@haidut The vaccine contained no genetic material because it was a protein vaccine. Therefore it cannot produce an infection of any kind because protein cannot replicate without genetic material (DNA/RNA) with the exception of prions, which is not applicable here. Every patient will produce antibodies to different epitopes (segments) of the vaccine protein. If they produce an antibody to an epitope that is in common with HIV then they will likely test positive for HIV in the future. This would indeed make the HIV antibody test useless. That said, not everyone will generate antibodies to those epitopes so not everyone will test positive.I already responded to a similar critique by user "hei". First of all, we don't know if the patients responded to the HIV fragment of they started generating the full HIV particle endogenuosly. The vaccine does not contain enough "gp41" in itself to trigger a response only to it. If it had enough viral protein to trigger antibody production then most/all of the trial participants would have tested positive. Second of all, the "verification" that the patients were "fine" after they tested positive violates the standard protocol for confirming HIV infection after a first positive test. The standard way to confirm/reject HIV diagnosis is to follow these patients for 3-6 months then retest at least once a few months after the initial positive test. If that test is also positive then the official rules say these people have chronic HIV infection. Those tests were not done, and in fact, the only information I can find on what "routine tests" for HIV were done suggest only PCR tests were done. Those have a 20%+ false negative rate and, again, are NOT the standard way to confirm/reject HIV infection.
One can't just pick and choose when antibody tests apply and when they do not. Either the standard HIV tests work and need to be used on those 4 patients according to the standard protocol for HIV testing, or those tests are useless, in which case the question is what exactly are they measuring in the millions of people to who they are administered. Why can't some of the millions of HIV positive people around the world have also come into contact with another exosome or virus that can trigger a positive HIV test without that actually being a true infection??? @tankasnowgod voiced similar concerns earlier in the thread.
Furthermore, when the vaccine authors say themselves that "significant changes would need to be made to well-established HIV testing procedures in the healthcare setting to accommodate rollout of this vaccine", that speaks volumes by itself about its safety. Speaking of safety, why was the trial immediately halted and vaccine development abandoned if this is all just a harmless "false positive"??
Finally, I specifically asked Peat during out latest podcast if the COVID-19 vaccines can trigger an AIDS-like condition and he said emphatically "YES". His quotes on the dangers of activating the retroviruses in our genome is in the original post.
All in all, until the standard protocols for confirming/rejecting chronic HIV infection are followed, the HIV test results stand and these people are by law considered HIV positive. Either that, or the whole HIV testing mechanism is a charade.
We can use a generic antibody test to detect HIV infection because there is no vaccine for HIV. If there were a vaccine for HIV, like there is for Hepatitis B, then a surface antibody test would indicate immunity either through vaccination or infection. That’s why we have a core-specific antibody test for hepatitis B to differentiate vaccination status from history of infection. We would have to create a similar test for HIV if we’re going to start vaccinating people with fragments of HIV’s coat. It is easier to simply abandon this vaccine given other promising candidates.