CORRESPONDENCE

Re: SV40 Bugaboo: Spinning the News

Robert A. J. Matthews

Correspondence to:Robert A. J. Matthews, Science Correspondent, The Sunday Telegraph, 1 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5DT, U.K.

In a recent News report by Kuska (1), I am taken to task for the accuracy of my coverage of the review by Butel and Lednicky (2) concerning the possibility that early polio vaccines contaminated with the monkey virus SV40 may be linked to subsequent cancers among those vaccinated.

As Kuska reports, I wrote an article about the current thinking in the February 14, 1999, issue of The Sunday Telegraph (London, U.K.) after contacting Dr. Butel (among other experts) for some clarifications. The article, entitled "Pre-1963 Polio Vaccines May Be Killing Hundreds Through Cancer," was then syndicated to various newspapers in the United States, including The Washington Times.

According to Kuska, much media interest then resulted in the United States, compelling Butel to hold a press conference in an attempt to explain the true situation. She is quoted as saying to the Associated Press that my article "[went] one step farther than I am prepared to go. I don't think that the evidence is definitive that [the virus] causes those tumors." The story then disappeared, its brief "life"—according to the thrust of Kuska's article—due to my inaccurate reporting.

The facts do not support this accusation. Nowhere in my original article is it stated or implied that the evidence of the link is "definitive"; even the headline contains the clear qualifier "may." In contrast, however, the headline on the syndicated version published by The Washington Times has no such equivocation: "Polio Shots in '50s, '60s Are Linked to Cancer; Tainted Vaccine Given to Millions."

I neither wrote nor approved this headline nor could it be taken as an accurate summary of my original article. It is, therefore, clear to me from her criticisms that Dr. Butel has failed to distinguish between my original article and the version of it published by The Washington Times.

B. J. Almond is quoted by Kuska as saying that, in the flurry of media interest about the article, "Everyone was referring to the headline in The Sunday Telegraph article. That was the spark that set off the wildfire." Mr. Almond then goes on to make a number of statements impugning the reliability of my reporting.

I do not believe that the qualified nature of the original Sunday Telegraph headline and article was the "spark" that set off the reaction from the U.S. media. Indeed, I doubt that the U.S. media were even aware of the original Sunday Telegraph headline. It is, I think, significant that my original article prompted no such over-reaction in the U.K.

I do, however, find it easy to understand how the inappropriate Washington Times headline could have triggered such a furor. I thus maintain that Mr. Almond, like Dr. Butel, has failed to distinguish between my original article and that which appeared in the The Washington Times.

In conclusion, I certainly "stand by" my original story, which, I should add, elicited no complaints from those U.K. experts who saw it on this side of the Atlantic.

EDITOR'S NOTE

Janet S. Butel and Robert Kuska declined to respond to Robert A. J. Matthews correspondence.

REFERENCES

1 Kuska BJ. SV40 bugaboo: spinning the news [news]. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:662-4.[Free Full Text]

2 Butel JS, Lednicky JA. Cell and molecular biology of simian virus 40: implications for human infections and disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:119-34.[Medline]



             
Copyright © 1999 Oxford University Press (unless otherwise stated)
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement