More Talk About Potential mRNA Vaccines for “HIV”

I thought this was a dead topic, but I think I know why it’s being resurrected

I’ve said several times in the past that I think that the push for the long-acting injectable ARV drugs is a reflection of the HIV AIDS establishment’s abandonment of the hope of any “HIV” vaccine ever eventuating. I’d like to revise that statement. I think that the injectables are their safety valve, and that the race for an “HIV” vaccine will likely continue, because the establishment surely knows that the toxicities of the ARVs will soon become too obvious to ignore. They can’t be unaware of the Truvada disaster. They need a fallback plan, and, in their minds, an “HIV vaccine” would be less toxic than a regimen of ARVs.

To that point, a reader alerted me to the following ridiculous video by Stefan Chin (who has 8 million YouTube subscribers at his channel SciShow), which I can’t help but to react to. I’ll include my analysis of Chin’s misstatements. There are some moments of pure comedic gold if you choose to watch the video. (h/t Christoph.)

We’re just going to jump right into this and react minute by minute. There will be a lot of quotes, because this clown in the video has so many quotable moments. Let’s dive in.

He opens by praising the mRNA vaccines. Put in pin in that; we’ll come back to it later. The video opens with the question: How was a Covid vaccine created in record time, yet an “HIV” vaccine remains elusive after forty years? Chin says, “This pesky virus has made it really, really, REALLY hard to do.” (Note the three “reallys.”) But don’t worry, despite forty years of failure and nearly 100 clinical trials abandoned for futility, “the success of COVID-19 vaccines has injected new hope into their search.”

Before Chin gets to talking about the search for an elusive “HIV” vaccine, he gives lip service to PrEP. Again, I wonder if the toxicities of the drugs are becoming too obvious to ignore. Here’s my favorite quote of the whole thing, because it’s so diabolical:

1:15 “What would be really sweet is a nice little one and done jab in the arm for absolutely everybody.” (Emphasis mine.) No comment needed here; we know the sinister implications. (Also, if PrEP is only for “risk groups”—allegedly—why is the vaccine for absolutely everybody?)

There is a short discussion of how the “biological nature of ‘HIV’” makes it somehow harder to vaccinate. It isn’t really explained, except for the following statement from Chin, which is patently ridiculous (emphasis mine):

With HIV, that immune response doesn’t really happen. When HIV enters your body, it wraps itself in a trench coat of sugar molecules, shielding it from your immune system. This allows it to skip past your natural defenses without triggering your alarm. Then HIV turns the tables and dismantles the cells of your immune system that were supposed to defend against it.

A trench coat of sugar molecules? Am I meant to keep a straight face? Also, how do they know this? We’ve never even seen a proper electron micrograph of “HIV”, so how the hell do we know it dons a trench coat? If anyone knows, please enlighten me.

Also, at 2:28: “HIV is a notorious shapeshifter. It mutates quickly, even within the same person.” (Raising the question of how a vaccine is even possible.) I’d love for Chin to read the works of Etienne de Harven, who pointed out that no two identical “HIV” particles have ever been found, even in the same patient. Even the mainstream refers to it as a “quasispecies,” raising the question of whether it is a single entity at all.

The next fair bit talks about the concept of broadly neutralizing antibodies, or bnAbs. Chin tells us that vaccine development has really focused on inducing these bnAbs. The idea is that they induce your B cells to produce antibodies protective against a variety of pathogens. Unfortunately there are complications. How would these even work against “HIV”?

So HIV bnAbs happen when your immune system hits the jackpot and manages to make antibodies to a less variable part of the virus, so they can bypass its shape shifting and work against more versions of HIV.

They really are saying the quiet part out loud—“HIV” isn’t one thing. Unfortunately, these vaccines that would supposedly induce bnAbs have a few other problems.

4:13 “bnAbs have shown auto reactivity, meaning that they may be primed to target some of your body’s own cells. […] You don’t want your immune system to attack you.”

There’s actually a lot to think about here; more on this in a later post.

5:12 “”Scientists wanted to see if they could get a vaccine to switch on the specific B cells that go on to make bnAbs of HIV.” He then goes on to describe the clinical trial began in 2022 that could most kindly be described as having shriveled. “The strategy wasn’t specific enough to turn on only the kinds of B cells that make bnAbs. It might switch on other B cells willy nilly.” That sounds like it’s not dangerous at all, to have some crazy overproduction of antibodies.

We finally move on to what was surely the point of the entire video, which is to discuss the potential of mRNA vaccines for “HIV.”

6:00: “The COVID-19 pandemic brought fame and glory to the mRNA vaccines and its inspired high hopes that we might be able to use that same technology and apply it to different diseases.”

I have no words. Fame and glory? Anyway, there’s a description of how mRNA vaccines differ from traditional vaccines; you can check out the video if you’re interested. What I’m interested in is his discussion of the promise of mRNA vaccines for “HIV.”

He says mRNAs are great for “HIV” because traditional vaccines don’t work for two reasons—using a “live vaccine” (how is that possible with a never isolated pathogen?) might cause inadvertent infections, but a vaccine with a “dead HIV” has been shown to induce no immune response. However, things aren’t going so well:

7:50: “mRNA vaccines are awesome for producing a robust immune response against all the various proteins that are on the surface of HIV… in theory. In practice, it’s again proving trickier.”

Say it isn’t so. Delivering on the promises of 1984 remains “tricky.” However you will be cheered to know that a 2022 study of these mRNA vaccines for “HIV” were undertaken on rhesus macaques and mice. At 8:00, Chin says, “this vaccine was able to induce bnAb production in the rhesus macaques and the monkeys successfully made new immune cells in response to HIV exposure.” (What happened with the mice? I really want to know.)

However, “This doesn’t mean it’s ready to go into human arms just yet.” (Thank God.) Among other issues, it is not “fully protective” and, with seven total injections, is also inconvenient.

Also, in 2022-2023 clinical trials were launched for such vaccines but results remain unpublished. There were apparently some initial safety concerns regarding hives, which is fascinating to me because normally safety concerns are all too often glossed over. Perhaps their results were underwhelming and they’re doing damage control.

To conclude (finally) at 9:23 we discuss “therapeutic vaccines;” in other words, vaccines for people that are already “HIV” positive. One wonders why this would even be an issue, considering the “lifesaving drugs” that are “safe and effective.” This brings me back to my initial point—perhaps they can’t let go of the vaccine effort, futile though it may be, because they have the sinking feeling that the Truvada disaster may soon become too big to ignore.

Anyway, the trial of the “therapeutic vaccine” turned out to be a failure. Quelle surprise.

Finally, at 10:27 we have some comedy: “The journey to finding an HIV vaccine has been long. The sneaky virus has a lot of tricks up its tiny sleeves [The sleeves of the sugar molecule that “HIV” wears as a trench coat, perhaps?—Ed.] to try to stay one step ahead of our immune systems.” They end by saying that work continues on a vaccine for “all strains of HIV,” which is going to be a very difficult task indeed given that “HIV” is a “quasispecies,” meaning it isn’t any one entity at all, and therefore logically impossible to vaccinate against. No wonder they can’t do it.

In my opinion, this whole video was blatant propaganda, but it had its moment. Let me know what you think in the comments, and also if you could stand to watch the whole thing.