pat@grebyn.com (Pat Bahn) (09/11/89)
I am a normal volunteer at the NIH. They are currently running a study on gp160 as a possible AIDS vaccine. This involves a synthetic protein that emulates the HIV capsomers and stimulates antibody production. The hope is that this will immunize people against the virus. The study has some plusses and negatives. On the plus side I may end up immune to a disease, I am unlikely to be exposed to. On the negative side I may test HIV+ on most blood tests. My question is what are the legal and social implications of this? I figure I can kiss off getting good insurance, even with a letter stating that my test status is an artifact of the expiriment. What are the legal implications? Am I likely to have trouble traveling? What about jobs? I think a lot of employers are slding HIV screens in with Blood drug tests. any comments? -- ============================================================================= Pat @ grebyn.com | If the human mind was simple enough to understand, 301-948-8142 | We'd be too simple to understand it. =============================================================================
dgreen@squid (Dan R. Greening) (09/20/89)
In article <27025@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> grebyn!pat (Pat Bahn) writes: > I am a normal volunteer at the NIH. They are currently running >a study on gp160 as a possible AIDS vaccine. This involves a >synthetic protein that emulates the HIV capsomers and stimulates >antibody production. The hope is that this will immunize people against >the virus. The study has some plusses and negatives. On the plus side >I may end up immune to a disease, I am unlikely to be exposed to. >On the negative side I may test HIV+ on most blood tests. My question >is what are the legal and social implications of this? I figure I can >kiss off getting good insurance, even with a letter stating that my test >status is an artifact of the expiriment. What are the legal >implications? Am I likely to have trouble traveling? What about >jobs? I think a lot of employers are slding HIV screens in with Blood >drug tests. any comments? I know for a fact that IBM does not perform HIV antibody testing as part of their drug-test program, if you want an example. In addition, a number of companies have stated explicitly that they do not discriminate against persons with AIDS. Those companies would be unlikely to test you for HIV antibodies. There is a bill in congress which would make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of handicapped status, and states AIDS infection explicitly as a handicapped state. Bush has agreed to sign if it reaches his desk. It has passed the Senate. It is currently in committee in the House of Representatives. If you would like to assist its progress, please write to your Representative (no point in writing your Senators right now) and urge that they support the bill, with no amendments. Dannemeyer and Helms are trying to modify the bill to remove AIDS status. If this bill passes, you should not have a problem with employment as a result of your HIV antibody status. Lastly, I am in the same vaccine program. I currently test positive for gp160 and gp120 on a Western Blot. However, the Elisa test (the cheap first-screen test that most organizations use before going to a Western Blot) for me is negative. Someone interpreting my Western Blot is likely to say I am HIV negative, whether they are aware of my vaccination or not. If you have ever seen the Western Blots for vaccine vs. HIV induced antibodies, you will see that the pure gp160 vaccine is VERY different looking. There are no core protein antibody responses, for one thing. My employer (IBM) knows of my participation in this program, and my manager supports me strongly. If you are HIV negative and heterosexual (note the change from previous requirements), I would urge you strongly to get involved in the NIH vaccine program. Here's why: The NIH program needs 160 volunteers for its phase 1 trial. It took over 1 year just to get the necessary volunteers, even though they FLEW people from as far away as California. If that time span could have been reduced by 6 months, and if it turns out that the vaccine works, an ENORMOUS number of lives would have been saved. I believe the NIH will begin a Phase 2 trial of the vaccine, which might involve a larger number of people. For more information on the NIH vaccine program, please contact Margaret Easter at 301-496-7196. Dan Greening dgreen@cs.ucla.edu NY 914-789-7620 | 308 Westwood Plaza, Box 117 CA 213-825-2266 | Los Angeles, CA 90024-1647