Anyone heard about this?

[hayyou]

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/scientists-discover-antibodies-that-could-help-create-aids-vacci/19546993/?sms_ss=facebook

U.S. government scientists have discovered two potent human antibodies that can stop more than 90% of known global HIV strains from infecting human cells, the National Institute of Health announced Thursday.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/cuDX2g

[phildinftlaudy]

Hi Hayyou:

I was reading about it in one of the other posts today and online on one of the news sites.  It will be interesting to see how it plays out.  Its good that people are still looking for treatment, looking for answers, and looking for cures.  Just have to wait and see.... Anything that comes from it would still be years down the line in regards to being developed into a vaccine and being used on humans.

[leatherman]

"Two naturally occurring antibodies discovered "
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=33442.0

[wtfimpoz]

You think it's good?  I think it's scary as hell.  The report I read on that study promised nothing for those already infected save that there *may* be treatment applications for those already infected that could be used in conjunction with existing therapies.  To me, a vaccine preventing 90% of infections results in a market collapse for future HIV pharmeceutical development, and probably to all forms of treatment to those if us already infected,  to say nothing of the giant "fuck you" the remaining newly infected will receive upon diagnosis of increasingly resistant strains.  I think i'd feel better off without it.

[Matty the Damned]

You think it's good?  I think it's scary as hell.  The report I read on that study promised nothing for those already infected save that there *may* be treatment applications for those already infected that could be used in conjunction with existing therapies.  To me, a vaccine preventing 90% of infections results in a market collapse for future HIV pharmeceutical development, and probably to all forms of treatment to those if us already infected,  to say nothing of the giant "fuck you" the remaining newly infected will receive upon diagnosis of increasingly resistant strains.  I think i'd feel better off without it.

You're drawing something of a long bow with this.

MtD

[newt]

You're drawing something of a long bow with this.

Where's the 'like' button? OK, wrong site, still like.

[veritas]

Nicely put, Matty. I hear the draw on an English long bow is about 28 inches. He beats it.

v

[wtfimpoz]

You're drawing something of a long bow with this.

MtD

no idea what exactly that means.  Do you think I'm presuming too much?  If so, what unimaginable bout of charity do you believe will compel the pharmaceutical industry to continue research long after 90% of the market for that research evaporates?

[Matty the Damned]

no idea what exactly that means.  Do you think I'm presuming too much?  If so, what unimaginable bout of charity do you believe will compel the pharmaceutical industry to continue research long after 90% of the market for that research evaporates?

What I mean is I don't think your conclusion is supported by the contention you have advanced.

Or, yes you presume (assume) too much.

MtD

[Jeff G]

You think it's good?  I think it's scary as hell.  The report I read on that study promised nothing for those already infected save that there *may* be treatment applications for those already infected that could be used in conjunction with existing therapies.  To me, a vaccine preventing 90% of infections results in a market collapse for future HIV pharmeceutical development, and probably to all forms of treatment to those if us already infected,  to say nothing of the giant "fuck you" the remaining newly infected will receive upon diagnosis of increasingly resistant strains.  I think i'd feel better off without it.

I would have to be happy for any treatment or prevention that may be offered even if it wasn't a treatment to benefit me . I would be overjoyed if someone else was spared no matter what the circumstances .   

[Boze]

no idea what exactly that means.  Do you think I'm presuming too much?  If so, what unimaginable bout of charity do you believe will compel the pharmaceutical industry to continue research long after 90% of the market for that research evaporates?

Answer: Annual cost of HAART is about 10-20k => about 12 Bn a year world-wide. Therefore there is enough motivation (on part of bodies who pay those bills) to find a better treatment course.

[J.R.E.]

This is an Interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci ,  that I  watched on CNN this morning, just before I left work :

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2010/07/09/nr.intv.hiv.research.cnn?iref=allsearch

[bmancanfly]

why couldn't this be used therapeutically?

[wtfimpoz]

Bmancanfly:  I don't think anyone's saying it *can't* be used therapeutically.  I'm clearly the most pessimistic of this bunch, and I think its suspicious that no one is proposing meaningful suggestions in which it *can* be used therapeutically.  I perceive this as all but a tacit admission that it probably won't be used therapeutically. 

Boze:  Its a question of the cost of research vs. the financial rewards said research brings.  In the event of a vaccine, the cost of research will probably remain at its high levels, but market growth automatically shrinks 90%, eliminating subsequent growth in profits by about 90%.  Already, drug companies have admitted ceasing research and development of new drugs for fear that overall those drugs may not be profitable.  This has happened with the assumption that the rate of infection will remain constant and that the market will expand.  In the event that this vaccine works, the long term market shrinks 90% overnight.  What will compel them to continue or resume research?  Making their already overpriced drugs 10X more expensive?  The collective generosity pharmaceutical company executives?

jg1962:  Its a tough call.  Ultimately, the world needs a cure.  Unfortunantly, this isn't really a cure. Further, it doesn't just screw those of us who are already infected, it probably screws the remaining 10% of infections that will persist.  As the market for new drugs dries up while the rate of mutation continues, we can forget about that cliche, "chonic manageable disease".  For those not saved by the vaccine, the reality of HIV is going to be even further from "manageable" than it is today.  We're not talking about the ELIMATION of the disease, we're talking about a relative decline in the rate of infection at profound cost to both those already infected and the minority who will continue to be infected.   

Matty the Damned:  Presume, assume, regardless of my grammatical faults, I fail to see how my conclusion (fewer drugs, we're all screwed) isn't supported by my claim (the market for drugs will dry up).  It seems to be a pretty straightforward contention.  You seem intelligent, so explain to me what the flaw in my reasoning is.  To me, contrary assumptions rely upon the notion that the current market for HIV medication is sufficient to support the development of new drugs into perpetuity when it clearly is not, or that something other than profit motivates those who create new drugs. 
 

[Matty the Damned]

Matty the Damned:  Presume, assume, regardless of my grammatical faults, I fail to see how my conclusion (fewer drugs, we're all screwed) isn't supported by my claim (the market for drugs will dry up).  It seems to be a pretty straightforward contention.  You seem intelligent, so explain to me what the flaw in my reasoning is.  To me, contrary assumptions rely upon the notion that the current market for HIV medication is sufficient to support the development of new drugs into perpetuity when it clearly is not, or that something other than profit motivates those who create new drugs. 
 

Oh honey I'm not intelligent, I just smell that way.

But seriously, you make a number of assumptions n your original contention:

The report I read on that study promised nothing for those already infected save that there *may* be treatment applications for those already infected that could be used in conjunction with existing therapies.  To me, a vaccine preventing 90% of infections results in a market collapse for future HIV pharmeceutical development, and probably to all forms of treatment to those if us already infected,  to say nothing of the giant "fuck you" the remaining newly infected will receive upon diagnosis of increasingly resistant strains.  I think i'd feel better off without it.

Which report? 90%? Market collapse? Increasingly resistant strains?

Perhaps you can expand on those points?

MtD

[wtfimpoz]

http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/discovery-helps-us-researchers-close-in-on-hiv-vaccine/19547029

"In infected people, we may be looking at it in combination with medication and determine whether you can get more effective control of the virus and suppress it down to low levels," Nabel said. "The hope would be that we could suppress the virus and increase life span and improve quality of life."

This is the most mention I've read of possible therapeutic uses for the vaccine, and it is what I first read this morning.  The NIH spokesman in the linked video was specifically asked whether this was for treatment or prevention.  Rather than say "both", he stated "treatment", which follows pretty precisely with my understanding of what a vaccine does...it prevents infection in those who do not have a virus.  Does this necessarily mean that we're going to be left high and dry?  No, not necessarily, but all signs seem to be pointing that way.  The word "both" wouldn't have required much more effort from him and wouldn't have distracted from the interests of his audience.  If "both" were an accurate statement, we would have heard that.  Instead we heard "prevention", to the exclusion of "both" and "treatment".  Think I'm reading too much into the guy?  He's a PR whiz in the middle of a creampuff interview.  His words were carefully crafted, probably after being given advance knowledge of the questions he would face.  Every sentence was designed to mean exactly what it was supposed to.  I can't help but believe anything but that he meant "prevention" and prevention alone.   

My assumption that strains will be "increasingly resistant" isn't a spectacular peice of clairvoyance.  Its public knowledge that the disease mutates, and that those mutations are carried in new infections.  The US govt is already predicting a sharp rise in resistant infections, and there is no reason to think that this rate of mutation will slow.  To me, it follows that the disease, as a whole, will become "increasingly resistant" to existing medications as time progresses. 

The 90% collapse of the long term market also seems like a common sense assumption.  The vaccine works in 90% of the strains out there.  Lets presume that 90% of the strains represent 90% of infections.  If new infections decline by 90%, we would ultimately expect the market for treating those who are infected to decline to a similar degree, as there are literally 90% fewer infected persons.  Granted, certain strains could represent a disproprotionate number of infections, but I used the figure for illustrative purposes. What might prevent this market contraction? behavior could change radically to alter the rate of infection from the existing strains.  Drug companies might successfuly make their drugs 10X more expensive also, or emerging world markets could magically industrialize overnight providing for developed-world profits over a broader population.  All of these seem to be more bizarre assumptions than my own. 

[Matty the Damned]

http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/discovery-helps-us-researchers-close-in-on-hiv-vaccine/19547029

"In infected people, we may be looking at it in combination with medication and determine whether you can get more effective control of the virus and suppress it down to low levels," Nabel said. "The hope would be that we could suppress the virus and increase life span and improve quality of life."

This is the most mention I've read of possible therapeutic uses for the vaccine, and it is what I first read this morning.  The NIH spokesman in the linked video was specifically asked whether this was for treatment or prevention.  Rather than say "both", he stated "treatment", which follows pretty precisely with my understanding of what a vaccine does...it prevents infection in those who do not have a virus.  Does this necessarily mean that we're going to be left high and dry?  No, not necessarily, but all signs seem to be pointing that way.  The word "both" wouldn't have required much more effort from him and wouldn't have distracted from the interests of his audience.  If "both" were an accurate statement, we would have heard that.  Instead we heard "prevention", to the exclusion of "both" and "treatment".  Think I'm reading too much into the guy?  He's a PR whiz in the middle of a creampuff interview.  His words were carefully crafted, probably after being given advance knowledge of the questions he would face.  Every sentence was designed to mean exactly what it was supposed to.  I can't help but believe anything but that he meant "prevention" and prevention alone.   

My assumption that strains will be "increasingly resistant" isn't a spectacular peice of clairvoyance.  Its public knowledge that the disease mutates, and that those mutations are carried in new infections.  The US govt is already predicting a sharp rise in resistant infections, and there is no reason to think that this rate of mutation will slow.  To me, it follows that the disease, as a whole, will become "increasingly resistant" to existing medications as time progresses. 

The 90% collapse of the long term market also seems like a common sense assumption.  The vaccine works in 90% of the strains out there.  Lets presume that 90% of the strains represent 90% of infections.  If new infections decline by 90%, we would ultimately expect the market for treating those who are infected to decline to a similar degree, as there are literally 90% fewer infected persons.  Granted, certain strains could represent a disproprotionate number of infections, but I used the figure for illustrative purposes. What might prevent this market contraction? behavior could change radically to alter the rate of infection from the existing strains.  Drug companies might successfuly make their drugs 10X more expensive also, or emerging world markets could magically industrialize overnight providing for developed-world profits over a broader population.  All of these seem to be more bizarre assumptions than my own. 

Some chick on AOLnews has an opinion.

So what?

MtD

[wtfimpoz]

Some chick on AOLnews has an opinion.

So what?

MtD

Well thats precisely the point.  NO ONE seems to be optimistic that there will be treatment options derived from this.  The only place I've read that mentions it is aolnews.

[skeebo1969]

Well thats precisely the point.  NO ONE seems to be optimistic that there will be treatment options derived from this.  The only place I've read that mentions it is aolnews.

We can be optimistic, or thankful (?), there's still that other 10% out there you know?  Maybe we should all join in group prayer and pray they get some sort or super strain, or something....  Wish Rev was here.

[Matty the Damned]

Well thats precisely the point.  NO ONE seems to be optimistic that there will be treatment options derived from this.  The only place I've read that mentions it is aolnews.

Listen kid, you've got a galloping dose of Newly Diagnosed Complex. There has to be something better because, you're too special to die, right?

Wrong.

HIV science is a stately thing. It progresses in its own good order without regard for how freaked out you might be at any given point in time.

So here's a tip, do as Matty the Damned does: leave the AIDS geekery to those who know what they're doing. The Newt, JKinatl2 et al will tell you all you need to know when you need to know it.

Until then, get your blood tests done in a timely fashion, take your pills and remember that your opinions (though well intentioned) really aren't worth the breath with which they is uttered.



MtD

[wtfimpoz]

Listen kid, you've got a galloping dose of Newly Diagnosed Complex. There has to be something better because, you're too special to die, right?

Wrong.

HIV science is a stately thing. It progresses in its own good order without regard for how freaked out you might be at any given point in time.

So here's a tip, do as Matty the Damned does: leave the AIDS geekery to those who know what they're doing. The Newt, JKinatl2 et al will tell you all you need to know when you need to know it.

Until then, get your blood tests done in a timely fashion, take your pills and remember that your opinions (though well intentioned) really aren't worth the breath with which they is uttered.



MtD

Matty, its impolite and meaningless to try to shut me down by claiming that I think I'm "too special to die".  My belief about the implications of an HIV vaccine predates my infection, and its echoed by a few other members in the research section of this forum (just discovered this is a redundant thread), so its hardly unique to someone who can't accept a new diagnosis.  If you have something to contribute, then by all means do so, and if you politely disagree, that is your right as well.  That said, its just mean and fallacious to tell me that my concern for the implications of this are vested in self importance, and that my opinions can't be trusted because I'm newly diagnosed. 

[Matty the Damned]

Matty, its impolite and meaningless to try to shut me down by claiming that I think I'm "too special to die".  My belief about the implications of an HIV vaccine predates my infection, and its echoed by a few other members in the research section of this forum (just discovered this is a redundant thread), so its hardly unique to someone who can't accept a new diagnosis.  If you have something to contribute, then by all means do so, and if you politely disagree, that is your right as well.  That said, its just mean and fallacious to tell me that my concern for the implications of this are vested in self importance, and that my opinions can't be trusted because I'm newly diagnosed. 

I think we've gone as far as we can with this exchange and we should agree to differ.

I would, however, point out that the Research Forum is a cesspit for lunatics and tin-foil hat wearing weirdos.

MtD

/edit for teh gwamah/

[wtfimpoz]

I think we gone as far as we  can with this exchange and we should agree to differ.

I would, however, point out that the Research Forum is a cesspit for lunatics and tin-foil hat wearing weirdos.

MtD

LMFAO!  I couldn't have said it better myself!  Every week it seems like the doctors are telling us that mainlining pasteurized cat urine or tobasco enemas or genetic therapy are going to save us all.  And every week, we dutifully forget the old story and latch onto the new...

[Matty the Damned]

LMFAO!  I couldn't have said it better myself!  Every week it seems like the doctors are telling us that mainlining pasteurized cat urine or tobasco enemas or genetic therapy are going to save us all.  And every week, we dutifully forget the old story and latch onto the new...

What's more amusing is there's a metric fuck-tonne of Research Forum weirdos who believe that crap.

MtD

[Boze]

Boze:  Its a question of the cost of research vs. the financial rewards said research brings.  In the event of a vaccine, the cost of research will probably remain at its high levels, but market growth automatically shrinks 90%, eliminating subsequent growth in profits by about 90%.  Already, drug companies have admitted ceasing research and development of new drugs for fear that overall those drugs may not be profitable.  This has happened with the assumption that the rate of infection will remain constant and that the market will expand.  In the event that this vaccine works, the long term market shrinks 90% overnight.  What will compel them to continue or resume research?  Making their already overpriced drugs 10X more expensive?  The collective generosity pharmaceutical company executives?

Very simple - the entities that are doing the vaccine research ARE NOT the same entities (ie big pharma) that are making money from HAART. Of course Giliead and Merck have no interest in the vaccine - but governments do.  They are the ones paying for this research.

Do you know how big NIH research budget is? It's 31 billion dollars annually (http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm) . That's more than all the big pharma put together. And that's just US govt alone.

[bocker3]

You think it's good?  I think it's scary as hell.  The report I read on that study promised nothing for those already infected save that there *may* be treatment applications for those already infected that could be used in conjunction with existing therapies.  To me, a vaccine preventing 90% of infections results in a market collapse for future HIV pharmeceutical development, and probably to all forms of treatment to those if us already infected,  to say nothing of the giant "fuck you" the remaining newly infected will receive upon diagnosis of increasingly resistant strains.  I think i'd feel better off without it.

Dear Chicken Little.....

Well then --- if it can't "save" you or I, then I guess we should all pray that it fails so that millions of others will join our ranks.  Have you really stopped to consider what you are saying here -- even for a minute?
I'm not sure that I've read such a bit of self-serving crap in a long time.

Mike

[jcelvis]

You think it's good?  I think it's scary as hell.  The report I read on that study promised nothing for those already infected save that there *may* be treatment applications for those already infected that could be used in conjunction with existing therapies.  To me, a vaccine preventing 90% of infections results in a market collapse for future HIV pharmeceutical development, and probably to all forms of treatment to those if us already infected,  to say nothing of the giant "fuck you" the remaining newly infected will receive upon diagnosis of increasingly resistant strains.  I think i'd feel better off without it.

Every time I see post like this I just want to yell and scream.

You know how many diseases we have eradicated? One! Smallpox. You know how long it took to remove that disease from the human population? 50 years.  You know what the government spends millions of dollars of research money a year for? Smallpox.

The idea that a cure can be found for only none infected individuals, will cause a market collapse in drugs for infected individuals is ridiculous. Just because it found to be effective doesn't me we have the man power, or know how to administer it to the whole population. People will still be infected, albeit at a lower rate.

We cannot convince people to get the HBV vaccine, you think they are going to be beating down the door for a HIV vaccine when its introduced? Remove HIV from your world, and for most people it doesn't even cross their mind. We'd still have to educate them on why it's important to get a vaccine.

We have vaccines for chickenpox, heb A, heb B, and numerous other, but they have not been cured, and large segments of the population refuse to the get them. Heb B is still a thriving industry even though close to 90% of the most developed nations are immunized against it.

[Ann]

Well said, jcelvis, thank you for that. I have been thinking along the same lines but have been too pissed off to write anything that a) would be coherent and b) wouldn't get me timed out.

Yes, I too can be TOd.

[bmancanfly]

wtf., and elvis.

Why does it have to be either of the two extremes?   

[wtfimpoz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio

Skip to the section that discusses "treatment".  

"Treatment of polio often requires long-term rehabilitation, including physical therapy, braces, corrective shoes and, in some cases, orthopedic surgery.[37]

"Portable ventilators may be required to support breathing. Historically, a noninvasive negative-pressure ventilator, more commonly called an iron lung"

A vaccine was developed, the market collapsed and we're still treating people with technology which has hardly advanced since the IRON LUNG and leg braces were popular half a century ago.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphasic_Cuirass_Ventilation  This is the legacy of a disease whose market collapsed, and this has been the fate of people who society perceives as innocent victims.  We, by contrast, are perceived as drug addicts and perverts.  I'd love to live in a candyland where all those people are saved and the powers that be roll their remaining efforts into treatment now that they've got prevention out of the way.  Its not going to happen that way though.    

Pointing out that "only smallpox has been eliminated" is almost besides the point, as MANY diseases have been *all but* eliminated in the developed world whose needs drive advances in treatment.  Vaccination will become part of the automatic round of vaccinations for virtually everyone.  The disease will increasingly become an anachronism in the developed world.  The five tragic children of religious freaks, and the millions of africans who continue to contract the virus annually, will not be enough to continue market support.  When was the last time you heard of an advance for Malaria treatment?  How about Rubella?  

"There is no specific treatment for Rubella" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubella

The fact of the matter is that history supports my opinion.  If you think I'm so wrong, find me some meaningful historical examples of major advances in treatment occurring after vaccination.  Please, make these advances in treatment as expensive and rare as HIV.  Believe me, I want to be wrong about my arguemetn as much as you want me to.  Probably more.  I haven't gotten my resistance test yet, and I'm scared to death that my options are going to be limited.  

It simply doesn't follow that because we don't get people vaccinated against HBV, plenty won't seek HIV vaccination.  95% of people clear HBV automatically.  Only, what, 1/2 of 1% of HIV people are long term nonprogressors?  Further, the public's perception of HIV is much, much worse than HBV.  They'll be beating down the doors to have their kids vaccinated.  Rightfully so, and good for those kids, but don't fool yourself into believing that the next round of medication is still on the horizon.

And please, don't accuse me of promoting "self serving crap".  What we're looking at is a difference between a disease becoming manageable for tens of millions versus a disease being fatal for millions.  Its not as easy my simple failure to appreciate their good luck.  

[Matty the Damned]

Babe,

There's a reason why we don't consider whackypedia to be a reliable source. Shall I pop over there and edit each of the links you've provided to demonstrate why or will you take me at my word.

MtD

[wtfimpoz]

Babe,

There's a reason why we don't consider whackypedia to be a reliable source. Shall I pop over there and edit each of the links you've provided to demonstrate why or will you take me at my word.

MtD

Matty, I wanna be wrong.  I really, really do.  If you think I'm wrong, please find me a single instance in which major advances in treatment have occurred for a disease after a vaccine was created.  If the disease is anywhere near as rare, or as expensive as HIV, i'll fall all over myself to believe you.  Trust me, I will.  Because I really don want to believe that this vaccine will be anything but a death sentence for the rest of us.

[leatherman]

There's a reason why we don't consider whackypedia to be a reliable source. Shall I pop over there and edit each of the links you've provided to demonstrate why or will you take me at my word.

it's attitudes like that that destroy the validity of Wikipedia. Instead of threatening to go mess up what many consider a pretty reliable respository of knowledge, why don't you point out what is wrong with the reference points wtf posted?

remember that your opinions ... really aren't worth the breath with which they is uttered.

your opinion (who's this "we" you speak of? got a mouse in your pocket?) of Wikipedia doesn't mean much anyway

[Hellraiser]

I've made a statement previously that I hope they come up with a functional cure before they come up with a vaccine and I stick by it.  I won't go so far as to say the sky is falling if a preventative vaccine comes along first, but I do think that without the profit motive HIV treatment falls to the wayside to some degree.

[Ann]

Because I really don want to believe that this vaccine will be anything but a death sentence for the rest of us.

How's that? There are currently many treatment options available and unless you constantly miss doses, there's really no reason to think you're going to become resistant to all of them.

The main people who have wide-ranging resistance issues are those who were treated in the early days with sub-optimal combos or monotherapy. People diagnosed in the last ten years or so just don't face this kind of problem, even if they acquired a resistant strain at infection.

I hope this vaccine pans out. I really do.

[Ann]

your opinion (who's this "we" you speak of? got a mouse in your pocket?) of Wikipedia doesn't mean much anyway

I don't trust much of Wikipedia's content either - and I'm not a mouse and I'm certainly not in anyone's pocket.

Whenever I use Wikipedia for any serious information, I always go to the reference section and go straight to the source - provided the source is a recognised authority that can be trusted.

[Matty the Damned]

it's attitudes like that that destroy the validity of Wikipedia. Instead of threatening to go mess up what many consider a pretty reliable respository of knowledge, why don't you point out what is wrong with the reference points wtf posted?
your opinion (who's this "we" you speak of? got a mouse in your pocket?) of Wikipedia doesn't mean much anyway

Firstly you presume that Wikipedia is valid. It's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit (yeah even you) and my point is that it's content is unreliably volatile.

Frankly I find your assertion that I would vandalise wikipedia to be offensive and I would hope that you would withdraw that baseless assertion.

Whilst baseless assertions and cheap calumnies are your stock in trade I would hope that you still have sufficient integrity of character to retract the slanders you have made in the quoted post.

MtD

[leatherman]

Frankly I find your assertion that I would vandalise wikipedia to be offensive and I would hope that you would withdraw that baseless assertion.

Shall I pop over there and edit each of the links you've provided to demonstrate why or will you take me at my word.

in your own words, it was your threat to vandalize wiki to prove your point
it certainly wasn't an idea that i pulled out of thin air.

[leatherman]

Whenever I use Wikipedia for any serious information, I always go to the reference section and go straight to the source - provided the source is a recognised authority that can be trusted.

which means you do use it then, right? especially when the references are recognized authorities so that the wiki entry can be trusted. Then it sounds like it's up to Matty to refute the sources or the wiki entry, not to just diss wikipedia out of hand by calling it "whackypedia"

which seems to be his insult modus operandi as of late as he called members that post in another forum here " lunatics and tin-foil hat wearing weirdos". it seems the things matty doesn't like he just calls weird or whacky, like that is supposed to end the discussion.

[Matty the Damned]

Look Mikey I don't know why you have such a hard on for me, but you do, But your suggestion that I would vandailse wikipedia is totally unfounded.

Don't believe me? check my WP user page.

If you can find evidence of vandalism under my name, I invite you to present diffs in this place. If not then you and I have a major issue of honour outstanding between us.

Since you are a Southern Gent I expect you appreciate the consequences of that.

MtD

[skeebo1969]

Since you are a Southern Gent I expect you appreciate the consequences of that.

MtD

Are you guys going to have a good ole fashion duel now?  A boomerang against a Kentucky long rifle, this should be interesting!

[Matty the Damned]

Are you guys going to have a good ole fashion duel now?  A boomerang against a Kentucky long rifle, this should be interesting!

Honour will be satisfied should Bivens withdraw his unfounded calumnies. If he doesn't, we may be forced to strong measures.

MtD

[Hellraiser]

Weapon of choice gentlemen?

[leatherman]

But your suggestion that I would vandailse wikipedia is totally unfounded.

Shall I pop over there and edit each of the links you've provided to demonstrate why or will you take me at my word.

once again, I present YOUR threat in YOUR own words.

I never said you actually changed any wiki entry, but you did threaten wtf  that your actions could be to "pop over there" and "edit each of the links" just to prove your point of the supposed unreliablity of wikipedia ergo you would have had to change the links and made them incorrect to prove your point ergo vandalism.
(umm. no. that isn't a withdrawal  )

However, i think you should have to withdrawn your comments of calling other members lunatics and weirdos. and I think it's still incumbent upon YOU to disprove whatever it was that you believed was wrong in the links provided by wtf.

I don't know why you have such a hard on for me, but you do,

a hardon for you?? not bloody likely.  

[Ann]

once again, I present YOUR threat in YOUR own words.

I never said you actually changed any wiki entry, but you did threaten wtf  that your actions could be to "pop over there" and "edit each of the links" just to prove your point of the supposed unreliablity of wikipedia ergo you would have had to change the links and made them incorrect to prove your point ergo vandalism.
(umm. no. that isn't a withdrawal  )

However, i think you should have to withdrawn your comments of calling other members lunatics and weirdos. and I think it's still incumbent upon YOU to disprove whatever it was that you believed was wrong in the links provided by wtf.
a hardon for you?? not bloody likely. 

He didn't say he would do it, he was trying to get the idea across that he - or anyone else - could. Big difference.

Matty, you shouldn't have called the Research forum folks lunatics and weirdos. Consider yourself warned.

This pissing match is ending right here, right now. And yes, that's also a warning.

Happy now?

[Boze]

Leatherman is 100% right - saying your opponent is wrong because they use Wikipedia as a source is ridiculous (even though I happen to disagree with wtfpoz).

It's the best and easiest source of information we have. If someone thinks the information is wrong - they ought to point it out, rather than just disregard the whole argument.

The reason  I think wtfpoz is wrong is that HIV is a unique disease - that attacks the immune system. Therefore I (and this is a personal opinion) expect the vaccine to use the same route as a cure would - by teaching the immune system to kill HIV. Vaccine would do it for new infections while the cure would use the same mechanism to deal with existing HIV cells.

We can not use  historical examples (of no treatment after vaccine) because all the diseases we dealt with in the past were different from HIV.

[Ann]

Leatherman is 100% right - saying your opponent is wrong because they use Wikipedia as a source is ridiculous (even though I happen to disagree with wtfpoz).

It's the best and easiest source of information we have. If someone thinks the information is wrong - they ought to point it out, rather than just disregard the whole argument.

Boze, did you miss the bit where I said the pissing match was over?

This pissing match is ending right here, right now. And yes, that's also a warning.

You are now also warned. The Wikipedia discussion is OVER.

[Boze]

sorry, didn't see  your comment.

[Ann]

sorry, didn't see  your comment.

When a thread is getting heated like this one so obviously was, ignore my posts (or any other moderator's posts) at your peril.

[BT65]

Just as an aside, while getting my undergrad degree, none (zero) of my professors would allow us to reference Wikipedia on any (zero) of our papers turned in.