lulz, If the vaccine truly worked you would have no viral load, therefore not a good vaccine.

Sorry, but you're bat@!$%# crazy. Vaccines don't cure someone who's infected -- they protect against becoming infected in the first place. That was your first error.

Second: "low viral load" = infected.

You also write like someone in the middle of a bipolar episode. I think your work is finished here.

Nan...I am happy that your viral load is low. It WAS a good vaccine....just needs a bit of improvement but the fact is, this vaccine held it in check therefore, I feel it was a good one despite what others say.

I am now involved with a woman that is HIV positive and has been for 20 years but with the help of medicine her viral load is undetectable still. She told me right from the start.

My love for her grows everyday because I see that she is such a strong and courageous person.

OK...substitute medicine for vaccine.......OK krullulon ? That make you happy now you mean spirited, nasty SOB ?

Technically, that is not true. Immunizations can be given after being infected. A good example of this would be the rabies vaccine. People only receive the vaccination if it is suspected they might have come into contact with the virus. Timing of when to get vaccinated is based on the replication rate of a virus/bacteria. I am not up to date in recent AIDS research, but i am glad people are renewing interest in vaccinations as a source of a potential cure.

Technically, that is not true. Immunizations can be given after being infected. A good example of this would be the rabies vaccine. People only receive the vaccination if it is suspected they might have come into contact with the virus. Timing of when to get vaccinated is based on the replication rate of a virus/bacteria. I am not up to date in recent AIDS research, but i am glad people are renewing interest in vaccinations as a source of a potential cure.

What is cool about this is that this vaccine may prove effective when delivered with the artificially created Ceragenins compounds (CSAs, specifically CSA-54) could be enough to retroactively treat an infection, while not having to worry about re-infection from dormant cells or "reservoirs."

Technically, that is not true. Immunizations can be given after being infected. A good example of this would be the rabies vaccine. People only receive the vaccination if it is suspected they might have come into contact with the virus. Timing of when to get vaccinated is based on the replication rate of a virus/bacteria. I am not up to date in recent AIDS research, but i am glad people are renewing interest in vaccinations as a source of a potential cure.

The difference is that the patient receives the vaccine immediately after contact with the rabies virus, it hasn't yet replicated and infected the patient. By the time someone knows they have HIV, it is too late and they are infected. A vaccine is to prevent illness and promote immunity by creating antibodies that will not allow the person to get sick in the first place. If someone has an active infection, they may receive treatment, but it IS too late for a vaccine. Immunity comes when the infection has been defeated. This is not currently possible with HIV.

I do agree that the potential for a vaccine is a great thing.

ctina, this is not withstanding the use of the drug in anti-retroviral treatment. When there is an effective treatment but no cure, a vaccine can be used to bolster the immune response specific to that infection.

Now, no current anti-retroviral is capable of fighting off infection even with a vaccine however, the treatment I mentioned before (ceragenins) that was developed at BYU has tested effective against every known viral infection (not just HIV) during animal testing stages and the vaccine could compliment that treatment by creating an immunity, therefore stemming any possible reinfection from dormant infected cells.

I was "officially" diagnosed in 1987, but my gut tells me I was infected in 1982 while in the Navy stationed in San Diego. I read somewhere that of all of us that were diagnosed in the 80's, only 2% of us are still here. So I feel very lucky. It isn't curable, but at least it's treatable now, with new medications coming out all the time.

I hate to be technical Brenda, but unless you are 100% Asian, African, or Native American everyone has ancestors who survived the plague.

However, this is truly a huge advancement in our fight against the virus and I can't wait to see what will come of this.

Good point, I suppose there is no money in vaccines because one shot and you're done. But the HIV drug cocktails involve several anti-viral prescription drugs, five times a day, for many years, or decades. The big pharmaceuticals must love the BILLION$ in profit from the anti-viral drug cocktails and they must cringe at the thought of someone discovering a simple one-shot vaccine.

I'm assuming you don't live in America, because that's not how medication distribution works here.

HIV medication coverage is based on when the attending physician believes it's in the interest of the patient's health to begin prophylactic drug therapy -- insurance companies have no say and cannot deny a claim if a patient is infected but showing no symptoms.

I have HIV and once my numbers became as good as they were gonna get at the time, my Dr. took me off my meds for 2 1/2 years. When my numbers dropped I started back on the meds and it took me nearly 9 years to get my numbers back up. This happened in the USA, so don't tell me it doesn't happen in this country. My numbers are fine now and I hope they stay that way, but it didn't take any time at all off the meds for my numbers to drop. Now that they are fine again, you can bet I'm NOT going to stop taking the meds no matter what. It's been a struggle to keep my numbers good and I'm not taking any chances listening to a Dr telling me to STOP taking my meds. My CD4 is now over 1000 and no detectable viral load.

The new health-care law may help, but many people have been denied coverage by insurance in the past. A close friend of my family died because his insurance company would not give him the meds. He was a wonderful person; a philologist, religious historian, artist, and worked hard even during his illness. Do not pay attention to those who are misinformed about past insurance abuses. Some people these days attack the oppressed; even though every person alive today will die at some point, then those people who have been cruel will not be making fun of others.

he shouldn't have to pay for his own meds. There is the Ryan White bill that will pay for his meds. I'm surprised he don't know about it.

I've taken meds now since 96. I get so tired of them. I have rashes from them and they make me have diarhea. I will take a med vacation and stop for a month and my numbers suffer everytime, but I start feeling better.

Yes it's off topic but relevant none the less.

The company I work for decided to save money on insurance by going to a high deductible plan through United Health Care. My deductible is $3,000.00/yr. Because I'm on a non-generic specialized med they force me to use the mail order pharmacy they own. It doesn't take ADAP. My Atripla is $1,525.30/month. Now I have to somehow produce the $1,525.30 to get my meds and then get reimbursed by ADAP and do it again next month until my deductible is met.

One person (or insurance) paying over $1,500.00/mo for meds... multiply that by the amount of people taking Atripla, times 12 months in a year times 5 years. That would be what Bristol-Meyers and Gilead are making for combining drugs they have already put R&D into and sold.

Some folks may not know that Atripla is a combination of three drugs that have already been on the market for years. They simply put those three drugs into one pill.

Food for thought.

Stay on the topic Brandon, pick another forum for your views on praying and on God. People are free to express themselves anyway they choose.

And no, we cannot leave praying to God out of it.

Thank you jammatmil!!

I totally agree with you. Who are we without faith? he must be a perfect soul, with a perfect circle of friends and family and does not need God's goodwill.

I feel sorry for you Brandon! to me you are the exact replica of a poor soul.

jam and M19.... why is it acceptable for you to express your opinions on praying to God but then pick on Brandon for saying his view? If you have the right to express your beliefs then so does he....

I totally agree with you jay. The condescending attitude of these two is pitiful. M1979768.......your attitude says to me that YOU are the poor soul.

Because now Brandon has accomplished exactly what they wanted to, which is to swing the discussion onto God and freedom of expression.

Does the discussion of AIDS have to be godless? Are people with AIDS any less faithful than those without it? I would say not.

But I digress...

Considering the number of christian zombies who believe that god WANTS gay men to die from AIDS, I'd rather pray to Satan.

God is a homophobic jerk.

Jammatmil states,

"And no, we cannot leave praying to God out of it."

You are the one that swung the discussion over to God. You should have just let Brandon have his say and kept your ignorant trap shut.

Again Ivory, you are correct. My intention was to stay on track and I strayed off. My apologies to Brandon and Dan.

Krullulon, I don't believe that God is a homophobic jerk. I believe that the people who hide behind God and curse those different from themselves are the ones who are at fault. Humans have been taking God and Jesus and warping them to fit their idea of what and who a good Christian is and should be. I believe that organized religion has led to many devious and evil things done in the name of God. Do I believe in God? Yep. Do I believe that I need to prescribe to a certain religion or branch of a religion to have a relationship with God? No. Besides, what makes Baptists, Evangelicals, or Lutherans more right or wrong than Episcopalians, Pentacostals, Methodists, or Presbyterains? And what makes them more right than Catholics? They all basically thrive on the principal that their set of beliefs are right and thats all there is. I believe that what Jesus preached 2000 yrs ago is NOT what is most often taught today. But hey, that's just MY 2 cents. I 'm of the belief live and let live. Man, as long as you aren't trying to step on my toes, I don't care what or who you're doing. And if God meant ONLY for gay persons to die from HIV and related causes, it would ONLY be gay people dying. A little off the subject at hand but everyone was jumping off the deep end.

Brandon - why create a negative, when some simply are sharing their experience? There wasn't one ounce of judgment, pushing of faith, or religion, yet the anti-religious zealots rush to your defense.

I don't get it. If someone's experience includes a faith component, and they share it in an open forum, isn't that quintessentially American? Disagree if you must, but to ask for silence is both close minded and ignorant.

Believe in something, believe in nothing - I don't care. But silence? It's not going to happen.

HIV is the virus, AIDS is the condition resuting from the HIV. As well, people with AIDS do not die from AIDS, death is caused from complications as a result of AIDS.

But you are correct.

All idiot authors aside, it is hoped this leads to a good anti-cold virus solution.

they already have a cure for the common cold. Theres just no way to make money on it so they don't release it. Do you think the same people that make millions on OTC cold remedies would undercut that kind of a market.

Unfortunately it is not likely that a vaccine will be available soon. Things like this take years - as soon as the research is done they start clinical trials (probably on rats - like Brandon); then human trials which will take a few more years; then FDA approval; then a drug company gets their greedy mits on it so it can be mass produced, etc...

I pray your relative isn't too far along, but you never know for sure.

jammatmil states:

"probably on rats - like Brandon."

That was totally uncalled for and hateful. You are one sick puppy. Your "godlike" intolerance is despicable. Who the hell are you to judge ? You are a simpleton.

And the sad thing is that people will die in the meantime, but without the testing you end up with Thalidomide like circumstances. You HAVE to test.

Tragedy for people, and destroys the company trying to develop something which will both help people and profit themselves. Without a profit incentive, most research will collapse.

You are right, and I apologize.

Please state who you are apologizing to.

To Brandon and Dan, I apologize for being insenitive to your views and comments.

I'm not going to assume you have a narrow view about this issue, however it is not acceptable. Despite anyone's views on homosexuality and AIDS, it is not acceptable for any preventable death to become acceptable.

"Gays" represent a fraction of the people that die as a result of AIDS, women and children are among the highest percentage, is that acceptable?

Those in Oregon who may view this as acceptable should reconsider their values.

I think we can all assume that you are as narrow as they come.

I do not mean to sound hateful or narrow. Generally, people do not have all the facts about this. I would like to think that people with AIDS - all people - deserve to have society working on their behalf. It was not too long ago that society turned away from soldiers returning from war, now we go out of our way to thank a soldier. Why should it be any different with the sick, or the homeless for that matter? Saying that people dying has become acceptable, to me, is a very narrow viewpoint. Maybe Dan was expressing a general viewpoint and does not feel that way personally, maybe he does.

In any case I do not think I have a narrow view, but I appreciate your opinon and I will refrain from making such comments in the future.

I wish you well. If it works, would you be able to participate in studies to prove it? Is there a way for a citizen, not just a doctor, to give input into the research taking place?

Why?

They demonstrate a phenomenal level of ignorance about both the disease and the medical industry. Case in point: the very first comment.

WOW kru..... who pissed in your cheerios!!?? Instead of the name calling and phenomenal rude comments.... how about offering some information if you are seeing a lot of ignorance. Calling people stupid does not make you appear more intelligent.

Do you have a link of some kind ?...I am very interested in reading more about what you have said. Thank you for bringing this to light.

Yes this genetic mutation occurs in about 5% of people from European decent. They used someone who had this mutation to cure that guy from AIDS in Germany. Or at least he appears to be cured. He had AIDS for 10 years and had stem cells from someone who had that mutation and they have not found any virus in his blood for 5 years and he is not on medication.

The article I read was in a scientific american several years back, it put the numbers at 10% with increased resistance, and 1% with full immunity. it was a mutation in a receptor site in the white blood cells that HIV uses to attach itself to. if the person had the mutation from both parents, then they cannot contract HIV at all. (or so it appeared at the time, and I think it's still true)

about 10% of those with european ancestry have a gene for a mutation in the receptor site that HIV attaches to, and that gives increased longevity. but if both parents had that gene, and the child inherited both genes, then they are actually fully immune, since the HIV virus has nowhere to attach itself to so it can infect the cell.

the number of those immune is about 1% of European ancestry.

and this is NOT related to the antibody, that's a different matter entirely. if the immune system can be induced to produce those antibodies before actual infection, then the llikelyhood of infection drops dramatically in everyone that has the antibody.

basically, it's another possible vaccination against HIV/AIDS. if it works, then that would be great, but the article already said that these antibodies don't protect against all strains of HIV, just most of them.

Hang in there Craig!

I was infected in 82, wasn't tested till 87. All my friends died by that time. I turned off and didn't do anything except wait to die but I never even got sick. I didn't socialize or buy anything for myself. What would be the reason I was going to die. So in 87 I got tested to make sure I really was infected and yes I was. I didn't see a doctor back then because I was afraid of the meds that were killing infected people. I finally started my meds in 96 and have done well with them. I still haven't gotten sick so I guess I'm lucky. But I do miss my friends. I've been felt sorry for and I've been ridiculed for being positive from both gay and straight. People don't realize back in 82 nobody actually knew how you contracted the disease. The one's that knew thought OH it could never happen to me. Well it did. Today there is no excuse for contracting HIV. Everyone should assume everyone else is positive and always play safe. It only takes one time to be infected. Good luck Craig hope you continue doing well. It's not a death sentence any longer if you take your meds.

did anyone see that documentary called House of Numbers, very interesting.

to Craig and Glenn,

congrats to you both for beating the odds....I as well am on meds for 9 years now, and hope to be around for much longer! But I too was shunned by those in the gay community after my diagnosis, so i understand the isolation you are talking about. But I've made an effort to get out, and be open about my status, and when i encounter those that look at me with fear, or pity, i then begin to engage in conversation with them to help reduce the stigma associated with the disease. I talked with someone recently (a gay man if you can beleive it!)who still thought the government created and release the virus into the general population!

We still have a lot of work to do, but at least most people are willing to listen.

mindless rant.... fun!