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

johnburgin at worldnet.att.net johnburgin at worldnet.att.net
Tue Nov 3 19:19:33 EST 1998


On 4 Nov 1998 00:18:08 GMT, johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:

>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?  jb(sorry, I forgot to sign off)
>>
>>Carlton
>




More information about the Immuno mailing list