>>"Ren Stimpy" <news4read@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Moira, what is your exact "involvement"?
LOL. In preparation for the Frod Show "fold, spindle and mutilate"
approach to discourse, I'd say no matter WHAT you say, he will
endeavor to make you into a criminal.
As ever, he will fail to convince anyone but his own fervent little
foetid mind! LOL
George M. Carter
Black Darkness (Schwartzenegger) - 23 Nov 2004 16:00 GMT
>>>"Ren Stimpy" <news4read@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>approach to discourse, I'd say no matter WHAT you say, he will
>endeavor to make you into a criminal.
Moira? Never!
If George Dubya Carter bothered to read the whole post, he
would see that I view Moira as a victim of an Orwellian
conspiracy, not much different than those who were duped
into voting for George Dubya Bush, Carter's namesake.
Blackie
"Black Darkness (Schwartzenegger)" <dawg@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> <moira.deswardt@wol.co.za> wrote:
> >"Ren Stimpy" <news4read@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> Do the regular posters here think this might be the major
> >>breakthrough in vaccine development?
> >There are about forty different vaccines on a series of concepts in
> >human trials going on in the world. There are two trials at the
> >Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital in Soweto, Johannesburg, where I
> >live, and I am involved in one of these.
> Moira, what is your exact "involvement"?
I am a Phase I safety trial participant.
> >Do you know that it takes nine months or more just to be finally
> >accepted into an AIDS vaccine trial? There is a long process of
> >education and elimination and health tests before entry. Each stage
> >is marked with "exams" to ensure that the volunteers know and
> >understand what they are doing.
> So the vaccine trials begin by carefully selecting those who are to
> receive the vaccine.
All trials begin by carefully selecting those who are to receive the
trial. That is the only ethical way to conduct a trial. When one
commences phase one testing one must ensure that the individual has
no known health problems.
> That's very random and scientific ... NOT!
No. It's very scientific, and most assuredly not random. They only
select, for example, participants who don't test positive for any
previous bouts of STI's.
> >The two US$2 I receive just covers the petrol (gas) from my
> >relatively distant area to the hospital in a poor township, but for
> >many who will walk to the session the US$2 will feed their family
> >for a day or two.
> Jesus Christ, Moira, you sound like a f.cking UNICEF baby!
> LOL !
Maybe I live close to that kind of reality? I certainly deal with
people every week who will go to bed hungry some time this year
while we "rich" people enjoy Christmas excess.
> >However, the overriding goal of the volunteers is probably still the
> >desire to serve humanity.
> "We Are the World" keeps playing in my head.
> >When my group went through the process
> >the volunteers who landed up on the programme included ... myself and
> >a young man whose sister was HIV positive and in medication trials.
> Moira, if the risk factor for the "young man" didn't arise from having
> sex with his HIV+ sister, then why do you mention her?
Risk factor? Phase I safety trials participants are all very low
risk people. Most of us are blood or plasma/platelet donors when
we're not on trials.
> Are YOU having sex with his sister?
No, dear. I don't swing that way. Besides, lesbian sex is *very*
low risk for HIV transmission.
> If not, then what is YOUR high risk factor for HIV that makes you
> a desirable candidate for these highly selective HIV vaccine
> trials?
No, dear. Low risk.
> >People withdrew from the programme because they
> >wished to become pregnant, or because they didn't wish to comply
> >with one or other of the requirements.
> Like what, NOT having sex?
Like not giving blood or platelets. That has been a factor in my
decision making.
> Moira are you so dumb that you haven't figured out that
> these "vaccine trials" have nothing to do with vaccines?
They don't? With what do they have to do?
> Can you tell us of ANY non-HIV vaccine study which
> has been accompanied by such a rigorous selection process,
> including 9 months of education and behavior modification?
> Name just one, please.
AIDS medication trials? I have two friends in different medication
trials as well as knowing several patients in "care" who are on
trials.
A friend is involved in Phase II trials for asthma medication. His
selection process took four months. He, like me, had to have a
number of base medicals to produce a mean health profile against
which to measure results.
> > I, as a platelet donor
> >donating every three weeks, must understand that it is *either* the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> >vaccinated against HIV should such a time arise) if the antibodies
> >remain in the blood for ever).
> Moira, these vaccines suppress the immune response to real HIV -
> thus your risk of a genuine infection goes WAY WAY up!
> Immunologists call this the Original Antigenic Sin and the
> result is contradictory to the intent of the vaccine.
Drivel. There is no real risk of genuine infection from the
vaccine. Participants are strongly encouraged to engage in very low
risk lifestyles.
> Now here's another vital question for you: since the vaccine causes
> people to become HIV+, how is it possible to determine if the
> vaccine recipient is protected against HIV?
Viral load testing.
However not all vaccines work on the principle of producing
antibodies.
> >I really do hope that more than one effective HIV vaccine is
> >developed soon, put through the proper trials and introduced, free
> >of charge to the poor, to the general public.
> So do I. Hundreds of vaccines might do the job - and everyone
> will be testing HIV-positive while whistling "We Are the World"
> as they struggle to suck a few bucks out of drug trials that
> pay more than a month's worth of Yak butter.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here other than sheer
nastiness. As I feel good about myself your nastiness is not
something I take terribly seriously.
> >I think that few third world countries will be willing to buy the
> >vaccines which are likely to be expensive, and that ethical human
> >trials (and who would want them to be anything else) are so
> >laborious that the vaccine is not a short term viable option.
> Moira, you are a true soldier of Orwell's 1984 ...
> and I love it so!
Is that meant to be an insult?
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Black Darkness (Schwartzenegger) - 01 Dec 2004 17:07 GMT
>"Black Darkness (Schwartzenegger)" <dawg@hotmail.com> wrote in
>message
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>I am a Phase I safety trial participant.
"Safety trial participant"?
>> >Do you know that it takes nine months or more just to be finally
>> >accepted into an AIDS vaccine trial? There is a long process of
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>select, for example, participants who don't test positive for any
>previous bouts of STI's.
Moira, you seemed to have missed the obvious point.
If HIV is the virus that think it may be, and someone proposes a
vaccine for that virus, then the testing for an antipathogenic
vaccine either works or doesn't.
It is clear that your vaccine study makes a mockery of the
scientific process for a vaccine which they know to be
a failure from the outset.
>> >The two US$2 I receive just covers the petrol (gas) from my
>> >relatively distant area to the hospital in a poor township, but
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>people every week who will go to bed hungry some time this year
>while we "rich" people enjoy Christmas excess.
No different in America.
>> Moira are you so dumb that you haven't figured out that
>> these "vaccine trials" have nothing to do with vaccines?
>
>They don't? With what do they have to do?
How about politics? Money?
You know, like everything else AIDS.
>> Can you tell us of ANY non-HIV vaccine study which
>> has been accompanied by such a rigorous selection process,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>trials as well as knowing several patients in "care" who are on
>trials.
Read the question again, dear.
>> Moira, these vaccines suppress the immune response to real HIV -
>> thus your risk of a genuine infection goes WAY WAY up!
>> Immunologists call this the Original Antigenic Sin and the
>> result is contradictory to the intent of the vaccine.
>
>Drivel.
No, not drivel.
> There is no real risk of genuine infection from the vaccine.
I never suggested this was the case. However, a OAS
vaccine turns off or seriously weakens the immune system
from responding to HIV, thus nearly guaranteeing
infection on first contact.
>Participants are strongly encouraged to engage in very low
>risk lifestyles.
If it is a real working vaccine, then there shouldn't be all this
engineering of study participants and behavioral training.
Either the vaccine works on its own merit or it doesn't.
Clearly there are no working vaccine prospects at present.
>> Now here's another vital question for you: since the vaccine
>>causes
>> people to become HIV+, how is it possible to determine if the
>> vaccine recipient is protected against HIV?
>
>Viral load testing.
Not so. The "viral load" test was invented by te drug companies
for the purpose of pushing drugs. That's all it is.
>> Moira, you are a true soldier of Orwell's 1984 ...
>> and I love it so!
>
>Is that meant to be an insult?
Not really.
Blackie