We are in the midst of a media explosion surrounding the possibility of a vaccine for HIV. For years this has seemed a hopeless situation, so a great deal of effort and money has been spent on the campaign to educate people about transmission and prevent infection. Unfortunately, according to recent reports (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-07-12-hiv-vaccine-the-only-real-answer), the number of new infections is still an alarming 7400 per day!  In addition, less than half of the 9.5 million people in low-middle income households infected with HIV have access to anti viral treatments.

These staggering statistics demonstrate very clearly that efforts to help infected individuals are available and do reach millions, but they just aren’t enough.  Development of a vaccine, probably the best method of prevention, has been an extremely slow process. Students ask about this all the time. If scientists can eradicate small pox, if they can make a new flu-shot every year, then why can’t they make a vaccine for HIV? The virus mutates so quickly that once infected, the host harbors any number of viral variants, all unique!

Interestingly enough, one in four patients infected with HIV carry two very strong anti-HIV antibodies that seem to neutralize 91% of HIV strains (http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20100709/antibodies-discovery-may-pave-way-to-aids-vaccine ). Why don’t they work? They usually aren’t produced until the infection is rampant, and by the time they are produced, the virus has begun to mutate!  So, the thought process is this: if individuals were given a vaccine that elicited the production of these antibodies before exposure to the virus, they would likely prevent infection upon exposure. The key now is development of the vaccine, and then dissemination to regions in need.

The identification and isolation of these antibodies have shed some light on what seemed to be an almost hopeless situation. I look forward to the next five years of research in this field and believe that there will be a vaccine in the next 10.

Dr. Charles Arntzen (Co-Director of the Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology, The Biodesign Institute and Florence Ely Nelson Presidential Chair, Arizona State University) has spearheaded the genetic modification of plants to enable food crops to produce antigenic proteins.  So far, he has experimented with bananas that protect against Norwalk Virus and potatoes that promote antibody production against Hepatitis B and pathogenic strains of E.coli.  Dr. Arntzen cautions that vaccine containing crops are medicines, not food that would show up at a local grocery store, and would be regulated as pharmaceuticals.  You can read an interview with Dr. Arntzen here.

Plant based, edible vaccines would not only make vaccine-aged children happier, they would also simplify global vaccine distribution. Currently, vaccines require refrigeration and skilled health workers to inject them.  Fruits and vegetables can be freeze dried and pulverized into powders that would be heat stable: vaccine powders and pills could then be shipped around the globe without concern for a “cold chain” to preserve them, and could be eaten by populations without access to trained health workers.

The US government has also acknowledged that plant based vaccines would be faster and cheaper to produce than conventional vaccines, which are made in eggs over the course of several months.  In early 2010, the research arm of the Department of Defense, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), awarded the Texas Plant-Expressed Vaccine Consortium a $40 million grant for Project Green Vax, an initiative to develop vaccines in tobacco plants.  The Project’s first task is to show that tobacco can yield 10 million effective doses of the H1N1 vaccine per month.  It would be incredibly ironic if tobacco redeems its reputation for being a public health scourge by becoming a public health staple.

So that finally puts the autism-vaccination link to bed, right? Wrong. To read some responses in the blogosphere, one could assume that The Lancet had declared war on all humanity. In Natural News, Mike Adams writes that “The Lancet is doing exactly what George Orwell described in 1984 — rewriting history by obliterating scientific truth and removing it from their archives.” In the Age of Autism, Mark Blaxill refers to the General Medical Council’s judgment that precipitated the retraction as “deep and profound censorship”. Now, I have no intention of picking a fight with these people, but what we have here is a failure of logic and some profound cherry-picking of scientific literature. Thus:

1) In 1998, The Lancet publishes a paper suggesting a link between vaccines and autism. The Lancet is right.
2) In 2010, The Lancet retracts the paper. The Lancet is not only be wrong, but corrupt as well.

I want to ask Mr. Adams and Mr. Blaxhill just one question. At what point in the 12 years between publishing an article that confirms your beliefs and the subsequent retraction was The Lancet usurped by Orwellian propagandists?

I suspect the issue here (and I am sure even Mr. Adams and Mr. Blaxhill will agree) is a failure to trust. Some of us choose to trust the medical/pharmaceutical establishments, some don’t. If you don’t have confidence in these institutions, no amount of pronouncements will change your mind. For many, the primary reason to mistrust Big Pharma is that it is profit-motivated. But so are farmers (yes, even organic ones), private hospitals, and the people that make your seat belts. Occasionally they make mistakes and do stupid things but this is not evidence of conspiracy.

If this retraction is a sign of anything, it is of a healthy peer-review process. The Lancet made a judgment, reviewed it, and found it to be in error. It would be great if we were all capable of such logic.