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
>>>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.
>>>>>>>johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>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
>>>Vaccination-induced seropositivity is NOT the same as
>>>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
>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>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?
>>>>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)