"Professor Chappell, who developed the molecular clamp technology, said in hindsight they might not have used the HIV fragment...“If we could go back in time, we’d make changes.”
-
-
Show this thread
-
Some more detail here on what went wrong with the Australian vaccine. Seems like they were really close to an amazing result, using some very advanced new R&D, but just couldn't quite deal with the...HIV issue.https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/how-crucial-was-the-uq-csl-vaccine-to-australia-and-what-options-do-we-now-have-20201211-p56mlj.html …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
My God what were they thinking
-
They were thinking of a solution.. that worked.. figure out a different way to test for HIV and you have a promising vaccine therapy technique.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Cant understand why they dont inject us all with Cholera and Ebola and just get it over with.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Since most people are at no risk of HIV and so not harmed by the potential of false positive HIV tests, why not continue? They would be other vaccines for those at risk of HIV. We don't need one vaccine that works for all.
-
I think there are other considerations that you haven’t weighed... for example: the blood supply.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Abandoning the vaccine seems like the wrong move. It's important to have multiple (different) vaccine types available, in case we see delayed bad side-effects from the mRNA options. Spending a billion or two to have a backup (even w/ drawbacks) seems 100% reasonable.
-
No. People testing positively falsely for HIV leads to major problems in a variety of areas.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.