"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Sun Nov 1 17:58:37 EST 1998


On Sun, 01 Nov 1998 13:26:27 GMT, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M.
Carter) wrote:

>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>snip.....
>
>>I repeat, where have I been wrong?  I said that you can't have it both
>>ways.  You can't use the immunity defense when things work and forget
>>about it when things don't.  I repeat, what will the HIV serologic
>>status be for a person "immunized" against "a" strain of HIV?
>
>Oh, boy.  I understand at least one area for your staunchly held
>beliefs:  you're ignorant of fundamental immunology.
>
>Antibodies are produced by the body (B cells) in response to an
>infection.  Their presence is tested by a variety of techniques and
>indicate the presence of that infection.  The course of disease can
>then range from recovery (infectious agent is either eliminated or
>controlled) to failure to recover.  Hepatitis infection, as well as
>HIV, among others are examples of diseases where the course can go
>either way.
>
>Even when the infectious agent is cleared, that response remains in a
>quieter state:  the body is primed and aware in case it should
>encounter a similar pathogen again.
>
>Now, when a VACCINE is used, depending on the nature of the vaccine,
>there will be an antibody response to the antigens in the vaccine.  So
>on an antibody test, a person will be HIV+ even though they have not
>yet been infected.  The vaccine will not result in replicating virus,
>but just send the signals to the body to alert it to the possibility
>of a future attack.  An EFFECTIVE vaccine will assure that exposure to
>any quasispecies of HIV is fended off.
>
>Vaccination-induced seropositivity is NOT the same as
>infection-induced seropositivity. 
Vaccination-induced seropositivity is NOT the same as
>infection-induced seropositivity. 
How do you know? How do you know?

 (There are many different kinds of
>vaccines, including whole-killed, live but disabled, subunit and other
>varieties; the "live but disabled" variety (my terms) 
would you accept the term attenuated?
MAY represent a
>risk of the virus converting to "live and able" and thus causing
>disease).
>
>There are other risks associated with vaccines.  
So, the bottom line is, we're, um, not quite there yet?

>
>		George M. Carter
>
Thank you George!  Now I know everything that you do!  The only
problem with this is that we both know that when you are diagnosed
with being HIV positive, whether from "infection" or immunization, you
are still HIV+.  Why is that so complicated for you? 
Is your employer or the health department or your patient, or hospital
that you work at going to know the difference?  How will the test be
able to tell, with certaintly, that the seropositive status is from
"non-neutralizing" antibodies(I just love that term, it's so
"grounding") or the real McCoy?  Obviously the only way one will know
for sure is if they don't develop AIDS.  Isn't that special?
 Look back to the early days of the polio vaccine trials.  Do you
recall from your reading that there were a number(but I guess they
weren't "statiscally" important) of individuals that developed polio
from the vaccine?  What a bummer.  Do you think that maybe, assuming
for the sake of argument that with this HIV infection we are trying to
prevent, we could run into a similar problem?  I mean, gosh, with all
the mutations!  Well George, thank you for the civility, it's been so
nice having you, Frank and the guys having pity on me these last few
days.  Oh, by the way, could you answer this little question?  

You know what it takes to validate all the models/cartoons
about "hiv" structure, but neither you or the other guys  have the
ability to do it, or hasn't tried, or what?  Should be no problem to
get "infectious hiv" from plasma amenable to EM analysis
with these "viral loads" upwards of hundreds of millions,
right?  I'm still waiting for you to help me with this one.  Maybe
after you can take the magic test and prove that you can solve the
"elemental" problems like this one, maybe I'll start worrying more
about your lecture on basic immunology.  The only problem with the
immunology lecture George is that you guys are moving the goldposts
again.  You people have rewritten, molecular biology, and  immunology,
and found a retrovirus out of the swarm of existing retroviruses that
inhabit the planet that only chose NOW to become infective or NOW to
become lethal.  jb
>




More information about the Immuno mailing list