glr123

I would be curious to your thoughts on why you think this publication answers the previous question and how it is actually pertinent to HIV. Due to the structure of the HIV particle and it's particularly dynamic natively unstructured glycoprotein coat, how do you hope to target it with a vaccine based approach? It seems that the field is split on if a vaccine would actually be effective, since antibodies raised against HIV are typically structured towards a dynamic and transient population of glycoproteins on the HIV capsule. Even broadly neutralizing antibodies are not widely accepted as a basis for a vaccine with 100% efficacy. So, with broadly neutralizing antibodies likely off the table, why do you think your approach will be more efficacious? I don't see how this paper, which is more directed towards vaccine formulation, is relevant to an actual HIV vaccine.

University of Michigan also has a good aerospace engineering program. You should consider it!

Actually HIV papers, in general, publish very well. It is still a hot topic and a challenging model system for many researchers (myself included). If you are doing research that is actually significant, it typically gets published quite high just for being related to HIV.

Upvoting this, and just saying thanks for your comments in this thread. You have summarized my questions far more succinctly than I am able to. In general, I see no demonstration of efficacy in this technique and I fear for those that are donating money, and even more so for those that are currently infected with HIV. I see no tangible reason of why this approach would work over the myriad of others that are currently on the market or are being actively researched.

The Modern Library ranks Ulysses as its first book in the top 100. Do you think this is a fair claim? After reading Joyce, personally, I question if this is a valid assessment of the book or a novelty ranking for a variety of reasons. What are your thoughts on this and the novel as a whole?