The efficacy of vaccines is measured by counting antibodies. If you have a high enough load of those things, you are assumed to be protected against a certain disease. But that’s a bit of a problem with the HIV vaccine: a HIV infection is measured by antibodies, but then at once you are assumed to be NOT protected. The logic of course is completely missing, but that doesn’t stop researchers from trying to develop a HIV vaccine. How on earth they want to test how effective the vaccine is, is unclear so far. (By the way, it has already been known for decades that antibodies have nothing to do with immunity, but the people are not allowed to know, as then they would realise that there is no proof that vaccines work.)
A team from the University of Adelaide is working on this. “the most common sites of HIV infection, the gut and body cavities.” Dr. Grubor-Bauk, I’m confused here. A virus is supposed to go through your whole body, but HIV has a preference for a few sites? And how then does it affect your immune system? If HIV is found in the gut, then wouldn’t a stool test be more effective for an AIDS test than a blood sample? (Don’t worry, we both know that the HIV test is less reliable than flipping a coin. And you might even know that the inserts with these tests say that they should not be used to diagnose HIV.)
“You need to get protection where your body encounters the virus first” Which is where? If you say that the gut is the most common site, you suggest that HIV is mainly a disease from gay men. And you know that that is as politically incorrect as you can ever be. “Body cavities” is a little more general, but I still fail to see the connection. “you need to stop it from replicating and stop it from spreading” And how is that done? Considering that nobody can see a live virus I really wonder how these scientists know how a virus replicates and how it spreads. (Hint: they cannot possibly know. They just assume and produce fantasies, which they present as facts.)
“Testing on laboratory mice achieved a “considerable reduction” in infection” Please, tell me how you know. As I said above, the HIV tests state clearly that they should not be used to diagnose HIV. So how do you test these mice? Oops. “After a long four years of study” Four years of study with a whole team of researchers and they have achieved that “We’re hoping our discovery is definitely pointing us in the right direction”. That’s hardly something to be proud of.
“were successful in creating immunity” How do you know? How do you measure immunity? With measles the debunked antibody count is still in use, but a HIV infection is already measured with antibodies. I don’t know about any other viral immunity test. So this sounds very dodgy.
“She said it was now vital more research was done.” Why? You have worked with a whole team for four years and all you have are some dodgy, made up results, about a virus that you have never seen. Why do you want more money? I think you should all abandon this research, which clearly doesn’t lead to anything. Maybe you should get yourselves jobs, so that you can do something useful. Just a suggestion.
“We also have a DNA vaccin” Wait. If I recall correctly the problem with HIV was always that it changes all the time. But now it does have the same DNA? Where do you get that DNA? You don’t have a live or even complete virus to work with. No virologist has any of those, for electron microscopes shoot those very fragile things into a million pieces. So how did you get this DNA? How do you know it’s not something else? It’s hard to keep your stories straight when nothing adds up.
“we were able to get a systemic immunity” Systemic immunity? Is there another kind? And again, how did you measure this? What test did you use to find this immunity? If it’s that simple, then why don’t you use this for a vaccine against the flu or measles? That would be a great change from the current 0% effective vaccines. Admit it, Dr Grubor-Bauk, you are lying. You have no results and you know that you never will have results, because there is no HIV and there is no AIDS. AIDS is anything and everything, depending on time and geographic location. All you need is a positive HIV test, though in many cases even that is not necessary. So until you can explain to me how one virus can cause completely different diseases in different social or geographic groups I can only assume you are making things up. And until you can show me how you prove immunity I can only assume you are lying to get more money. Don’t worry, you aren’t the first one to make up research results and you won’t be the last one eit her. We both know that that is very common, don’t we, doctor Grubor-Bauk?