I wrote
>>Vaccination-induced seropositivity is NOT the same as
>>infection-induced seropositivity.
johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>How do you know? How do you know?
Because it's different panels of antigens. Because with some types of
vaccines, you don't have any risk of HIV producing more of itself at
all.
> (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?
I didn't want to burden you with too many syllables.
>>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?
Um, no, not close yet at all. Does that make you happy?
The best vaccines we have right now are condoms and availability of
clean syringes.
>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?
It is not! And indeed, you are now raising a separate and distinct
issue that has to be addressed in terms of the social issues you
outline. I agree wholeheartedly.
>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?
No, it's not the only way. A PCR will not find replicating virus.
> 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!
For certain types of vaccines (attenuated), yes that represents a
potential risk. For subunit vaccines or those that do not use any HIV
genetic material, there is little risk. Do you think you are the only
one suddenly aware of these potential risks?
>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?
Civility only because you're obviously seriously impaired.
>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
Your question is the usual "isolation" question, where the so-called
"dissidents" move the goal post on what isolation is. The fact is
that HIV has been purified, cloned, sequenced. Swarms of
retroviruses? Which ones? HERVs? Why should ANY disease suddenly
appear? Like the flu? Or plague? It depends on vectors.
You seem to exist in some static world where things never change.
Nothing's ever gonna happen to you, eh?
I still find it impossible to believe that you are any kind of
researcher.
George M. Carter
