I reread several times, I understood nothing:
According to estimates revealed in 2009, 31,2% of participants who had been vaccinated with this product called RV144 were significantly less likely to be infected with HIV than the group treated with a placebo.
I'm not getting it already: 31.2% of vaccinated
had significantly less risk to be infected with HIV. Heuuu, yeah !? What does this mean less risk of being infected, and how do they deduce that this is the case on 31.2% of vaccinated !? Less risks but risks all the same therefore !? What is the criterion to say that those there "have less risk" !? And what is the degree of risk, one in 2, 3, 10 !?
Researchers examined blood samples from participants vaccinated with RV144 to analyze their immune responses. They discovered that different types of antibody responses have been linked to the degree of HIV infection.
It is even less clear:
They discovered that different types of antibody responses have been linked to the degree of HIV infection.
Does that mean that all the people vaccinated were HIV positive then since they are talking about the degree of HIV infection !? But how is this degree of infection measured, since no one has isolated the virus from a patient !?
"By studying those who became infected compared to participants who were not infected, we think we uncovered some very important clues as to how this vaccine worked," says Dr. Barton Haynes, professor of medicine at the university. Duke (North Carolina, USA), who conducted this analysis.
By studying those who have become infected! ?? But by what, the vaccine itself or by trying to infect them knowingly after the injection of the vaccine !? If this is the second case, then that means that 2 people agreed to be injected with a vaccine and then knowingly get infected with HIV !? I can not believe it ! And if this is the first case it means that the vaccine causes people to become HIV positive.
I really like the "
We believe we have discovered very important clues". They" think "(so they are not sure), and the discovery would concern" clues "(so not the solution).
It is the artistic blur to show that we are moving forward but that we still have to dig and have money.
"Apparently, the protection in this clinical trial was mainly attributed to antibodies and all the antibodies studied were isolated from the RV144 vaccine," he says.
Apparently.....
So there the antibodies would have protected well. But since an HIV positive person has so-called antibodies to HIV (since they are the ones we are looking for if we do not find HIV), why would they be considered sick?
"The different protective effects of these antibodies - induced by the vaccine - will be tested in primates to see if they can prevent HIV infection," adds the doctor.
So there the antibodies induced by the vaccine do have a protective effect, and the aim would be to prevent HIV infection. HIV infection that can only be "detected" by the presence of suspected HIV-specific antibodies.
If I understand correctly, the vaccine must therefore induce antibodies, but which would not make HIV positive (otherwise how to explain to people that they have a good HIV positive), but would prevent infection with the supposed HIV and therefore the appearance of antibodies natural to HIV.
The main discovery relates to the fact that antibodies specific to a particular area of the envelope of the virus (HIV) called V1V2 are linked to lower infection rates in vaccines, specify these researchers.
So that's it !! The goal is to develop antibodies against part of HIV, but which would not trigger seropositivity tests, since if you are HIV positive you are considered infected.
So we can see the problem in which research is drowning : we consider ourselves sick by the presence of natural antibodies and not of the virus itself, it becomes very complicated to make a vaccine since it would make us HIV positive !! We therefore need a vaccine to induce antibodies to control HIV before the body develops its own natural antibodies, which would then be detected and lead to the conclusion of an HIV infection !!
Antibodies are proteins produced by the body to defend against infectious agents such as viruses and bacteria.
Ah we are happy to learn what we already knew, and as being HIV positive is to have antibodies, so it is proof that the body has defended itself well (since we never find the virus in HIV positive, even with AIDS).
But in the case of HIV, to have antibodies is to be considered infected, so you have to be able to help the body make different antibodies which also target HIV but without developing the natural antibodies which would cause HIV-positive topple over, nice challenge!
According to the hypothesis put forward by these virologists, these antibodies bind to the V1V2 area of the envelope of the virus, which would prevent infection by blocking its replication.
And yes it must be blocked before the appearance of natural antibodies, otherwise we are considered sick.
The other solution could be preventive antiretrovirals for all !?
)
therefore to be corrected to avoid confusion among readers.