Viral cause of cancer a human discovery - 1950s

[ofonorow]

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SE POLYOMA VIRUS (1959)
Bernice E. Eddy, Ph.D., F.A.P.H.A., and Sarah E. Stewart, M.D., Ph.D.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.49.11.1486

Newborn mice,3 hamsters,4 and rats9 when injected with the virus subcutaneously react by the development of malignant neoplasms that in time kill the animals. Almost all mice develop parotid gland tumors and in addition tumors in other tissues. Twenty-six histologically different tumors have been observed. The virus induces multiple sarcomas and angiomatous lesions in the hamster and the commonest sites are the wall of the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, and subcutaneous tissues. The most common tumors induced in the rat are sarcomas of the kidneys and subcutaneous tissues.

The "fraud" that is the Medical Medium works tells us that for most cancers, the root cause is a virus. The few exceptions include mesothelioma caused by asbestos. Thanks to pointers in the Ed Haslam book Dr. Mary's Monkey, we learn of the early NIH work of Drs. Eddy and Stewart (1950s) who first proved that simian (monkey) viruses induce cancers when they cross species.

The early Eddy/Stewart papers describe how the viruses were "cultured" and propagated.

p. 1488

Passage of fhe SE Polyoma Virus Through Animals and Tissue Cultures

The SE polyoma virus has been passed from animal to animal and from one species to another with tissue cul- ture passage between each animal pass-age as shown in Table 2. All of the animals injected with the tissue culture- grown virus developed tumors with the exception of the two dwarfed mice that had received the virus at birth.

The 1959 Eddy/Stewart paper describes the routes of the virus

Routes of Injection of the SE Polyoma Virus

Tumors are routinely induced in animals by the introduction of virus subcutaneously in newborn animals. Work in progress indicates that tumors are induced in hamsters when virus is given either subcutaneously, intramus-cularly, intraperitoneally, or intracerebrally. The dose of virus given intra-cerebrally was 0.03 ml as compared to 0.2 ml doses by other routes; yet many of the animals developed tumors in about the same period of time. The route was less satisfactory for tests for tumor induction than other routes be-cause some animals died and no tumors could be detected macroscopically.

Propagation of the Virus

The first isolations of the virus were made by inoculating monkey kidney cell cultures that had grown out in sheets with either minced enlarged lymph glands, liver, and spleen or ex-tracts of these tissues. The tissue ex-tracts were prepared by grinding the weighed tissues with alundum, diluting with Earle's balanced salt solution' to make a 10 per cent suspension, and
centrifuging to remove the sediment.

To me one of the most surprising findings in this early research was the baking soda enhances the growth of the virus and cancers! This is surprising because of the line of reasoning that baking soda is anti-cancerous.

More recently variation in the amount of sodium bicarbonate in the medium has been shown to have a striking effect on cytopathogenicity5 and on propa- gation of the virus. This is shown in Table 1. When a low concentration of sodium bicarbonate (0.5 ml of 5 per cent sodium bicarbonate per 100 ml of medium) was present little virus was present in the tissue culture fluids and cytopathogenic changes were not pronounced. The same virus inoculum on the same cells but nourished with medium containing a higher concen- tration (1.0-3.5 ml of 5 per cent sodium bicarbonate per 100 ml of medium) gave rise to increasing cytopathogenic
changes and higher concentrations of the virus.

It is interesting that the Polyoma virus in this paper is now called the SV40 virus, to emphasize that there were 39 earlier simian (monkey) viruses discovered.

And it was the cancer-causing SV40 virus that was inadvertently included in the polio vaccines (grown on monkey kidneys) that caused the subsequent soft-tissue cancer epidemic in the baby boomers .

[Saw]

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.49.11.1486

Feel free to correct any inacuracies...
So I don't see any virus to begin with (do you?)
They took a sample (assumed there's a virus in it) first problem and standard for every virology paper.
Now they add what? cancerous material to monkey kidney cells,then add the usual potions
Wait a few weeks for the cells to die and break down, then throw this soup of dead, cancerous material in a vial and call it a "virus isolate"
Then they inject this foreign dead, cancerous goo into an animal and watch tumors grow - Applause

Newborn mice,3 hamsters,4 and rats9 when injected with the virus subcutaneously react by the development of malignant neoplasms that in time kill the animals. Almost all mice develop parotid gland tumors and in addition tumors in other tissues. Twenty-six histologically different tumors have been observed. The virus induces multiple sarcomas and angiomatous lesions in the hamster and the commonest sites are the wall of the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, and subcutaneous tissues. The most common tumors induced in the rat are sarcomas of the kidneys and subcutaneous tissues.

The "fraud" that is the Medical Medium works tells us that for most cancers, the root cause is a virus.

The first part of this sentence actually makes sense.

The SE polyoma virus has been passed from animal to animal and from one species to another with tissue cul- ture passage between each animal pass-age as shown in Table 2. All of the animals injected with the tissue culture- grown virus developed tumors with the exception of the two dwarfed mice that had received the virus at birth.

Propagation of the Virus

The first isolations of the virus were made by inoculating monkey kidney cell cultures that had grown out in sheets with either minced enlarged lymph glands, liver, and spleen or ex-tracts of these tissues. The tissue ex-tracts were prepared by grinding the weighed tissues with alundum, diluting with Earle's balanced salt solution' to make a 10 per cent suspension, and
centrifuging to remove the sediment.

Ah yes, the classic "Virus Proof" experiment or as Christine Massey calls it "Monkey Business"
Fully debunked by Lanka and Enders himself( apparently ignored)

To me one of the most surprising findings in this early research was the baking soda enhances the growth of the virus and cancers! This is surprising because of the line of reasoning that baking soda is anti-cancerous.

The baking soda made the cells die and break apart quicker, that is all. You answered yourself, baking soda anti cancer but
apparently lethal to cells when mixed with this witches brew.


Maybe this will start to make sense to you after reading the experiment you posted

[ofonorow]

Thanks for reading and the analysis.

So the basic objection is the doubt that any virus existed to begin with. Otherwise, the work meets the test that you and others claim is missing from virus research.

So I don't see any virus to begin with (do you?)
They took a sample (assumed there's a virus in it) first problem and standard for every virology paper.

First, keep in mind that this work was done more than sixty years ago, shortly after the Nobel prize for culturing a virus. Today, the virus's DNA/RNA strands can be sequenced. You understand this, right?

Can you accept that something was "grown? It grew, was cultured, something hundreds to thousands of times smaller than a bacteria. And when inserted into animals, it caused a disease (in this case cancer.)

I think we can agree that something was cultured, grown, has DNA or RNA that can be sequenced, and does not grow unless it is cultured in cells that have DNA. You can't grow the goo unless it is in cells with DNA. Red blood cells do not have DNA, so in theory, you couldn't "culture" in red blood cells. It takes DNA to create the "goo" as you call it. And the goo, causes cancer, and the seeds of the goo were found in vaccines.

I

[Saw]

So the basic objection is the doubt that any virus existed to begin with. Otherwise, the work meets the test that you and others claim is missing from virus research.

first part is correct second part no

First, keep in mind that this work was done more than sixty years ago, shortly after the Nobel prize for culturing a virus. Today, the virus's DNA/RNA strands can be sequenced. You understand this, right?

There is no isolation, that means the particles they call viruses must be separated from the other genetic material (monkey kidney cells, calf blood and whatever else is there) so you will have to explain how they can sequence a specific particle from this soup that's full of other genetic material?

Can you accept that something was "grown? It grew, was cultured, something hundreds to thousands of times smaller than a bacteria. And when inserted into animals, it caused a disease (in this case cancer.)

No, watch Lanka's control experiments again, they are growing "virus" particles without adding anything.
It's the experiment itself that produces the result. Dead cells break down into small particle, what they call "virus"

I think we can agree that something was cultured, grown, has DNA or RNA that can be sequenced, and does not grow unless it is cultured in cells that have DNA. You can't grow the goo unless it is in cells with DNA. Red blood cells do not have DNA, so in theory, you couldn't "culture" in red blood cells. It takes DNA to create the "goo" as you call it. And the goo, causes cancer, and the seeds of the goo were found in vaccines.[/color][/b]
I

the goo is decomposing cells.

Also note the lack of control experiments for this paper. (never are there controls)
So if they would have done a control experiment (same experiment without the cancerous goo added) they would have had the same
result - the aledged culture(grow virus) but probably not produce any tumors since there was so cancerous material injected

[ofonorow]

Find more electron microscopic images of viruses https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/infections/Diagnostics/NatRefCentresConsultantLab/CONSULAB/EM-images/EM_Tab_Togaviridae_en.html;jsessionid=BA6402D0E4324C7C765F465ECFC371E1.internet092?nn=2371422

There is no isolation, that means the particles they call viruses must be separated from the other genetic material (monkey kidney cells, calf blood and whatever else is there) so you will have to explain how they can sequence a specific particle from this soup that's full of other genetic material?

No, I don't have to explain. I do take for granted that we have sequenced almost the entire genome of our DNA. So finding other sequences does not to me seem to be that big a deal.

You do understand that viruses replicate INSIDE cells using the genetic material of the cell to replicate? Viruses are parasites, unlike bacteria that replicates thru cell division, through its own DNA mitosis.

No, watch Lanka's control experiments again, they are growing "virus" particles without adding anything.

Unclear who "they" are growing the virus, but that is what happens when you culture something. You get more because it is growing, i.e., from cell division, or in the case of viruses, virus replication. The only thing I am aware of that can be"grown" without being alive is a crystal.

It's the experiment itself that produces the result. Dead cells break down into small particle, what they call "virus"

Look at the picture above of the virus? Does that look like debris from a cell? And yes, viruses do kill cells, which then do break down. The people you follow are looking at the aftermath, but ignore the mountain of evidence for the thousands of viruses that have been discovered

I am interested in your idea of adding a "cancerous goo." What would that be?.

the goo is decomposing cells.

In a sense they have done control experiments, in that they reported that not all viruses tested caused or produced cancers when introduced cross species. The virus studied in this paper (now call SV--40), for the first time, showed that this virus does canes cancers; observable changes in cell structures that divide rapidly.

I guess I'm not following the argument that there are no viruses because there are no viruses.

[Saw]

There is no isolation, that means the particles they call viruses must be separated from the other genetic material (monkey kidney cells, calf blood and whatever else is there) so you will have to explain how they can sequence a specific particle from this soup that's full of other genetic material?

No, I don't have to explain. I do take for granted that we have sequenced almost the entire genome of our DNA. So finding other sequences does not to me seem to be that big a deal.

Someone has to explain it! Normal sequencing involves complete strands of DNA.
Sequencing a virus involves taking millions (or more) of small pieces and using computers to
guess which belong to the virus and then to align those pieces into the correct order (30,000 bases) of what they think it would look like.
I think for SarsCov2 the computer broke it down to about a million possibilities

You do understand that viruses replicate INSIDE cells using the genetic material of the cell to replicate? Viruses are parasites, unlike bacteria that replicates thru cell division, through its own DNA mitosis.

That's a nice story, there is no proof.

No, watch Lanka's control experiments again, they are growing "virus" particles without adding anything.

Unclear who "they" are growing the virus, but that is what happens when you culture something. You get more because it is growing, i.e., from cell division, or in the case of viruses, virus replication. The only thing I am aware of that can be"grown" without being alive is a crystal.

"They" - the independent lab hired to do the control experiments, The cost was roughly $40,000 which was crowd sourced
from normal average people who would like to know. (imagine that)

It's the experiment itself that produces the result. Dead cells break down into small particle, what they call "virus"

[b]Look at the picture above of the virus? Does that look like debris from a cell? And yes, viruses do kill cells, which then do break down. The people you follow are looking at the aftermath, but ignore the mountain of evidence for the thousands of viruses that have been discovered

Yes, it looks exactly like cellular debris. As Enders himself said in 1954, the two are indistinguishable in appearace

indistinguishable
adjective

1. not able to be identified as different or distinct

Example: "the counterfeit bills were virtually indistinguishable from the real thing"

In a sense they have done control experiments, in that they reported that not all viruses tested caused or produced cancers when introduced cross species. The virus studied in this paper (now call SV--40), for the first time, showed that this virus does canes cancers; observable changes in cell structures that divide rapidly.

Lets extract some fluid from a cancer tumor and inject it into you and see if you develop a tumor.
If yes, then you believe that tumor was caused by a virus, not the cancerous material.

[ofonorow]

I've had my DNA sequenced by Ancestory (and other companies), and was impressed. They determined that my background was exactly what my parents said their backgrounds were. You should try it. Sequencing is by now a very precise science. In fact, that MRSA on my leg was sequenced from pus, found to be a specific strain of antibiotic resistance bacteria, the report recommended antibiotics that worked, and literally saved my leg. So the arguments against DNA sequencing are spurious. You and your followers have to show that it doesn't work.

And no one has to further prove that viruses replicate by using the host DNA to make copies of itself. Viruses cannot divide by themselves, without full DNA, unlike bacteria, which have cell membranes and make babies via mitosis. This is the main reason viruses aren't "cultured" as bacteria are.

Back to the argument, do you still deny that the flu and other viral infections are contagious? Per the Cannell asylum experience? If you deny this and all the evidence that supports viral infections are transmittable, then there is little hope of convincing you.

Poisons and inert substances, to my knowledge, are not contagious, so a contagion implies something that is living and can make copies of itself.

[Saw]

Possible explanations for your responses...

1) you can't read english?

2) your a bot?

3) aliens are scrambling the words on your screen?

Watch from 39:30 to 40:30

The number is now over 13 million sarscov2 unique sequences, gee I wonder how that happened?Duh

That's the Children's Health Defense BTW!!! You and Dolly Parton might want to consider dumping your Moderna stock

Yes soon even your hero Robert Kennedy Jr. will have figured it out.

[ofonorow]

Last post, like most of your arguments lately, nonsense.

The problem with you side is that you have a theory, and then only consider data that supports it.

This is the antithesis of science.

Good science collects data, and then forms theories to fit the data.

You haven't answered some key questions that seem axiomatic.

So lets start with the basic question:

1) Are flu, herpes, the common cold, etc. infections contagious? Yes or no?

[Saw]

Last post, like most of your arguments lately, nonsense.

Name one?

[Saw]

Last post, like most of your arguments lately, nonsense.

So you think this site is bogus ? or nonsense was your word


The number has gone up 340,000 in the last month btw
13,544,797 is the current number of Cov-19 unique sequences
that's a lot of variants
why do you think there would be so many?

https://gisaid.org/

[ofonorow]

The argument is whether there are viruses.

You still refuse to answer the basic question whether or not you, and the people you follow, think infectious diseases such as herpes, the cold and the flu are contagious, i.e. transmitted from person to person?

As far as COVID sequences, why would we care? I, like you, doubt COVID is a virus.

I was informed by an authoritative source that I am wrong about at least one thing. Viruses do have membranes. They are alive in the sense that they eat, i.e., food reaches the virus through the membranes.

I was also reading from the source where every word counts that the Spanish Flu was "released" in the early 19th century. Implying that there may have been virus research during world war I.

[Saw]

You still refuse to answer the basic question whether or not you, and the people you follow, think infectious diseases such as herpes, the cold and the flu are contagious, i.e. transmitted from person to person?

It doesn't matter what I or anyone thinks. They have a theory and it's their job to prove it.

As far as COVID sequences, why would we care? I, like you, doubt COVID is a virus.

So you doubt the "science" of virology then.
Why would you believe all their other virus stories then?

I was informed by an authoritative source that I am wrong about at least one thing. Viruses do have membranes. They are alive in the sense that they eat, i.e., food reaches the virus through the membranes.

How do they know this? If they can't isolate a virus how would they know it's using the nutrition and it's not just
being absorbed through the membrane (outer shell)

I was also reading from the source where every word counts that the Spanish Flu was "released" in the early 19th century. Implying that there may have been virus research during world war I.

Oh really? Come on man!
And this is from your "Authoritative Source"
They didn't even know viruses (cellular debris) existed until 1931 when the electron microscope was invented.
Yet they were already weaponizing them in 1918.
Your need a new expert source.

[ofonorow]

It doesn't matter what I or anyone thinks. They have a theory and it's their job to prove it.

You people are the ones "throwing stones" at the viral "theory," apparently without proposing anything solid or logical to replace it. As far as I can tell, all the arguments raised against the viral theory are specious. Viruses can be cultured and introduced into beings creating infectious diseases.

At the core is the fact that there are infectious disease, e.g. cold, flu, herpes, that can not be cultured the ordinary way, and so are apparently not bacteria. In fact viruses were first discovered by "public science" after filtering body fluids from sick animals, to remove all bacteria, and showing that other well animals could then be infected. Proving that something much smaller than ordinary bacteria causes disease. (Apparently "classified science" had known about this for decades before "public science.")

People contract these non-bacterial diseases, usually from other people, within well defined incubation periods, at various rates of infection. This fact seems to prove that whatever is causing these diseases, starting with the Spanish Flu in the early 1900s, is alive (i.e., not a poison) and at the very least replicates.

Few are likely to read the 1000 page BRAIN SAVER book(s) by Anothony WIlliam, so I will quote from the PROTOCOLS book page 133 on why eggs are fuel for viruses.

Circa 1910, classified medical research and science discovered that the undeveloped protein inside eggs fed viruses and bacteria. This led to a method for the past 100 years of raising pathogens on eggs and then releasing the pathogens into our environment.

And as I read further into this 1000 page book, I was apparently wrong. They do say, in one place so far, that COVID is caused by a virus, but that the symptoms of "long haul COVID" are caused by weakening the immune system, which allows already present, dormant viruses, such as Epstein-Barr, to activate causing the long-term COVID symptoms. Apparently there is a similar "long haul Flu" that effects millions for the same reason. It is not the flu virus causing the long-haul symptoms, but the dormant viruses already present overcoming a newly weakened immune system.

To me, arguing against the virus theory seems to be an exercise in futility.

[Saw]

You people are the ones "throwing stones" at the viral "theory," apparently without proposing anything solid or logical to replace it. As far as I can tell, all the arguments raised against the viral theory are specious.

maybe you should read these posts, I'm not repeating myself for the 20th time.

Viruses can be cultured and introduced into beings creating infectious diseases.

Do you know what else can be cultured?
Answer: nothing, just add nothing to the experiment and you get the same culture.

At the core is the fact that there are infectious disease, e.g. cold, flu, herpes, that can not be cultured the ordinary way, and so are apparently not bacteria. In fact viruses were first discovered by "public science" after filtering body fluids from sick animals, to remove all bacteria, and showing that other well animals could then be infected. Proving that something much smaller than ordinary bacteria causes disease. (Apparently "classified science" had known about this for decades before "public science.")

Fact?

People contract these non-bacterial diseases, usually from other people, within well defined incubation periods, at various rates of infection. This fact seems to prove that whatever is causing these diseases, starting with the Spanish Flu in the early 1900s, is alive (i.e., not a poison) and at the very least replicates.

How many times have I posted the contagion studies on the 1918 Flu??? 10???? Whats up?

Few are likely to read the 1000 page BRAIN SAVER book(s) by Anothony WIlliam, so I will quote from the PROTOCOLS book page 133 on why eggs are fuel for viruses.
Circa 1910, classified medical research and science discovered that the undeveloped protein inside eggs fed viruses and bacteria. This led to a method for the past 100 years of raising pathogens on eggs and then releasing the pathogens into our environment.

You must be kidding.

And as I read further into this 1000 page book, I was apparently wrong. They do say, in one place so far, that COVID is caused by a virus, but that the symptoms of "long haul COVID" are caused by weakening the immune system, which allows already present, dormant viruses, such as Epstein-Barr, to activate causing the long-term COVID symptoms. Apparently there is a similar "long haul Flu" that effects millions for the same reason. It is not the flu virus causing the long-haul symptoms, but the dormant viruses already present overcoming a newly weakened immune system.
To me, arguing against the virus theory seems to be an exercise in futility.

Back to believing in Covid are we?

Fun tidbit, here in canada the CBC ran a story saying 80% of canadians have long haul covid but are symptom free
Just by chance, they also claim 80% of canadians have taken the injections.
This isn't rocket science.

P.S. you virus people will kill us all!