HIV mRNA vaccine skin rash. What the concern is. New info released.
Finally, additional information is available why the testing was stopped.
Subscriptions are free.
An HIV vaccine is still possible, this is just a minor bump on the road.
Previous report on the halting of testing.
I said that the reasons given in the Science magazine article were stupid. However, it seems there is a valid concern. It would have been useful that some publication did investigations as to why an HIV vaccine effort was halted, but it seems it was just a concern for this publication and myself.
Also, the LGBTQXYZ+ didn’t report on the efforts being halted. A major issue for Gays, but not the LGBTQXYZ+.
It is also why I wrote letters to find out what was happening.
Reports on the testing for reoccuring skin rashes.
An important limitation was there there was no control group. That is a randomized group of people that didn’t get the mRNA vaccine shot, but got a placebo. So it is possible that it has nothing to do with the shot.
These are the articles.
This is the primary article.
Annals of Internal Medicine, April 29, 2025, “High Frequency of Chronic Urticaria Following an Investigational HIV-1 BG505 MD39.3 Trimer mRNA Vaccine in a Phase 1, Randomized, Open-Label Clinical Trial (HVTN 302).”
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-24-02701
This is part of the article, the abstract online referring to the article above. There is a DOI link, and it goes to the Annals of Internal Medicine. However, it has a DOI link which should go to the article where ever it might be.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40294415/
This is the Daily Mail article on it.
Daily Mail, April 28, 2025, “Scientists discover disturbing 'unexpected' side effect of new mRNA jab.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14656287/unexpected-effect-new-mRNA-jab-HIV.html
What we learn from the report.
“Urticaria” is skin rash. Out of 108 participants, 4 had unresolved intermitten urticaria after 12 months. This is 4%, but given the small numbers in the testing, the real rate might be higher, I don’t have a statistical package anymore, the range of possible real rates might be roughly guestimatted, from 3% to 10%. However, this is not acceptable rate at even 1%.
Most (73%) related AEs were mild, and the rest were moderate. Among related AEs, urticaria was reported by 7 of 108 participants (7% [95% CI, 3% to 13%]), 4 of whom had unresolved, intermittent urticaria at 12 months. In post hoc analyses, demographic characteristics, history of allergy or medication use, and COVID-19 were not associated with urticaria.
This is the limitation of the study as reported in the article. It could be that the high chronic rate is due to something else or some factor for which the test group haa a high rate. Or it might just be the vaccination shot.
Limitations:
Lack of a placebo group, open-label study, and post hoc evaluation of urticarial risk.
This is the conclusion.
Conclusion:
Urticarial reactions associated with experimental HIV-1 mRNA vaccines were observed in this trial. Studies to investigate the mechanism and approaches to mitigate these reactions are underway to further advance HIV-1 vaccine research. [Boldface added.]
So studies aren’t stopped, there is research looking into the cause of the rash. Whether these investigations stand in the way of other mRNA HIV vaccine studies I don’t know and whether there are any other mRNA HIV vaccine studies.
This is the post launching the campaign for an HIV vaccine, and links to supporting information.
What does this all mean?
This issue is that of just one vaccine using one type of nanoparticle to carry the mRNA and just one formulation. There are a lot of studies in using different formulations and it could not be related to the mRNA. Another mRNA HIV vaccine using different formulation might not have any issue.
Also, it might be just an unlucky pick of the anti-bodies used.
The study had a limitation, no control group. So it might be that this particular group had a high rate of susceptibility or had some ongoing issues with skin rashes not related to the vaccination.
Or it might be that some sub-group shouldn’t get the mRNA vaccination, because they have some variation that causes an issue, but for 90% of the population the vaccination is fine. Maybe if you got some child hood disease there is some issue, or you have had CMV or some type of virus.
We don’t really know until they investigate.
However, this issue isn’t a road block to an mRNA vaccine. It is just an issue on the way.
Even if for some unlikely reason, HIV mRNA vaccines are going to take some time to work out issues, there are a lot of options for mRNA vaccines, self-amplifying and circular mRNA. And there is work on DNA vaccine technology.
We need to push for an HIV vaccine.
It is the major issue pulling down the Gay community.
What next?
It would help if more readers of this newsletter would sign the petition. Also write letters of their own.
[1] I am going to write more letters asking for an HIV vaccine to be a priority effort. Including one to RFK Jr. I am going to be writing my elected representatives.
[2] I am going to write up a new model letter for people to use to write to their elected represenatives.
[3] I am going to put effort into the petition for an HIV vaccine and also update the petition.
Until there is an HIV vaccine, I think this is the number one priority of the Gay community.
Since the first cases in, it is 45 years. Part of the issue is the technical difficulties, but also, there wasn’t a focus on this as a political issue or a campaign for the vaccine. We accepted that it was going to take decades. With the explosion of new biological technologies now, we should no longer accept this.
Sign and share the petition.
The petition is fully funded for promotions.
https://www.change.org/HIV_Vax_Now
