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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Tue Nov 3 19:18:08 EST 1998


On 2 Nov 1998 20:47:59 GMT, carlton at walleye.ccbr.umn.edu (Carlton
Hogan) wrote:

>In article <363ce241.84284241 at netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> <johnburgin at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>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?
>
>Because he reads the literature. It really helps in understanding.
Because he can, excuse me, "read"?
>>
>> (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?  
>
>Actually, for the vaccines currently in trials, there *is* a distinctive
>and unique wester blot associated with vaccination. This is because no
>vaccine is using whole HIV, but just incomplete collections of antigens.
Absolutely bogus.  No vaccine and you already got the wester(sic) blot
for it!
>
>>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?
>
>It's not true, is what it is. See the above.
see the above
>
>> 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?
>
>Two points: 
>
>1. Polio vaccine used whole, attenuated virus. There are no plans 
>to use this approach with HIV.
>
>2. Since you don't think HIV causes AIDS, what would this "similar
>problem"? You can't have it both ways.
Isolation of the HIV retrovirus hasn't been accomplished(remember the
$1 million dollar reward in Continuum.  So, even if, if it caused
AIDS, which it obviously doesn't, how are you going to make the proper
antigen for the vaccine?  
>
>Carlton




More information about the Immuno mailing list