Comments on: AIDS Vaccines: A ‘Catastrophe’ Like The Challenger

By: Former pharma Marketing Exec

Former pharma Marketing Exec — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:34:39 +0000

Bobby C:

You might want to read this….

“HIV differs from many viruses in that it has very high genetic variability. This diversity is a result of its fast replication cycle, with the generation of 109 to 1010 virions every day, coupled with a high mutation rate of approximately 3 x 10-5 per nucleotide base per cycle of replication and recombinogenic properties of reverse transcriptase.[57] This complex scenario leads to the generation of many variants of HIV in a single infected patient in the course of one day.[57] This variability is compounded when a single cell is simultaneously infected by two or more different strains of HIV. When simultaneous infection occurs, the genome of progeny virions may be composed of RNA strands from two different strains. This hybrid virion then infects a new cell where it undergoes replication. As this happens, the reverse transcriptase, by jumping back and forth between the two different RNA templates, will generate a newly synthesized retroviral DNA sequence that is a recombinant between the two parental genomes.[57] This recombination is most obvious when it occurs between subtypes.[57]“

By: Bobby C

Bobby C — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:18:13 +0000

Harpy,

No, that’s just ad hoc bullshit. HIV is a conventional retrovirus with 9,000 base pairs and merely 8 genes. You’re ascribing unheard of super powers to it.

By: harpy

harpy — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:24:46 +0000

Sepp and Bobby C - HIV has a very high genetic variability, a high mutation rate and very fast replication. As FPME says, it is hard to hit a moving target. By the time the antibodies are developed to fight the virus, the virus has changed. Other viruses, like measles, don’t change nearly as rapidly and antibodies can be developed to fight them off. Vaccines teach your body how to fight. So far, HIV’s kung fu is better than ours.

By: Sepp

Sepp — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:24:27 +0000

Good question, Bobby C

I always wanted an answer to that one as well. Why are antibodies good when we get any vaccine (antibody titer actually measures whether the vaccine is now “protecting” us) and they are soooo bad when we find them in people who are said to be infected with HIV?

Doesn’t make any sense now, does it?

By: Bobby C

Bobby C — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 04:01:49 +0000

Help me understand this:

Most everyone starts with the assumption that HIV causes AIDS.

To determine whether a person has HIV, you take a blood test that detects antibodies. So, the presence of anti-bodies (assuming you have no symptoms is the BEGINNING OF THE DISEASE.

Now, if you were to develop a vaccine for HIV, you would inject an attenuated HIV into a person, who would develop anti-bodies to HIV. So, the presence of anti-bodies would signify the END OF THE DISEASE. You would be immune from getting.

How are these two scenarios compatable?

By: DISSIDENCE-101

DISSIDENCE-101 — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:44:18 +0000

This coupled with all the other complete and utter failures within the HIV/AIDS meme show quite profoundly that AIDS science has missed the mark and will continue to do so from now until eternity. These scientists in bed with the great high powered pharmaceutical industry with a big fat monkey on their back, will continue to squander our resources until there comes a time when we say; enough is enough. One does not have to look very far to find out how seriously flawed this paradigm really is. All one has to do is remove one’s self from the AIDS Zone, which, is that little box within where ‘HIV’ causes ‘AIDS’, AIDS is always fatal, and poison can prolong your life.

By: Former pharma Marketing Exec

Former pharma Marketing Exec — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:07:57 +0000

The problem with AIDS and with other disease, is that it is hard to hit a moving target…

So, with all due respect Dr. Giorgianni, this particular article highlights the problem with AIDS vaccines and should not be used as a deterrent for patient and patient advocates to closely watch, monitor and in some cases instigate continued research.

It is a mutual gain situation. You need patients, patients need cures…

You need to adjust your US/WE mindset.. We all do!

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:08:41 +0000

It took years to move from the solid ball model of the atom to plum pudding. It took years for quantum mechanics to be accepted enough for it to be taught in high school. It will take years to find an AIDS vaccine. A failure, even a spectacular failure, is nothing more than an unfavorable result. We now know that this does not work. We need more basic research on the AIDS virus to better know how it works so we can develop the next possible set of vaccines. Once we know, we will be able to try again, and try again, and try as often as it takes to get one that works. Scientists are not magicians. We cannot pull a vaccine out of the hat. It takes time, research dollars, and perseverance to succeed.

By: Dr. Sal Giorgianni

Dr. Sal Giorgianni — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:13:41 +0000

When will folks realize that discovery research is simply not a matter of taking and idea, adding money, turning on the heat and watching the results you want bubble up? That is just not how it works. Many of the world’s greatest discoveries and creations came about because of a “Eureka!” moment, a touch of serendipity and tincture of time. This is one of the fundamental concerns many of us have about the unrealistic pressures exerted on biomedical research (both public and private) when well meaning but shortsighted policy makers and advocates inappropriately influence the true process of discovery.