HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

New Year Prediction: Vaccine is coming! (again)

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/01/06

The year ahead in science

Sydney Morning Herald, 4 January 2015 (cr. Los Angeles Times)

Microbiologists say that new insights into the structure of HIV’s protein spikes — the weapons the virus uses to enter host cells — have raised hopes for a vaccine. If they are right, it would be a major victory against the virus that causes AIDS.
In the last few years, scientists have realised that some AIDS patients have developed broadly neutralising antibodies that are not fooled by HIV’s infamous ability to camouflage itself. In October, researchers at Yale School of Medicine and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases showed that these antibodies were able to attach to HIV spikes and disable them.

“Personally, working in the HIV vaccine field for 16 years, I have never been so positive,” said Rogier Sanders, a Cornell University microbiologist who studies the spikes but was not involved in that research. “I think the coming year will see some major steps forward thanks to this.”

——————————————-
Here’s my prediction:
The year ahead in January 2016 will speculate, “Could this be the year of the AIDS vaccine?”

In Categories in the left-hand column of this blog, select “vaccines”, and then note 30 blog posts about predicted advances and progress that never eventuated.
Coming up is the thirtieth anniversary of Robert Gallo’s prediction, in April 1984, that a vaccine would be ready in a couple of years’ time.

8 Responses to “New Year Prediction: Vaccine is coming! (again)”

  1. HIV cures everything, denialists claim.... said

    My prediction is that a vaccine is proven to work because how else could you explain why so many people who were positive before the vac became clear of hiv afterwards? There’s a limit to how far mere facts can get in the way of profits and credibility.

  2. davidcrowe said

    you forgot that in December 2015 they will report another year of disappointment, paving the way for renewed optimism after all the egg nog erases the researchers’ memory of yet another futile year.

  3. nanda2003 said

    AIDS is nothing more than the human with low body oxygen and high body ozone. HIV vaccine is impossible.

    [I felt the need for supporting evidence, and nanda2003 responded with the following:

    To support my statement please read:
    1.- My article ” Mengapa AIDS Sulit Diobati ( Why Is It Hard To Cure AIDS ?, Harian AB, Jakarta, 22 Maret 1996 ) : : Disebabkan karena kekeliruan identifikasi penyebab AIDS ( the wrong indentification of the cause of AIDS ).
    – My article ” Tentang virus HIV ” ( Harian AB, Jakarta, April 1996 / What Is The True HIV ? ). In this article I have been predicted that baboon marrow transplant ( Jeff Getty, 1995 ) will be failed.

    2. Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons – Vol. 15 No. 3
    Review Article “Human Endogenous Retroviruses and AIDS Research: Confusion, Consensus, or Science?” Etienne de Harven, M.D. View on http://www.jpands.org

    3.http://www.normalbreathing.com/hiv-aids-cause.php

    HIV Vacccine is impossible:
    1.In the event an HIV vaccine is developed, there will be a method to assess if the body did create antibodies that will prevent HIV after getting the vaccine. The problem with that is any effective HIV vaccine will create a positive serologic response; in other words after an HIV vaccine is taken, the person will forever have a positive HIV test. So the question is, how will medical people tell the difference between a positive HIV test due to vaccination or infection. Obviously it will be important to know the difference because one group will be protected against HIV and one group will need HIV care. So for an HIV vaccine to be effective, an HIV test that can tell the difference between HIV infection and HIV vaccine will have to be developed.
    http://aids.about.com/od/hivprevention/a/hivvaccine.htm.

    2. HIV Vaccine may never found
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-514476/Nobel-Prize-winner-warns-HIV-vaccine-found.html

    3.”If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document.” ( Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry ).

  4. lukas said

    I’ve recently randomly stumbled upon this interview of Nobel Kary Mullis that has a bit surprised me.He states that he know believes that retroviruses play a role in aids,but not as intended as the specific sequences of retroviral code that goes under the name of hiv,but that more retroviridiae species and unspecified ,not detected properties, act sinergistically in order to cause it.This is the contrary of what prof.Duesberg has always stated:that retroviruses are harmless.i personally think that a debate between dissident scientists would be necessary in order to clarify such unconciliable positions.The interview link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPETGWDWhNE from minute 52.45 till the end.

    • Henry Bauer said

      lukas:

      Rather surprising and saddening. He doesn’t explain how the supposedly infected cells do any harm.
      He spoke evry differently years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AijNeclZQhg

    • davidcrowe said

      Trying to interpret Kary Mullis’s statements is difficult. He’s been out of the loop for a long time, and I don’t think his theories have really been tested, not even in discussion with other people.

      • lukas said

        even if not all Mullis says is of easy understanding a central idea is clear:That more retroviruses species act sinergistically in order to cause aids.The role of hiv is limited as he says:”there’s no test that detect others sequences other than hiv”,”no meds will work to stop the cycle of replication of other retroviruses” etc and he states that his interpretation is supported by even more and more data.This idea would not sound so strange if we consider that other sources claim the co-factorial role of more germs such as “mycoplasma”(which is a bacteria however).I think that a public debate between prof.Duesberg and Mullis would be useful to clarify this position as i suppose prof Duesberg would reject his statements.

      • Henry Bauer said

        lukas:

        Mullis needs to explain how his present ideas constitute the needed proof that “HIV” plays any role at all in AIDS. When did he decide that the proof actually exists, for which he had asked without result decades ago.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s