Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And so the cats and dogs have arrived for the fight....... Exhibit One as to why vaccination threads in this forum are shortlived........
It would be nice if vaccines could be discussed in a rational manner without the immediate godlike worshipping status attributed to them. Once that immediate VACCINES WILL SAVE THE WORLD HOW DARE YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU IDIOT statement is made ... well .. you get what you get.
Subsequently; immediately & without warning; the NIH pulled all funding for HIV biologics research. My aunt passed away in 2000 holding 14 patents but in October 2018; the funding, strangely, came through for it to proceed to development. https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1073461B1
I do not believe this is her vaccine. Her vaccine could be administered to people already HIV positive & it would halt the progression of the virus.
Of course; it COULD have been doing that for the last 20 years. it also COULD be given only to people who already had HIV; thereby sparing people from receiving unnecessary & dangerous vaccinations. It also WOULD have made the huge money-maker, the HIV anti-viral cocktail; obsolete.
So the NIH made sure that wouldn't be possible. Do they now want to 'save' us from a certain death that didn't have to be?
Subsequently; immediately & without warning; the NIH pulled all funding for HIV biologics research. My aunt passed away in 2000 holding 14 patents but in October 2018; the funding, strangely, came through for it to proceed to development. https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1073461B1
I do not believe this is her vaccine. Her vaccine could be administered to people already HIV positive & it would halt the progression of the virus.
Of course; it COULD have been doing that for the last 20 years. it also COULD be given only to people who already had HIV; thereby sparing people from receiving unnecessary & dangerous vaccinations. It also WOULD have made the huge money-maker, the HIV anti-viral cocktail; obsolete.
So the NIH made sure that wouldn't be possible. Do they now want to 'save' us from a certain death that didn't have to be?
There wasn't the vaccine frenzy. Since they've indoctrinated the majority of the population to accept all vaccines without question -- well, still working on the flu indoctrination -- now is the time to start rolling it out.
Interesting though, that they didn't pursue it for those already infected. Would there have been a conflict with AZT manufacturers?
It's not fully avoidable. People do have accidents where they come into contact with other people's blood, particularly those who work in certain fields. There are also numerous cases of people cheating on their spouses, contracting HIV, and infecting their spouse who had no reason to think they were at risk. And, of course, there is rape.
That's beside the fact that your question is super gross to start with.
I received an accidental needle stick at work.
Thank God, after a year of quarterly blood tests and Hep vaccine), I was negative for HIV and hepatitis!
Why is a vaccine needed for an illness that is fully avoidable?
Unless people decide upfront that they fully intend to engage directly in risky behavior that could negatively affect their health?
I see you know very little about HIV.
I also see you don't give a damn about people.
Well, if you don't want an HIV immunization, you don't have to get one. But I can assure you that an immunization that was even partially effective could make its developers a ****-ton of money. As I recall, you are a big fan of capitalism. So if saving lives isn't important to you, maybe you'll understand the money motive for developing an effective vaccine.
There wasn't the vaccine frenzy. Since they've indoctrinated the majority of the population to accept all vaccines without question -- well, still working on the flu indoctrination -- now is the time to start rolling it out.
Interesting though, that they didn't pursue it for those already infected. Would there have been a conflict with AZT manufacturers?
Certainly, there was a conflict. I remember hearing about patients dying because they didn't have the money to buy these very expensive drugs. Even today they run about $20,000/year.
I just do not know if that was the main catalyst for pulling the funding. It feels like something else must have have been the bigger issue.
I ran into a correlation of HIV with the SV40 research I was doing a while back. Both came from the Rhesus monkey & the SV40 cover-up was largely due to what they (NIH) stood to lose, rather than what there was to gain.
I think she was close to something that was too close for comfort. Died from an EXTREMELY rare form of cancer that she worked with in her lab & her research assistant is now dying from an autoimmune disorder that they were also studying.
Thank God, after a year of quarterly blood tests and Hep vaccine), I was negative for HIV and hepatitis!
I agree with Frostnip, that was a terrible post
As an RN I had frequent contact with HIV positive patients & started many, many IV's on HIV+ patients & those with full-blown AIDS as well. I understand completely that dread of a needle-stick.
The fear is that it will be added to the recommended schedule.
Thank God, after a year of quarterly blood tests and Hep vaccine), I was negative for HIV and hepatitis!
I agree with Frostnip, that was a terrible post
And I worked in the clinical laboratory for many years. Hep B was an occupational hazard there, considering the direct exposure laboratory personnel had to contaminated blood. I had at least five coworkers who got hepatitis B in the pre-hep B vaccine days, and one of them, a physician, died three years after he was infected from complications of hep B. He was believed to have accidentally gotten stuck with a bone marrow needle as he did a bone marrow aspiration on a woman with the disease.
Of course other medical personnel are likely to be infected with hep B from exposure to contaminated body fluids from patients. As can be people living in congregate facilities, children in day care. And hepatitis B may lead to chronic cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer, so it's not a benign, self-limited disease. Hence the efficacy of the vaccine.
And hep B is stated to be from 50 to 100 times as contagious as HIV. The likelihood of contracting HIV from the same exposures that spread hep B is small, and limited mostly to persons directly exposed to infected blood ( depending on the viral load) either by sexual contact, IV drug use, receipt of contaminated blood products, or transmitted from an infected/untreated mother to an infant in utero or occasionally, through breast-feeding.
So as I see it, any HIV vaccine that becomes available would be offered to those in groups ( such as those listed above) considered at high risk of becoming infected with HIV. Since the infectivity of HIV is much lower than HepB, those not in the high risk exposure groups are not likely to get HIV, and would have little reason to be vaccinated-just as we don't get vaccines for yellow fever, yaws, and other tropical diseases unless we're planning to be exposed when we visit the areas where those diseases are endemic.
The HIV vaccine would not be offered, IMO, to those who are not believed to be at high risk for the disease. Costs would be a factor, and the potential risks associated with the vaccine.
And I doubt seriously they would make a potential HIV vaccine mandatory for anyone, even those in a high risk category. Heck, even those who might be infected aren't required to be tested, while the USPSTF recommends HIV screening as part of routine health screening for adults from 18-64, pregnant women and infants born to HIV-infected women, one can opt out of HIV testing and they can't do it. And they can't require HIV screening on immigrants coming into the country, neither are these immigrants required to report their positive HIV status. The only exceptions I've read about involve mandatory HIV testing on blood that's been associated with a needlestick or other direct contamination on a healthcare employee, perhaps on military personnel under some circumstances, and under direct court order to perform HIV testing.
If they won't even make testing mandatory I can't see them making HIV vaccination mandatory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
