I did a double take when I saw this report promising “further progress” in the search for an AIDS vaccine. Don’t worry, I will explain in a second what this has to do with rabid foxes.
AIDS vaccine research: FAIL
We’ve been hearing these types of “promising reports” for more than a decade now, but for some reason, an effective “AIDS vaccine” continues to elude researchers.
Their excuses for failure mutate as rapidly as the virus allegedly does.
What does rabies have to do with AIDS?
What caught my attention about this particular study report was that researchers are using the rabies virus to create their vaccine.
Why use the rabies virus? Why use any virus other than the HI virus? After all, we are told that HIV has been isolated, analyzed and decoded in its many various strains. Why would AIDS be so different from other vaccine research, which uses the suspect virus in an inactivated, or weakened form, as in the rabies vaccine itself, for example?
Simple questions do not require complex answers
I am sure They have an answer. They always do. Sometimes They just don’t make sense. To add insult to injury, They tell us that this kind of research involves such complexity that the average person is simply incapable of understanding the “science” behind it.
Hey… I’m no rocket scientist, but I can grasp the concepts that propel a space shuttle into orbit. I grok the physics that keep an airplane suspended. I even understand the basic concept of how electronic switches are set to “on” or “off” (represented by 0′s and 1′s), to generate this digital page you are reading.
Give us a break. A shell game artist also relies on “complexity”, as well as quickly moving the target to confuse onlookers. It is a really lame excuse for explaining failure, if you ask me.
Time to redefine “progress”
How can AIDS vaccine researchers claim “progress” when the study authors themselves admit “the long-term benefits were minimal?”
And finally, please explain to me the significance of this finding:
“Although we can’t yet block the infection, we showed that we can protect against disease,” said Dr. Schnell. “We also saw significant antibody activity against the virus, which is promising. In addition, this is a very simple approach that only took two immunizations.”
I thought antibodies to HIV indicated infection, which this vaccine cannot block. Yet these researchers note “significant antibody activity against the virus”. Say what? Either antibodies are effective or they are not. You can’t have it both ways, fellas.
Studies like this one only cast even more doubt on the very existence of the so-called HI virus, or the value of continuing to follow inane theories that are based on a crumbling foundation of flawed and fraudulent findings. It is long past time to spend some of those big bucks on re-evaluating the very foundation of AIDS “science”.
If the HI virus does not even exist–and I grow increasingly skeptical that it does with every study like this I read–why is it so difficult to imagine that the human body is quite often capable of mounting an adequate response to the other probable cause(s) of immune dysfunction, provided measures are taken to restore overall health?
You promised a story about rabid foxes!
Yes, I digressed. The other reason this report caught my attention is because I am one of those rare people to have actually been exposed to that other “fatal disease”: rabies.
That’s right. I had a personal encounter with rabies in upstate New York in 1990, when I was bit by a rabid red fox while building a deck for some friends. I’ve recently scanned copies of the newspaper reports of that event and have been waiting for just the right opportunity to share this little tale from my past.
Now, thanks to AIDS vaccine research, I have the perfect opportunity.
Rabies Suspected: Red Fox Terrorizes Hankins Residents
(Sullivan County Democrat, August 31, 1990)
Or read the more humorous version from the Kansas City Star:
A furry ball of fury turns man’s getaway into battle for survival
(Kansas City Star, September 3, 1990)