|
|||
There are three aspects of it which worry me. They are taking another virus and transplanting genes from SIV into it so that the other virus creates SIV antigens and sensitizes the innoculated monkey. The concern is that they may in fact create a completely new and virulent disease while doing so. A second concern has to do with mutability. One of the reasons HIV is so scary is that some aspects of its genome mutate easily, and it in fact does change its antigens readily. This approach can only innoculate against known antigens; if a new one shows up then that version of the virus will not be stopped by the existing vaccine. But my biggest concern is the fact that in most of the tested monkeys the effect was not to eradicate SIV but merely to reduce the viral blood load. In other words, they become chronically infected, and they're also carriers which can spread the disease to other monkeys, whether vaccinated or not. Suppose that the same situation applied with a hypothetical human vaccine, that everyone who got vaccinated became a carrier. While that would reduce the toll of death and disease, it would also open the floodgates of infection rate, and soon you'd reach the situation where humans would have to be vaccinated to survive. There are a lot of technologies that support us, without which many of us would die, but I don't really know of any which are required to sustain us all. But maybe I'm being too worried here. After all, a vaccine might be viewed as simply another step on the way, to be followed later by something else which actually could cure the virus entirely and convert infected vaccinated individuals from carriers to clean. The big question now is whether the approach demonstrated with the monkeys can be converted into a working vaccine for humans, and how well it will work against HIV. (discussion in progress) |
|||
