One could not have isolated this retrovirus without knowledge of other retroviruses, that's obvious. But I believe we have answered the criteria of isolation.

Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support by telling someone he's condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him.

They don't actually see the real world, where 95% of the people with HIV are not treated and are dying. And even though we have some blue sky now in our country, the sky could become cloudy again very soon.

Basic research is very useful, but it should be more geared toward application than it was before.

I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV.

I've participated in meetings where there were concerns by ethical experts. There is no clear solution.

It's clear that prevention will never be sufficient. That's why we need a vaccine that will be safe.

It's easier to learn things for life by the age of 12 and not the age of 18. This is just my guess.

Since most of the transmission is sexual transmission, you have a regional or local response to the virus.

The idea of the live-virus vaccine is to produce in a continuous way some viral antigens.

We are working with a biotech company, Calypte, which has designed a urine test for the HIV antibody.

We don't know why, but there are some gradients of infection.

What perhaps should receive more attention is the effect of the treatment on the virus.

AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease. It is very important to tell this to people who are infected.

AIDS win be our first priority, but in two years' time we don't know where AIDS research will stand, so we are also thinking of activity on other diseases.

Another interesting field, which is my own, is cofactors, not only to the disease but also to transmission. I am still puzzled by the fact that you get more sexual transmission in some ethnic populations. One way to answer this is to look for genetic factors.

I am very puzzled by the fact that young people are getting infected again. They don't take precautions despite an enormous amount of information. It's like riding a race car at 200 kilometers an hour. Some people like the risk.

It's very difficult in our society. You cannot impose certain behavioral changes. Education can do it at the right time, probably by high school. After that it is too late.

My proposal now is to test a vaccine first on people who have been infected, and if you show some efficacy at this level, you might be able to go further to study uninfected people in a population with a high rate of infection.

Our goal is not to completely eradicate the infection - that would be very difficult - but to produce a vaccine that will prevent not infection but disease. I think this is more possible.