Will You Take the HIV/AIDS Vaccine?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

You realize that there currently IS no working HIV vaccine, right?

hehe, that was the major flaw I saw with this thread.
If you're thinking hypothetically, hypothetically in 10 years there will be a working virus, where they don't have to use a live virus. Suppose there's a way to alter HIV's genetic code, which is basically all there is to a virus, in which you could use this strand, and still get the protection of a vaccine against HIV, and have no risk of infection.

Would you take this vaccine? Would you be a human tester if it was successful on animals? Would you take the vaccine if 1000+ people took the test and not a single one got infected?

I feel this is a much better hypothetical question, because the hypothetical question, "Would you try to take this vaccine which will give you either give you AIDS or wouldn't work?" makes no sense, or rather it's pointless.

Anyone want to answer these questions?

Besides the "necessary" vaccinations, I'm not a big fan of elective vaccinations for seasonal diseases, like the Flu. I also stated on this thread that I would probably Not receive a HIV vaccination, at least not in the beginning. I would need to see years and years of credible evidence advocating its safety and efficacy.

A lot of people on this thread have posted that they do not partake in "risky" lifestyles that would necessitate the need for such a vaccine. While this is commendable and absolutely the right thing to do, many posters have not considered other possible infection vectors. First to mind is dangerous sexual behaviors and illicit drug use, however, there are other means of infection that all people should consider.

Consider the following:

Transmission of HIV and other blood-borne viruses can occur during transfusion of blood components (ie, whole blood, packed red cells, fresh-frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate, and platelets) derived from the blood of an infected individual.(1,2) Depending on the production process used, blood products derived from pooled plasma can also transmit HIV and other viruses, but recombinant clotting factors cannot.(3,4,5) This chapter discusses the history of HIV transmission through blood products; incidence; control measures; and the current estimated safety of U.S. blood components, blood products, tissues used for transplantation, and sperm used for artificial insemination.

Now, since the 1980's, HIV screening in the United States is much better than it used to be. Methodology for HIV detection and screening has also improved in many other countries. But, these are not absolutes and nothing is guaranteed. As a registered nurse I have worked in multiple Level 1 trauma centers where I have infused countless units of blood products into patients. As a victim in a car crash, not one of them expected that to happen to them. Never did they foresee that they would require a life-saving infusion of packed red blood cells (PRBCs), or platelets, or various other infusions of blood-products. Some of these infusions were with the patient's consent, but other times not, as in the case of an unconscious patient in extremis that cannot consent for him or herself.

In some resource-rich countries, testing of donated blood for HIV antibodies was not immediately initiated for a variety of reasons. France began HIV antibody testing in June 1985, Canada began testing in November 1985, and Switzerland began testing in May 1986. Germany inconsistently tested plasma products between 1987 and 1993, as did Japan in 1985 and 1986. These delays led to criminal investigations in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Japan, which in some cases led to criminal conviction of those persons found to be responsible.(11) At least 20 countries initiated compensation programs for at least some individuals infected by transfusion of HIV-contaminated blood and blood products.(11,12)

Developed countries have improved the process of volunteer blood donation screening but not every country has been so efficient. I'm not trying to spread fear but I want people to consider additional factors besides illicit drug use and errant sexual behaviors. Maybe you're travelling with your family outside your home country, or maybe you're providing aid relief in a developing country. Every year I travel outside the United States to donate my time and expertise to countries where Multivitamins are a life-saving medical therapy.

Inadequate funding for HIV testing is only part of the problem. Specific issues that urgently need to be addressed include the lack of a sufficient volunteer blood donor pool, and inadequate blood donor screening, information, counseling, and confidentiality. Implementation of standardized and monitored test manufacturing practices, inclusion of test validation procedures, ongoing staff training, and continuous internal and external quality assessment programs are all necessary components of an effective program to prevent transmission. Moreover, transfusion practices must be monitored locally so that HIV transmission from unnecessary transfusions does not occur.

Here's something else to consider:

HIV antibody tests fail to identify HIV-infected blood donated by HIV-infected persons who have not yet seroconverted. Exclusion of donors is voluntary. Interviews with HIV antibody-positive donors reveal that most recognize their risk but fail to exclude themselves

As of early 2003, three transfusion recipients are known to have become HIV infected by transfusion of HIV antibody-negative, p24 antigen-negative, and HIV NAT-negative blood from two different blood donors (among 25 million donations).(28)

Additionally, HIV transmission can occur as a result of Organ Transplantation and Artificial Insemination.

Just food for thought...Article Link

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

You realize that there currently IS no working HIV vaccine, right?

hehe, that was the major flaw I saw with this thread.

I suggest you both purchase glasses to improve your low reading comprehension rates.

Clearly, in the very beginning of my OP, I had an external quote posted in BOLD:

Currently, there is no effective vaccine against HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

How did you both miss that tidbit? Should I have underlined it and increased the font size by 20?

reply to post by muzzleflash


Muzzleflash, perhaps you should take your own advice.

I said, specifically, that there is no LIVE-VIRUS VACCINE in development for HIV. You claimed that there was, and claimed that non-live virus vaccines don't retain antigenicity, which I proved they, in fact, do.

If you're going to lie, at least make it a lie that isn't easily disproven a few posts back.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I would'nt take any vaccine unless it was life/death senario

The HIV vaccine equals putting live culture of a deadly virus I don't have in to my body. No thanks.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa


I said, specifically, that there is no LIVE-VIRUS VACCINE in development for HIV. You claimed that there was, and claimed that non-live virus vaccines don't retain antigenicity, which I proved they, in fact, do.

I never stated those two claims, you are fabricating a straw-man to attempt to undermine the entire discussion, nice try but no cigar.

I said clearly and concisely that

1) The only viable vaccine would have to be (future tense speculative) live virus due to the documented claims that
2)

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.

Which are documented in " A. S. Fauci, 1996, An HIV vaccine: breaking the paradigms, Proc. Am. Assoc. Phys. 108:6."

You have not refuted this claim at all, instead you fabricate false claims that I never made, and proceed to debunk those false claims. This is called using straw man tactics

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition

The only way you could actually refute the claims is to present a working HIV vaccine. The straw men arguments are easily torched.

There is absolutely NO way I would get a HIV/AIDS vaccine.

Interest info on this thread. Have saved it and hopefully, one of these days, I'll find time to read it all.

So, in affect, giving everyone who takes it HIV. Nice. Population control, anyone?

I don't drink, use drugs, I'm an Ace so there is no hope of me ever being intimate or sharing any bodily fluids with anyone save a very rare once in a decade or two quick kiss on the lips, non opened mouth.... I don't have any reason TO take a vaccination like that ever. O_o

Originally posted by sarra1833
So, in affect, giving everyone who takes it HIV. Nice. Population control, anyone?

I don't drink, use drugs, I'm an Ace so there is no hope of me ever being intimate or sharing any bodily fluids with anyone save a very rare once in a decade or two quick kiss on the lips, non opened mouth.... I don't have any reason TO take a vaccination like that ever. O_o

What is an Ace? Just curious.

So no chance of needing a blood transfusion? Or a six pack of platelets? Or a new organ? Remember, the risks are not isolated to drugs and sex.

Originally posted by daggyz
.....or live a normal life and never be in danger of getting it !!!! Thats the best vaccine.

So if you need a blood transfusion you don't live a normal life?
If you have sex you dont live a normal life?
If you swim in public pools you dont live a normal life?
If you go to the doctor you dont live a normal life?

reply to post by muzzleflash


Vaccines can be a little tricky, specially the viral vaccines. For the most part, penicillin can kick the living life out of most bacterial infections, but viruses are in a completely different ball game. The problem with Viral Infections is the fact that when you try to cure a virus, the virus mutates extremely fast, making the newly discovered vaccine pointless. [color=cyan]Well, Scientist at Lincoln Laboratory’s Chemical, Biological, and Nanoscale Technologies Group, have developed a brand new type of drug they call DRACO that actually destroys any, and all viruses! no questions asked… PERIOD!
This new drug doesn’t care if the virus has mutated or if the virus is completely different from the other viruses, as long as it’s a virus, this vaccine will kill it. This means the HIV virus might have finally met its match! Here is how it works, the virus infects one of your cells, it then reprograms your cell to make more viruses, this process repeats it’s self over and over and over again. The virus has to make long strings of double stranded RNA’s which is the main characteristic of all viruses. A normal healthy cell will NEVER make this double stranded RNA. When DRACO is introduced into the body, its mission is to find these RNA strands, once it locates them, it actually instructs your cells to commit suicide effectively killing the virus and preventing it from even knowing what hit it. This cell suicide also prevents the virus from having the ability to mutate since it never gets the chance to replicate.




tek-bull.com...

@ Op dont know if I would take the vaccine mentioned in the OP. DARCO seems interesting with more time it may be able to help.

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
@ Op dont know if I would take the vaccine mentioned in the OP. DARCO seems interesting with more time it may be able to help.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will not willingly take a vaccine, for any reason. I reserve the right to defend myself against unwanted needles.

I say YES, after being tested and approved.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
[

You have not refuted this claim at all,

Yes, I have. Go back to my post where I linked to several studies showing effective, antigenicity-retaining vaccines using different modalities other than live virus.

It's like you don't even know how to read...

reply to post by muzzleflash


This is exactly why this would never work. It's an RNA virus which allows it to mutate incredibly fast. There are thousands of strains of the HIV virus existing with different prevalences around the world, each with unique resistances to different antiretrovirals. If a person misses just a few days of their medication, the result could be a complete change of treatment because the HIV became resistant to the drug. This is the reason why one person might die from AIDS within a few years because its resistant to treatment, and another person can live 30+ years with HIV with a more "treatment naive" strain.

First, just due to varying prevalences, I would be concerned if it was marketed to 70 countries, as the research would technically only be valid in the region where the research was conducted. Not saying they wouldn't, as it's been typical of public health in the past, but it's certainly unethical. And if there was such an effective vaccine, I would be incredibly wary of taking anything that is so broad spectrum and potent, that it could eliminate all possible strains of HIV.

And finally, I think it could potentially do more harm than good. Essentially all you're doing is taking out all the strains that we know how to treat and washing our hands of it. Never mind the notion that we're left with he harsher strains, or the fact that it could very readily mutate into something we have no solution to. There's reasons why we don't vaccinate for retroviruses, but researchers like to overlook these rules when their trying to prove something "groundbreaking"

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by muzzleflash
[

You have not refuted this claim at all,

Yes, I have. Go back to my post where I linked to several studies showing effective, antigenicity-retaining vaccines using different modalities other than live virus.

It's like you don't even know how to read...

There is no working HIV vaccine so you must be talking about OTHER VIRUSES??

How does that even relate? Please address this problem.

reply to post by muzzleflash


So they want to inject you with Aids...

To prevent you from ......getting Aids ?

I'll pass

Originally posted by muzzleflash


There is no working HIV vaccine so you must be talking about OTHER VIRUSES??

How does that even relate? Please address this problem.

There are HIV vaccines that are showing high rates of success in clinical trials. None of these vaccines are live virus. You cited a source that says only live virus vaccines retain antigenicity, and I cited several sources that say you're absolutely, without a doubt, wrong.

Just admit you made a mistake and didn't research well enough so we can get past this.