polio vaccine in the U.S.; further investigations are clearly justified.



Association between SV40 and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15202523/

None of that replaces the scientific evidence or is remotely as strong as that.

Link this paper please.

JLC like half the posts itt are by you.

That's what you asked

I get that when one uses an n of 1, under a frequentist paradigm, there is no variance for which to account when drawing inference. The validity of generalizing results obtained in such a design is suspect, but if that's what you learned, so be it.

However, in larger studies, ignoring the variance surrounding point estimates is invalid.

It's really pretty funny that, similar to the regression debacle, you're unaware of the silliness you've presented while trying to assume an air of authority

The myocarditis stuff is so bs too. You guys act like it’s the end of the world. The percentage chance of just having an episode of myocarditis was something like 0.0007%.

You said Covid vaccines don’t carry higher risk of myocarditis than flu vaccines. That’s a blatant lie. Sorry if having people call you on your lies bothers you so much.

Children were not "all but immune". Many children experienced MIS-C and other complications from the virus. Don't assume the virus must kill you to harm you.

If you're not getting paid then how do you explain your covid addiction?

So, like other normal healthy people, the risk of covid is minimal and as rare as the side effects of the vaccine are, given they do not eliminate the complications or potential mortality of covid, it simply makes no sense statistically for some child with no major health issues to get vaccinated.

.

This is not a given. The statistical evaluation was presented by jtaylor, although it seems he didn't realize what he was presenting

So you agree with that evidence I shared which stated that Covid vaccines carry a greater risk than flu vaccines??

"Adverse effects have been associated with most, if not all, vaccinations that are used to protect against infectious diseases. Common adverse effects (frequency 1%-10%) associated with vaccination include short-lived discomfort at injection sites (reactogenic symptoms) and postvaccination flu-like symptoms (fever, chills, and myalgias). The risk of serious adverse effects after vaccination is very low with incidences typically less than 10 per 100 000 vaccine doses in most cases. Serious adverse effects associated with vaccinations include cardiac effects such as myocarditis and pericarditis and noncardiac effects such as anaphylaxis, febrile seizures, immune thrombocytopenia, encephalitis, meningitis, and Guillain-Barre syndrome. A recent analysis by the WHO identified 790 vaccine-related cases of myocarditis out of 5108 drug-induced myocarditis cases (15.5%) across 47 countries from 1967 to 2020.37 In 2010, there was an increase of myocarditis cases (n=294) after vaccination including 177 (60.2%) associated with smallpox, 72 (24.5%) with anthrax, and 48 (16.3%) with influenza.37 Another study estimated that the incidence of myocarditis following smallpox vaccination (13.2 per 100 000 vaccine doses) is much higher than the incidence following COVID-19 vaccination (Table S1; per 100 00 persons receiving the first 2 doses, median of 1.9 for BNT162b2, 3.5 for mRNA-1273), influenza vaccination (0.13 per 100 000 vaccine doses), or other non-small pox vaccinations (5.7 per 100 000 vaccine doses).38 Myocarditis following vaccination typically has a short time to onset (average of 10 days), low mortality, and often has pericardial involvement"


"No cases of myocarditis have been reported in vaccinated 0.5- to 5-year olds 90 Therefore, ongoing vaccination in this age group should prevent not only vaccine and infection induced myocarditis, but also MIS-C."

"Thus, when myocarditis risk in SARS-CoV-2 infection and mRNA vaccines are compared, including in the same studies to the same controls using the same methodology, the increased incidence rates compared to background are similar, with the median values for BNT162b2 (1.48 [N=3] or 2.47 [N=6]) and mRNA-1273 (6.25 [N=3] or 6.32 [N=4]) bracketing COVID-19 (3.52 [N=3])."

"Conclusions

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, therefore, recommends all persons 6 months and older receive the COVID-19 vaccine as the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the rare risk of myocarditis"

This is not a given. The statistical evaluation was presented by jtaylor, although it seems he didn't realize what he was presenting

No. This is becoming a Kreulian level of misunderstanding on your part

I shared evidence, so did you.

Perhaps interpretation isn't straightforward enough?

Look at the confidence intervals. They are very broad.

When compared with one another in a contrast, the rates are not different.

Read past the abstract, mane.

I posted direct quotes from the paper you shared in case you don't have access.

If you're not getting paid then how do you explain your covid addiction?

Having myocarditis is different than dying from myocarditis. Agree?

Not everyone who had myocarditis died. A huge majority of that 0.0007% just had it shortly after vaccination and then it went away on its own.

If you run that through the risk is way less than the 0.0007%, which is why you are not seeing people dying in the streets.

No. This is becoming a Kreulian level of misunderstanding on your part