A Different Thread ... from the "mask or not" when riding thread

[Handlebars]

Ralph Baric and Shi Zheng Li ( Wuhan "Bat Lady") are the two most famous of those involved with HIV+SARS experimentation. HIV On Wings; aerosol transmission.
Shi Zheng Li is quoted in Chinese news and on twitter to have made variations of this statement; likely the translations resulted in the minor variations of her quote:


"2019 novel coronavirus is nature’s punishment for uncivilized living habits of human beings. I, Shi Zhengli, use my life to guarantee that it has nothing to do with our lab. Those who believe and spread rumors...shut your dirty mouth. ”


Uh, yeah, the Wuhan researcher, highly educated in western scientific practice, she claims it's nature's punishment on us, as soon as the spotlight was shined on her exquisitely dangerous research aims.

 

[Handlebars]

I have only heard about this as a headline so I don't want to comment too much but my first impression was that was a mistake on the testing side and not the actual vaccine. None the less I am a pro vaccination and that gave me some pause when I heard that.

Edit.
Ok since you brought it up and I had admittedly forgotten about that headline I looked in to it a little more and found this

"The vaccine contained small fragments of an HIV protein, which helped stabilize the vaccine. Some of the participants developed antibodies against these fragments, and these antibodies triggered false positive results on some HIV tests.

It's important to note that there is no way for the vaccine to cause an HIV infection, because it contains harmless fragments of the virus."

That was copied from livescience.com. Forgive me it's late and I'm doing all this from my cell phone while my wife asks why the hell I'm still up. That's a pretty wild situation that is on some levels a little scary but also pretty fascinating.

It is worth noting that the participants were informed that these fragments were being used in the vaccine however it was thought that due to the very miniscule amounts it wouldn't show up on an HIV test, they were wrong and rightfully pulled the plug. Still I will admit the idea that someone figured out that trace fragments of HIV could be used to stabilize the vaccine is very interesting. If only chocolate worked better.

"It is worth noting that the participants were informed that these fragments were being used in the vaccine however it was thought that due to the very miniscule amounts it wouldn't show up on an HIV test, they were wrong and rightfully pulled the plug. Still I will admit the idea that someone figured out that trace fragments of HIV could be used to stabilize the vaccine is very interesting. If only chocolate worked better."

... following that logic, they were found HIV positive by their own HIV antibody presence, not by antigen. Therefore it was not the injected HIV particles that were detected, it was the human response to them that was detected.
The coverup excuse that it was the injected HIV particles that caused the positives is misleading.

 

[voidedwarranty]

"It is worth noting that the participants were informed that these fragments were being used in the vaccine however it was thought that due to the very miniscule amounts it wouldn't show up on an HIV test, they were wrong and rightfully pulled the plug. Still I will admit the idea that someone figured out that trace fragments of HIV could be used to stabilize the vaccine is very interesting. If only chocolate worked better."

... following that logic, they were found HIV positive by their own HIV antibody presence, not by antigen. Therefore it was not the injected HIV particles that were detected, it was the human response to them that was detected.
The coverup excuse that it was the injected HIV particles that caused the positives is misleading.

Yeah that was stated so in the quote I pulled from the article. Their antibodies caused the false positive. There is no cover-up excuse here. I may be at fault for how I paraphrased but the article stands clear in saying the patients bodies developed the antibodies and subsequently tested positive. It doesn't mean they have HIV. It appears as though you are looking for a reason to scream cover-up when that is clearly not the case.

In any event I am currently at work trying to diagnose multiple disaster BMWs so I will have to make this my only reply today.

 

[Handlebars]

Yeah that was stated so in the quote I pulled from the article. Their antibodies caused the false positive. There is no cover-up excuse here. I may be at fault for how I paraphrased but the article stands clear in saying the patients bodies developed the antibodies and subsequently tested positive. It doesn't mean they have HIV. It appears as though you are looking for a reason to scream cover-up when that is clearly not the case.

In any event I am currently at work trying to diagnose multiple disaster BMWs so I will have to make this my only reply today.

I certainly did not mean that you created an excuse. Sorry if that's what it seems.

 

[Handlebars]

Yeah that was stated so in the quote I pulled from the article. Their antibodies caused the false positive. There is no cover-up excuse here. I may be at fault for how I paraphrased but the article stands clear in saying the patients bodies developed the antibodies and subsequently tested positive. It doesn't mean they have HIV. It appears as though you are looking for a reason to scream cover-up when that is clearly not the case.

In any event I am currently at work trying to diagnose multiple disaster BMWs so I will have to make this my only reply today.

I did use your paraphrase which was lacking, but I didn't and don't believe you created an excuse, and so your appreciation of why I said what I said, is off-base.

I am interested in their use of the word "stabilize" wrt the HIV parts they used in the vaccine.

 

[voidedwarranty]

I did use your quote which was lacking, I didn't and don't believe you created an excuse, and so your appreciation of why I said what I said, is off-base.

Duly noted no harm no foul.

 

[Handlebars]

So they used the HIV bits to "stabilize" the vaccine.
Next: What does that term usually mean (vaccine stabilization) ?

 

[Handlebars]

W.H.O.
"Stability of vaccines

Unlike chemical drugs, many biological preparations are unstable during storage and this instability can reduce the safety and efficacy of the biological medicinal product. Proteins and other macromolecules may be sensitive to heat, light, radiation, changes in the environment, or they may interact with the container materials or other components of the vaccine mixture. Determining these relationships and optimizing stability from production to administration to the patient is therefore an important part of vaccine development. Even with optimal conditions, reduction in potency may occur gradually as a function of the time elapsed since production.

Significant changes in the stability profile may occur following exposure to temperature stresses exerted through fluctuations in handling or storage conditions. Because of this, the stability characteristics of each vaccine must be determined empirically through testing, and the storage and handling conditions be defined to ensure that, over the stated shelf-life of the vaccine, minimum standards of potency, identity, and purity continue to be met. The temperature sensitivity of vaccines has led to the development of cold chain requirements for all vaccines. "



The Australian use of the HIV bits is not a "stabilization of vaccine".

 

[voidedwarranty]

W.H.O.
"Stability of vaccines

Unlike chemical drugs, many biological preparations are unstable during storage and this instability can reduce the safety and efficacy of the biological medicinal product. Proteins and other macromolecules may be sensitive to heat, light, radiation, changes in the environment, or they may interact with the container materials or other components of the vaccine mixture. Determining these relationships and optimizing stability from production to administration to the patient is therefore an important part of vaccine development. Even with optimal conditions, reduction in potency may occur gradually as a function of the time elapsed since production.

Significant changes in the stability profile may occur following exposure to temperature stresses exerted through fluctuations in handling or storage conditions. Because of this, the stability characteristics of each vaccine must be determined empirically through testing, and the storage and handling conditions be defined to ensure that, over the stated shelf-life of the vaccine, minimum standards of potency, identity, and purity continue to be met. The temperature sensitivity of vaccines has led to the development of cold chain requirements for all vaccines. "



The Australian use of the HIV bits is not a "stabilization of vaccine".

Explain your conclusion.

 

[Handlebars]

Explain your conclusion.

Stabilization is about helping the vaccine not degrade. Using the HIV bits was not for that purpose. They were used to spike position for injection into the cell.

 

[voidedwarranty]

Stabilization is about helping the vaccine not degrade. Using the HIV bits was not for that purpose. They were used to spike position for injection into the cell.

Please source links to this information. 5 articles I can find during a quick search (I'm currently trying to fix cars) shows the same basic reasoning for it's use as a "stabilizing agent".

Also could it be possible that the very specific use case of the HIV fragments, be it storage stabilization or aide in penetrating cell walls, could all fall under the term "stabilizing" if not for anything other than layman's terms? And if so why point out such an irrelevant disparity in the explanation of the use of such fragments. The only reason that comes to my mind as to why anyone would want to turn this into a "got ya" moment is if the belief is that the scientists true intention of using HIV was for pure malice.

 

[Handlebars]

Please source links to this information. 5 articles I can find during a quick search (I'm currently trying to fix cars) shows the same basic reasoning for it's use as a "stabilizing agent".

Also could it be possible that the very specific use case of the HIV fragments, be it storage stabilization or aide in penetrating cell walls, could all fall under the term "stabilizing" if not for anything other than layman's terms? And if so why point out such an irrelevant disparity in the explanation of the use of such fragments. The only reason that comes to my mind as to why anyone would want to turn this into a "got ya" moment is if the belief is that the scientists true intention of using HIV was for pure malice.

If anyone says that position stabilization of the spike into the cell is vaccine stabilization I think that is absolutely a misleading use of the term. If you believe articles which, to your mind, suggest it's to protect from degradation of vaccine, you are being misled.

 

[Handlebars]

Please source links to this information. 5 articles I can find during a quick search (I'm currently trying to fix cars) shows the same basic reasoning for it's use as a "stabilizing agent".

Alright. I do a lot of reading and usually don't bookmark so I'll have to re-find the scientific explanation they gave for the function of the HIV bits.

 

[voidedwarranty]

If you want to say that position stabilization of the spike into the cell is vaccine stabilization I think that is absolutely a misleading use of the term. If you believe articles which, to your mind, suggest it's to protect from degradation of vaccine, you are being misled.

You are arguing the difference between one form of stabilization vs another. Misleading or not, it had a specific use case for being in the vaccine.

I never said I'm believing articles that say it's for stabilization from degradation. I'm not arguing one way or the other about it. What I said was not a single article has made a distinction between what type of stabilization it is used for. It's semantics at this point anyway. There was a valid use case for it in theory. In practice it lead to undesirable outcomes and has been pulled.

I'm sorry but I am failing to comprehend the issue you are taking with the reporting of this case.

 

[Handlebars]

You are arguing the difference between one form of stabilization vs another. Misleading or not, it had a specific use case for being in the vaccine.

Indeed. Stabilization of vaccine vs stabilization of spike.

I never said I'm believing articles that say it's for stabilization from degradation.

And I never said you were. The articles imply that, though, by using a term that means just that. Why wouldn't normal people think it means "to preserve", precisely because that's the meaning given by authorities?

 

[Handlebars]

It's semantics at this point anyway. There was a valid use case for it in theory.

Semantics are very very important.

If it produced antibodies to HIV, is it a useful anti-HIV therapy or preventative?

The question does arise, though, as to why it was used at all, since SARS CoV 2 spikes seem perfectly able to attach to cells. And if that's all it takes to produce antibodies to fight covid, why not simply use SARS CoV 2 spike parts as vaccine?

 

[Handlebars]

msn: "The candidate vaccine, which was still in phase one trials at the University of Queensland, used a small amount of HIV protein as a "molecular clamp" but triggered an antibody response that could interfere with HIV screening, Health Minister Greg Hunt said."

 

[Handlebars]

abc:
"The UQ vaccine's molecular clamp technology uses two fragments of a protein found in HIV that were used to hold together the key part of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, so the immune system could learn to recognise it.

The team said using the protein found in HIV gave them "the greatest stability" in the vaccine's early development and enabled them to speed up the process, as hundreds of research teams around the world this year pushed to find a COVID-19 vaccine.'

This report signals that it gave THE TEAM the greatest stability for development of a vaccine.

 

[voidedwarranty]

Thank you for the posts. I'm trying to leave work now and finish up my day at home. I'll get back to you on my thoughts.

But just so we are clear, are you taking issue with reporting from journalists or explanations/disclosure from scientists?

Also I can't even remember what the original reason this thread was created for.

And lastly for anyone that does read through our discussion, I feel this has been a great example of what productive debate looks like (even if the topic of discussion has gone on a bit of a tangent).

 

[Handlebars]

Thank you for the posts. I'm trying to leave work now and finish up my day at home. I'll get back to you on my thoughts.

But just so we are clear, are you taking issue with reporting from journalists or explanations/disclosure from scientists?

Also I can't even remember what the original reason this thread was created for.

And lastly for anyone that does read through our discussion, I feel this has been a great example of what productive debate looks like (even if the topic of discussion has gone on a bit of a tangent).

I am taking issue with the media reporting but much more problematic is health officials. Doubt the reporters are even capable of slanting it more than they are told.