|
Guest
|
To: Durland.fish at (no spam) yale.edu, Aag1 at (no spam) columbia.edu, gary_wormser at (no spam) nymc.edu,
scientificintegrity at (no spam) ostp.gov, pkrugman at (no spam) princeton.edu,
Stanley.fish at (no spam) fiu.edu, emcsweegan at (no spam) niaid.nih.gov, afauci at (no spam) niaid.nih.gov,
SpinLyme at (no spam) yahoogroups.com, kshepard at (no spam) calea.org, fitzmas at (no spam) gmail.com,
patrick.fitzgerald at (no spam) usdoj.gov, modelt1918 at (no spam) sbcglobal.net,
jdrazen at (no spam) nejm.org, letters at (no spam) courant.com, Jgerberding at (no spam) cdc.gov,
michael.cole at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, conndcj at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, executive-
editor at (no spam) nytimes.com, managing-editor at (no spam) nytimes.com, news-
tips at (no spam) nytimes.com, bizday at (no spam) nytimes.com, foreign at (no spam) nytimes.com,
national at (no spam) nytimes.com, dvbid at (no spam) cdc.gov, brigidcallahan at (no spam) optonline.net,
trvl at (no spam) hotmail.com, illinoislyme at (no spam) aol.com, jlender at (no spam) courant.com,
tinajgarcia at (no spam) yahoo.com, jhornberger at (no spam) fff.org, thomas.carson at (no spam) usdoj.gov,
thomas.ryan at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, kurtzh at (no spam) washpost.com,
georgewill at (no spam) washpost.com, pj at (no spam) allegorypress.com,
commissioner.dcf at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, bransfield at (no spam) comcast.net,
vtsherr at (no spam) comcast.net, oca at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, freethinker at (no spam) charter.net,
scott.murphy at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, governor.rell at (no spam) po.state.ct.us,
attorney.general at (no spam) po.state.ct.us, randall.samborn at (no spam) usdoj.gov,
Robert.shiller at (no spam) yale.edu, editor at (no spam) greenwich-post.com,
harold.koh at (no spam) yale.edu, sedmonds at (no spam) nswbc.org, rrmcgovern at (no spam) aol.com,
frich at (no spam) nytimes.com, dprice at (no spam) stmartin.edu
Cc: francam at (no spam) ucia.gov, dr-ahmadinejad at (no spam) president.ir,
eugenerobinson at (no spam) washpost.com, afauci at (no spam) niaid.nih.gov,
bmiller at (no spam) newstimes.com, trvl at (no spam) hotmail.com, rastro18 at (no spam) aol.com,
billcurryct at (no spam) gmail.com, amcguigan at (no spam) rms-law.com, rjmurzyn at (no spam) aol.com,
paulcraigroberts at (no spam) yahoo.com, sidney_blumenthal at (no spam) yahoo.com,
criminal.division at (no spam) usdoj.gov, karla.dobinski at (no spam) usdoj.gov,
christopher.christie at (no spam) usdoj.gov, richard.Levin at (no spam) yale.edu,
harold.koh at (no spam) yale.edu, james.phillips at (no spam) yale.edu, inquire at (no spam) aldf.com,
lyme at (no spam) idsociety.org, meganmcardle at (no spam) theatlantic.com,
bob.drogin at (no spam) latimes.com
Subject: NYT: AIDS Vaccine Op-Ed? OspA/Pam3Cys does not fit the
"vaccine" model.
Date: Oct 19, 2009 7:48 AM
Well, as far as we have been
able to tell, the HIV/Pam3Cys
http://www.actionlyme.org/Pam3Cys_Version15.htm
does not fit the model of
"vaccines" because the science
suggests that TLR2 - the manager
of Relapsing Fever and AIDS virus
triacyl lipopeptides - will down
regulate downstream functions with
chronic exposure (such as spirochetal
blebbing or Star Wars, as CDC officer
Alan Barbour calls it) BECAUSE, as
the science suggests:
http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/full/173/4/2683
If TLR2 was not downregulated after
repeated stimulation, the mammal
would go into septic shock.
It's like a fuse in your house.
So, I recommend paying attention
to the Pam3Cys science we have
presented becuase as far as we know
no one really even knows the structure
of these antigens.
And if you don't know the structure of
whatever you're putting into a "vaccine"
you are not going to know how it works.
We already learned all of this from the
"Lyme Disease" and OspA fiasco.
In our presentation, we invite anyone
to tell us what the real structure of
Pam3Cys/HIV gp120 or the mycoplasmal
mucolipids as they were once called,
are:
http://www.actionlyme.org/Pam3Cys_Version15.htm
Fifteen years of discovery time and money
(lives, I know, are not important, so I
won't mention lives or quality of life,
especially since these diseases-outcomes
most seriously affect blacks, females and
poor people) lost to a stupid little cabal
of Typical Yalie Perverts:
http://www.actionlyme.org/GOLDWATER_LETTER.htm
(Seriously, ^^^look how Sweeg and Durl
spent their time.)
May I suggest, however, a collection
of antigens based on reverse engineering
of the successful antibodies (which CAN
be crystalized), but with a Pam2Cys adjuvant...
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/opinion/19berkley.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
October 19, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Have Faith in an AIDS Vaccine
By SETH BERKLEY
VACCINE researchers don’t often find themselves at the center of
public controversies. But a storm has erupted over the announcement
last month that an experimental AIDS vaccine tested in Thailand proved
modestly effective. It was billed as a major scientific advance — the
long-awaited hard evidence that it is possible to inoculate people
against AIDS. But now the trial has been called into question in a way
that is overblown and possibly destructive.
At a biotech conference last week, I asked a major industry scientist
what he thought of the Thai trial announcement, and, although no
additional data had been presented, he replied simply, “I don’t
believe it.” Unfortunately, such pessimism may be hard to dispel and
may ultimately thwart other efforts to develop an AIDS vaccine.
Even before this controversy erupted, it had been an effort to
maintain sufficient support for AIDS vaccine research and development.
In 2008, private and public spending on this vital mission declined by
10 percent from the year before. A few fanatical AIDS activists have
even called for ending the American government’s considerable support
for AIDS vaccine research, and spending the money instead on AIDS
treatment. Patient care is vital, of course, but it alone can only
mitigate, not end, the pandemic.
This is why it is essential to clear things up.
The Thai study was the largest AIDS vaccine trial yet, following
16,402 volunteers for six years. It was a collaborative effort by,
among others, the United States military, the National Institutes of
Health and the Thai Health Ministry. (The organization I head, a
nonprofit that conducts vaccine research and development but was not
involved and has no commercial interest in the candidates tested.) The
trial partners initially announced that the vaccine combination
reduced the risk of infection by 31.2 percent in a statistically
significant analysis.
A few days later, the trial collaborators began to brief researchers
privately about additional data, including a second type of analysis
that indicated the vaccine regimen had been slightly less effective
than the first analysis suggested. This second analysis was not
statistically significant, meaning that chance, rather than the
protective effect of the vaccine candidate, might explain why fewer
volunteers in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group were
infected with H.I.V.
Some researchers questioned why both analyses weren’t announced at the
same time — which certainly would have been preferable — and suggested
to reporters that the second analysis called the first one into doubt.
The trial sponsors say they thought the complexities of the second
analysis and all additional data were best explored in a peer-reviewed
paper in a scientific journal and at a presentation at the AIDS
Vaccine Conference in Paris this week. But with news outlets reporting
that the trial results may be a fluke, there is a risk that they will
be forever tainted, whatever the final analyses show. What’s more, the
stain of dubiousness may remain on all AIDS vaccine research and
development.
That would be a shame. Although the candidate duo tested in the Thai
trial did not prove to be a vaccine ready for the market, it may
provide an unprecedented opportunity to learn how an AIDS vaccine can
work. A comparison of blood samples from volunteers could indicate
what specific immune responses the combination may have activated to
provide protection. If so, this knowledge could help scientists
improve upon the more promising candidates that have emerged since the
trial candidates were designed a decade ago, and determine which ones
are most likely to work.
This illustrates why the controversy over statistical significance is
exaggerated. Whether you consider the first or second analysis, the
observed effect of the Thai candidates was either just above or below
the level of statistical significance. Statisticians will tell you it
is possible to observe an effect and have reason to think it’s real
even if it’s not statistically significant. And if you think it’s
real, you ought to examine it carefully.
Even if the Thai vaccine regimen turns out, on examination, to have
had no real benefit, researchers will still learn from the trial, as
they do from every study. Moreover, other noteworthy advances featured
at the Paris conference this week will offer fresh hope for an AIDS
vaccine. Years of investment and dogged science are providing leads
for solving one of today’s most pressing research challenges. Some
7,400 new H.I.V. infections occur daily throughout the world. Clearly
we need better methods of preventing the spread of H.I.V., and no
public health intervention is more powerful or cost-effective against
infectious disease than a vaccine.
Seth Berkley is the president and chief executive of the International
AIDS Vaccine Initiative.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci |
|
|
