On Mon, 02 Nov 1998 14:40:25 GMT, gmc0 at ix.netcom.com (George M.
Carter) wrote:
>>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.
I feel the same about you. jb
>> George M. Carter
>>
