Per Cogforlife.com, which tracks these things, the failed AIDS vaccine in the article below was derived from the retina of an 18-week-old fetus and has been used to create vaccines since 2001.
Not only did this vaccine fail to slow AIDS, it increased it.
To create the AIDS vaccine, Merck researchers modified the aforementioned fetal cell line by adding a cold virus and to that cold virus elements of HIV.
This fetal cell line is also known to cause cancerous tumors in nude mice (photo right). Cogforlife reports, "Worse news to ponder, this same cell line is being used in many other new vaccines under development."
The Washington Post, November 7....
Developers of a failed AIDS vaccine announced Wednesday that it appeared to be ineffective among some people with a preexisting immunity to a virus that causes colds and may have raised their vulnerability to AIDS.
The announcement... was the latest bad news for a vaccine that only two months ago was regarded as the most promising candidate to slow an epidemic that kills millions of people each year. Trials of the vaccine that involved thousands of participants in the United States, South Africa and other countries were halted in September.....
Scientists say the vaccine not only failed to prevent infection with HIV or slow progress of the disease but may have actually increased the HIV risk among trial participants who, by chance, had a preexisting immunity to a common strain of cold virus....
The setback has forced a broad reexamination of the multibillion-dollar search for an AIDS vaccine and raised new questions about when - or whether - future experimental vaccines should be tested on humans....
If the Washington Post were honest, or to be fair, aware, that last sentence should have read "... should be tested on and with humans."
For the Merck vaccine, researchers genetically altered the adenovirus type 5, one of several viruses that cause colds, to include elements of HIV. The goal was to trigger an immune response that would protect a vaccinated person from contracting HIV.
But for reasons scientists do not understand, study subjects with preexisting immunity to adenovirus type 5 apparently became more vulnerable when vaccinated....
Scientists at the conference were also debating whether to tell each of the study participants... whether they received the placebo or the vaccine, a process called "unblinding" the study.
It's incredible that scientists are even debating whether to tell the people they experimented on that they're now at a higher risk than before of contracting AIDS.
The search for an AIDS vaccine began in the mid-1980s and last year alone cost more than $900 million in private and government funding.
AIDS is a behaviorally transmitted virus, most often in the U.S. by promiscuous homosexual sex. In other countries add promiscuous heterosexual sex. It's prevalently an STD. That $900 million apparently got researchers nowwhere the past 20 years. It would have been much better spent in abstinence teaching. But liberal ideologues have forbidden that, sending instead millions to their death.
[HT: Yvonne Bontkowski]
Heck, the American Cancer Society has been around since 1913 and people still die of cancer every day. Clearly cancer research is a waste of time and money.Posted by: Laura at November 9, 2007 6:22 PM
They have made plenty of progress in cancer treatments throughtout the years that would not have been possible without this research. AIDS, on the other hand, can be prevented if "certain behaviors" are changed.
"Scientists at the conference were also debating whether to tell each of the study participants... whether they received the placebo or the vaccine, a process called "unblinding" the study."
Wow, I thought there were ethical standards when using human subjects. Now that the study is over, the participants should be told at least of a possible risk so they can protect themselves.
It is not like the study will be invalidated since it is over.Posted by: hippie at November 9, 2007 8:14 PM
It is not that research is a waste. It is that you can also save a lot of people through prevention. Whether cancer or HIV we need to work on prevention as well as cure. At this point, the fact is prevention is just more effective, cheaper and even more humane than treatment. This applies somewhat to cancer, heart disease and diabetes as well. Here is an interesting article about popular perceptions about diseases and their causes. Many underestimate the real risks and overestimate others.
Much as we would all like to see a vaccine or cure for HIV, spending $900 million a year and not finding what you are looking for is still a bitter pill. Cost effectiveness is important. If we could have saved some real people with that money, it sure would be easier to swallow.
Posted by: hippie
at November 9, 2007 8:27 PM
You see, we already KNOW what causes AIDS..we just don't have the cure....
We do NOT know what causes cancer, but are making progress in the cure (or treatment)...big difference here, as I see it!Posted by: PL Laura at November 9, 2007 8:49 PM
Jill... AIDS is spread via heterosexual sex here too.
You are correct in saying it is mostly spread via male homosexual sexual conduct, try not to blow the number out of proportion. Approximately 45.5% of adolescents and adults in the US living with AIDS got it via male homosexual sex (approximately 6% from both homosexual sexual contact and injecting drugs with a shared needle). Yes. This is slightly more than half. But it still leaves a significant portion who got it through other means: heterosexual sex, drugs, etc.
Now, as for "promiscuous"... I'm going to let that one go, but I will admit I snickered a bit.Posted by: Leah at November 9, 2007 9:33 PM
And just how many of those 45.5% that got it via homo sex are also bisexuals that spread it to the hetero's? I believe Jill's statement of it being "promiscuous" does have it's role here. What say you?Posted by: PL Laura at November 9, 2007 9:43 PM
Good question, Laura. I'm not sure. But I can tell you that approximately 23.5% of people in the US living with AIDS get it through heterosexual sex.
As for "promiscuous," I always take that word with a smile and a grain of salt because the definition is SO relative. To you, maybe "promiscuity" is having sex with someone you aren't married to; whereas to me, it is having unprotected sex with many people.Posted by: Leah at November 9, 2007 9:58 PM
The Encarta dictionary is pretty clear on the definition...I tend to go with #2:
"choosing carelessly or without discrimination"
I think the carelessly part is where I tend to lie...
Obviously, Laura, a dictionary definition is not going to be relative.
I do not run my life by the dictionary. Nor do I really feel the need to futher any discussion on what "promiscuity" is seeing as I made a small, passing comment on it that really needed no expansion.
Now, I need to go to bed. I'm getting up early tomorrow. Night, all!Posted by: Leah at November 9, 2007 10:12 PM
Leah said, "To you, maybe "promiscuity" is having sex with someone you aren't married to;"
Maybe just "a passing comment", but I felt that I just needed to state what I thought promiscuity is to me...If you weren't addressing that comment to me, please accept my apologies.
Good night, Leah! Sweet dreams!Posted by: PL Laura at November 9, 2007 10:31 PM
The 45% among from male homosexual contact is extremely important because male homosexuals are far less than 45% of the population. Male homosexuals are greatly overrepresented. If 5% of the population is homosexual and half are men, then 2.5% of the population accounts for 45% of the incidence. The other 55% is then spread out over 97.5% of the population.
If you have 100 new cases in 1,000,000 people then there would be 45 cases in 25,000 homosexual men and 55 cases in 975,000 heterosexuals and homosexual women.
New infections for homosexual males would be 1 in 555.
New infections for the rest would be 1 in 17,727
That is a huge difference in risk.
Since HIV doesn't descriminate, the number of partners makes a big difference. While some homosexual males have only one partner, many more have numerous partners, so more risk since the virus has more opportunities.
I think this may be the reasoning behind the promiscuity comment.Posted by: hippie at November 10, 2007 9:28 AM
Some of my favorite stats about HIV come from a Christian website. Check out the rates of infection in Christians and Muslims:Posted by: Laura at November 10, 2007 9:59 AM
the whole cancer industry - hospitals; the vast majority of research etc. is a crock. Please read books by Ralph Moss MD. The AIDS epidemic is well-timed to get people so afraid that they MUST rely on orthodox medicine for the answers.... too bad, so sad!Posted by: John McDonell at November 10, 2007 2:34 PM
The only thing is, someone who has homosexual sex may not identify themselves as being homosexual. Maybe it was a one time thing for a declared heterosexual? Someone bisexual, confused, or closet? The behavior and the label don't always match.Posted by: Anonymous at November 10, 2007 5:13 PM
whoops that was mePosted by: prettyinpink at November 10, 2007 5:14 PM
I thought your Africa stats were scary till I saw New York City's.
Approximately 1 in 70 New Yorkers is infected with HIV, but the proportion of people in different groups who are infected varies widely:
1 in 40 African Americans.
1 in 25 men living in Manhattan.
1 in 12 black men age 40-49 years.
1 in 10 men who have sex with men.
1 in 8 injection drug users.
1 in 5 black men age 40-49 in Manhattan.
1 in 4 men who have sex with men in Chelsea.
hippie: That certainly IS alarming! As I was reading it I was certain that you had gotten it from some crazy, inaccurate, biased source, but... it's just plain ol' nyc.gov.
That's kind of scary.Posted by: Leah at November 10, 2007 10:59 PM
Laura and Leah,
I find the HIV immunity gene a really interesting idea:
"This clip includes animation of HIV entering a white blood cell through the CD-4 and CCR-5 receptors on the cell's surface. Some individuals have no CCR-5 gene, which means that HIV cannot enter their cells."
I wish I could remember where I saw this:
2% of Americans of European ancestry have the gene mutation.
0.8% of African Americans have it and
0% of Africans have it.
People who have the gene have actually been tested positive for HIV and a few months later, test negative.
I wonder if they could be carriers till the virus clears.
Also I wonder how available the test is and how much it costs.Posted by: hippie at November 11, 2007 9:44 AM
This may explain why my gay friend is HIV+, and his lover is not.Posted by: heather at November 11, 2007 11:47 AM
My friends used to have 3 ways with other men. They did this often. However, "Joe" had no idea who infected him, or when he had become infected.Posted by: heather at November 11, 2007 11:50 AM
Yeah, the interesting thing is most of these Europeans have ancestors who have survived the black plague.Posted by: prettyinpink at November 11, 2007 1:02 PM
Earlier I posted the AIDS rate in NYC.
NYC is considered by some to do a good job of comprehensive sex ed.
I wondered how that would compare to a state that does abstinence education. I picked a major city in Texas.
NYC - 1 in 70
Houston TX - 1 in 200
Use a calculator if you have to.Posted by: hippie at November 11, 2007 10:52 PM
PIP, that is interesting.Posted by: heather at November 12, 2007 9:23 AM
What was the old saying?
"AN ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure "Posted by: RSD at November 12, 2007 9:31 AM
True, RSD, but should an undesired situation occur, the cure is going to be wanted, by the penny or by the pound.Posted by: Doug at November 12, 2007 5:38 PM