Will You Take the HIV/AIDS Vaccine?

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Here at ATS there has been significant discussion of the practice of vaccination, and debate over the benefits or detriments involved. Many people have brought up serious problems with this type of medical treatment, and if you are interested in that I suggest doing a simple ATS search and reading up on it.

This thread will focus on the HIV-AIDS vaccine predominantly, and I want to pose a serious question through it. Will you take the HIV-AIDS vaccine? Yes or no, and please explain why as best you can.

Now I will post a few facts about HIV-AIDS and why creating a working vaccine for it is so difficult.
Source - Wiki HIV Vaccine


A HIV vaccine that protects vaccinated individuals from HIV infection is the goal of many HIV research programmes. Currently, there is no effective vaccine against HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Vaccine development is one of several strategies to reduce the worldwide harm from AIDS, with other approaches based upon antiviral treatments such as highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and social approaches such as safe sex prevention and awareness campaigns.


There are 5 bullet points explaining why we are having so much trouble developing a working vaccine:


Classic vaccines mimic natural immunity against reinfection generally seen in individuals recovered from infection; there are almost no recovered AIDS patients.


This means that vaccines typically work by giving you the virus and then allowing your body to develop natural immunity from it. However with HIV-AIDS, the statistics reveal that once infected, almost all subjects fail to recover.


Most vaccines protect against disease, not against infection; HIV infection may remain latent for long periods before causing AIDS.



Most effective vaccines are whole-killed or live-attenuated organisms; killed HIV-1 does not retain antigenicity and the use of a live retrovirus vaccine raises safety issues.


This one describes how when killed, the HIV-AIDS virus does not react with antibodies or cause antibody reactions (antigenicity), and so it forces the use of 'live-virus' vaccines. But who the hell is going to put a live HIV virus in their body when bullet point #1 reveals that people infected tend to stay infected?


Most vaccines protect against infections that are infrequently encountered; HIV may be encountered daily by individuals at high risk.


This point reveals that those at high risk for HIV infections are actually exposed to it quite often, which makes it even more difficult to develop a working counter.


Most vaccines protect against infections through mucosal surfaces of the respiratory or gastrointestinal tract; the great majority of HIV infection is through the genital tract.


And yet another difficulty, the mode of infection versus the mode of combating infection. Of course this and other problems will have to be dealt with before any 'safe' working vaccine can be developed.

Now if you will read down the wiki page a bit further, there are examples of various clinical trials and experiments that have been conducted and the various problems encountered in those studies. Most trials are conducted in monkeys and then if they pass that phase, can move on to humans (already infected with HIV).

What we should be worried about imho, is when these tests move on to experimenting on non-infected humans, potentially giving them a deadly HIV infection.

Please read the information about the various trials conducted and other related material.

Here is an interesting article posted 2 years ago about human trials seeking approval to test the HIV/AIDS vaccine in Canada and the USA. uwo.ca


An HIV/AIDS vaccine developed at The University of Western Ontario is set for the first phase of human trials.

Sumagen Canada today announced it has submitted an Investigational New Drug application to the United States Food and Drug Administration to begin Phase 1 human trials for its SAV001 AIDS vaccine.



Through Western, Sumagen Canada has secured patents for the vaccine in over 70 countries in the world, including the United States, the European Union and Korea. According to the firm, animal testing has resulted in good antibody reactions in immunology tests, with no adverse effects or safety risks.


Please read that carefully, it's a bold faced lie. No adverse effects or safety risk? It's unheard of! There is no medication in existence which has no adverse side effects or risks involved. Everyone is different and reacts differently. Even plain water has an adverse side effect or risk - drowning. So to say this HIV-AIDS vaccine is safe is well, illogical and irrational. (And immoral!)

It says they have secured patents in over 70 countries for this specific vaccine, including most westernized nations. So it will be in the headlines in a few years, that much is becoming obvious.

Who is funding all of this anyways?

London and Western are also on a short list of Canadian cities being considered by the federal government for the building of an $88-million HIV vaccine manufacturing facility. Part of the funding for the facility will come from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.


Mark my words folks, the vaccine debate will go into entirely new territory with the advent of the HIV-AIDS vaccines and the human trials to test them.

With many vaccines, the practice is to infect those who are not infected so they can fight the weakened disease and grow immunity. However with HIV, almost all infected cases never recover from the infection and have to fight it for the rest of their lives.

So ask yourselves, do you really trust the Pharmaceutical Corporations? Do you really trust that taking a HIV-AIDS vaccine will be safe and will not cause you to contract it yourselves?

This may not be the headlines today, but soon it will be. Soon it will become the focal point of vaccine debates, maybe not this year or next year, but within 5 years it will. Once these vaccines start getting pushed around enough, and enough cases of adverse reactions or infections pop up, there will be a hailstorm of controversy.

Would you give your kid a HIV vaccine?
This is the question I really want to know.

Anyone with further information or links is welcome to present their findings here. I am looking forward to seeing what kind of discussion this subject can create.
edit on 12-11-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-11-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Just to answer your main question.

NO.

I will not take any vaccine nor would I let any children get it.

Safe practices are the easier solution.


Or abstinance.







posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
No.

The reasons?

1) I'm not even remotely within the high risk crowd. Either through lifestyle, or profession. I'm not a dentist, or surgeon, nor am I a drug user. I don't have a large number of sexual partners (or any recently, now that I ponder it...)

2) I've never taken a flu shot either. I'm not a big fan of shots in general...



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Are you mad, not a chance!



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I'm in medical school and I can tell you it would be one hell of a risk to take the HIV vaccine, since you're only putting the watered down version of the virus in the body. You'll never know when or how it can reactivate. You sure would not give it to anyone who is immunocompromised.
edit on 12-11-2011 by Unvarnished because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unvarnished
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I'm in medical school and I can tell you it would be one hell of a risk to take the HIV vaccine, since you're only putting the watered down version of the virus in the body. You'll never know when or how it can reactivate. You sure would not give it to anyone who is immunocompromised.
edit on 12-11-2011 by Unvarnished because: (no reason given)


One of the difficult parts of this is that when killed, the HIV virus does not elicit an immune response from the body, and so it has to be a live viral sample within the vaccine or it simply won't have any effect at all.

That's what I gathered from reading the source material, if I am misunderstanding antigenicity theory incorrectly anyone can correct me on that.

All corrections are welcomed.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
My main goal with this thread is to reveal in a blatant in your face style, that vaccinations are highly questionable at best.

It's kind of an 'idiot-test' in a way.

"So you think vaccines are safe? Try our new HIV Vaccine!"

Once you get that shot, odds are you could have HIV the rest of your life.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
No.

Because I have no reason to expect that I will ever be at risk of becoming HIV+

Added to which I'm still registered with a doctor on the other side of the country whom I've not seen nor had any contact with for over 15 years and who has no idea where I live. So I'm guessing the opportunity (for this or any other vaccine) ain't ever going to arise



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
No; Even if developed, tested and declared to be "safe" I will not be taking the HIV vaccine.

I'm not in a high-risk group, and I'm married and faithful, as is she. I AM in a high risk group for tetanus, so I get a Td booster every 8 years. Aside from that, neither of us take any vaccines.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Because I have no reason to expect that I will ever be at risk of becoming HIV+


Good point.

However an interesting example to bring forward is that Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, is pushed on virtually everyone, even sometimes males, even if they don't have it or even risk getting it.

So not being in the 'at-risk group' is not automatically going to keep them from trying to sell this to you one day down the road. Just keep in mind, once enough of this stuff is produced and all the legal barriers are overcome, they will be trying to push this on a vast section of the population (more patients - more profits!).



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Used to get the flu shot...used to get the flu EVERY year.
Quit getting the flu shot 26 years ago...had mild case of the flu TWICE since then.

So...I think I'll skip that shot too...that...and keep my pants zipped until my wife says otherwise...

Oh...and I'll leave the dirty needles to the OWS crowd...and hollywood nutjobs...



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Yep, this is correct, but introducing any foreign material to the body poses a risk of either a crazy immune infection against it where the person could ultimately go into shock, such as an allergic reaction, or into someone who has a weak immune system, where the virus could possibly reactivate. The thing with viruses is that they are not considered dead or alive, they just need a host to replicate themselves, especially cellular machinery that controls both DNA/RNA synthesis. They are just composed of a protein coat that surrounds DNA. If for instance, the DNA mixes and integrates itself with human DNA even if the virus is considered "dead", it can just remain latent there until a specific time where it can reactivate. They infect human CD4 T helper cells, and most of the time patients are asymptomatic until 10-12 years due to its integration into the human genome. Most people do not develop symptoms until after the virus reactivates itself.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 


I agree, the Influenza virus is constantly mutating because of two specific proteins on its surface, known as the hemagluttinin and neuramindase proteins. This is the reason why there is no fully developed flu vaccine.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
6 answered so far, with 6 "no"s.

So 100% against this so far. Interesting.

This is going to be one hell of a hard sale for the corporations to make to the public.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unvarnished
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Yep, this is correct, but introducing any foreign material to the body poses a risk of either a crazy immune infection against it where the person could ultimately go into shock, such as an allergic reaction, or into someone who has a weak immune system, where the virus could possibly reactivate. The thing with viruses is that they are not considered dead or alive, they just need a host to replicate themselves, especially cellular machinery that controls both DNA/RNA synthesis. They are just composed of a protein coat that surrounds DNA. If for instance, the DNA mixes and integrates itself with human DNA even if the virus is considered "dead", it can just remain latent there until a specific time where it can reactivate. They infect human CD4 T helper cells, and most of the time patients are asymptomatic until 10-12 years due to its integration into the human genome. Most people do not develop symptoms until after the virus reactivates itself.


Thank you for the additional explanations. That's really the type of conversation I am looking for here.

I really appreciate you posting your thoughts and understanding of this issue so that others may share in it.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Absolutely Not !

Never , ever take a vaccine for any reason what so ever.

Do we not remember the Hepatitis “B” vaccine, handed out for free, directed toward Gay men in 1980, and the results that followed ?

Do we not remember the Red Cross KNOWINGLY distributing tainted HIV blood in the 80’s ?

You canNOT trust the Health Department, they have NO credibility.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Yes, I've heard that some doctors have actually done that...

That is why it is so important for patients to be informed about things. This is what makes the internet so wonderful. Important information is right at your fingertips.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unvarnished
reply to post by RealAmericanPatriot
 


I agree, the Influenza virus is constantly mutating because of two specific proteins on its surface, known as the hemagluttinin and neuramindase proteins. This is the reason why there is no fully developed flu vaccine.


Supposedly the HIV-AIDS infection also has a very high mutation rate, thus making it even more difficult to deal with.

Here is an article from ScienceDaily from 2 years ago where they discuss the mutation rate in the context of drug resistance.


In a collaborative study with the World Health Organization and seven other laboratories, researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have compiled a list of 93 common mutations of the AIDS virus associated with drug resistance that will be used to track future resistance trends throughout the world.



"The epidemic is changing, especially as new drugs are being developed," said Robert Shafer, MD, associate professor of infectious diseases and geographic medicine at Stanford and the senior author of the paper. "To effectively track the spread of drug resistance, particularly transmitted drug resistance, you need a sensitive and specific list that's considered standard and is adopted by all the surveillance studies."


So with this many variants of the virus, the chances of a singular vaccine working are potentially slim to none in the first place. Mutation rates appear to be simply too high to keep up with. And very difficult to track and diagnose as well.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


I agree, good quality patient care is a rare find nowadays. I attend AUC (American University of the Carribbean) and the fact that it is an international medical school I am loving it so much more because they really teach us how to care for patients. It does follow the traditional curriculum of American medical schools. I am finishing up my second year and then heading to rotations in the United States after my board exams. If anyone here has any questions regarding anything, I would be grateful to respond to them. Hope all is well



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Yes, if it is around when I have children they will be getting
all vaccines and shots.

At least they will not be able to say I did not try to keep them from getting sick.

When it is truly developed a real HIV vaccine and it has been tested hundreds of thousands of times,
I will take it and give it to all my future children. After it is known to work of course..

Would I sign up for the clinical trials? F*** no...





new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join