I just had our first cancer theory conspiracy thread. Going to share links below both academic and one in laymen. This is about the simian vacuolating virus 40 (SV40) polio vax contamination & current high rates of #cancer , which the data and science just does not support (1/9)
While its true that SV40 was found in 1/3rd of the polio vax in the 1950's, by 1961, before any evidence it was harmful to humans, it was already ordered to be removed and all future polio vax was SV40 free. BUT the government didn’t recall the contaminated vax stocks😟(2/9)
So why do ppl think SV40 causes cancer in humans🧐? Well in the 80's was found human tumor samples, which was worrying. M Carbone at the NIH tested 48 human mesotheliomas and found SV40 by PCR in 28 of them. Other cancers tested + and the NIH formed a SV40 working group (3/9)
9 labs joined, Each was given 25 paired-duplicate samples of mesotheliomas, a single set of 25 normal lung samples, and positive and negative controls. Samples were blinded & results showed that none of the meso specimens was consistently SV40+ 📰 (4/9)cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/5/5…
hamsters with SV40 did grow tumours. But as I will be talking about this week, its important not to jump the gun on animal studies to humans, because studies on those who got the vaccine showed no increase in cancer as seen here --> 📰 (5/9)ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9450713
If those studies and data doesn't sway your thoughts on SV40 contaminated vaccines and the current cancer rates remember if you were born after 1963, you were not given contaminated polio vax 💉! Big shout out to David Gorski who has compiled a lot of this information (8/9)
And for some of my earlier threads there was person sharing some youtube videos /w bad science in it, please note that one video the footage was stolen from an 80's PBS special and edited out of context, including a conspiracy theory joke on HIV that was popular at the time (9/9)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/Our findings suggest that student evaluations of teaching seem to measure *conformity with gendered expectations* rather than teaching quality
A cause for concern given the integration of SET data into performance profiles, and management and organisation of teaching practice
3/Before I go on, in terms of the necessarily binary reporting, it is very important to say here that we recognise the ‘pluralities inherent in gender(s)’ that complicate simple binary approaches to gender (Weerawardhana, 2018, p.189), and we do discuss this in the paper
On important background, in March 2020 the IOC recognised harassment and abuse as a current human rights challenge, and in particular recognised that LGBTQI+ athletes are at “particular risk of harm and structural discrimination”
3/n
The IOC now recognise female eligibility regulation *as an organisational violence issue* and as systemic discrimination
[I'll do another tweet thread on this later, drawing on my own research on this]
I want to address a narrative that we see around women’s sport and inclusion (particularly from those who seek to exclude trans women & women with sex variations from women’s sport), and how this narrative is part of a bigger pattern that functions to keep women small
2/n
I have been hearing more frequently the narrative that women's sport apparently exists as a 'protected category' so that women can win (because, on this account, without it no woman will ever win again)
3/n
This is:
a) *not* the reason why women's sport exists as a category,
and b) it is *not* true that no woman will ever win again.
This narrative is profoundly paternalistic and keeps women small.