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.
>> (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.
>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.
> 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.
Carlton
