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
