HIV Vaccine Ready For Clinical Trials 385
amigoro writes with the happy news that a possible vaccine against HIV is nearing readiness for clinical trials. The compound could provide a 'double whammy' by not only inoculating the patient against future infection, but destroying an HIV infection in progress. "The vaccine is an artificial virus-like particle whose outer casing consists of the TBI (T- and B cell epitopes containing immunogen) protein constructed by the researchers combined with the polyglucin protein. This protein contains nine components stimulating different cells of the immune system: both the ones that produce antibodies and the ones that devour the newcomer."
But what if youv got the AIDS? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
VACCINE (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably a troll - but there are plenty of AIDS denialists around.
About the only vaguely credible source for the non-HIV origin of AIDS is Prof Peter Duesberg, and his theory has been debunked multiple times. Google his name for links.
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish... (Score:2)
If you're reading Wikipedia, might I suggest the article on Koch's postulates [wikipedia.org] instead?
Re:But what if youv got the AIDS? (Score:4, Informative)
"Claims made about the effectiveness of colloidal silver products for numerous diseases are unsupported scientifically."
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/alerts/silver/index.ht m [nih.gov]
The fact that HIV results in full blown AIDS has been known for 20+ years. it's a testable fact.
I infact whole heartedly invite you and any other pricks proclaiming that treating HIV is a waste of time to take a trip to africa and fuck a few hookers and see if colloidal silver treatments go well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is possible to have HIV without having full-blown AIDS (the qualification for the disease is to have a certain quota of viral particles in a sample of your blood.)
The definition of AIDS is having all the associated symptoms and being HIV positive. This is what I mean by HIV and AIDS being associated only by definition. If someone has all the symptoms of AIDS, CD4+ T Lymphocyte count, but is not HIV positive then they are not labeled as having AIDS. This has only been true since the acceptance of the link between HIV and AIDS.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The definition essentially separates HIV with no symptoms and HIV advanced enough to cause symptoms. Medically, it's quite important - someone with AIDS can hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, it also clear that when it comes to infections that cause acquired immune deficiency, HIV is the no. 1 cause. If you want define AIDS as acquired immune deficiency coupled to HIV infection then there is no doubt that HIV is the causal agent. If you want to define
he's kind of correct (Score:4, Interesting)
That sucks. What about all the people with Aquired Immunodeficiency Syndromes from other causes? There are chemicals that can do it, and many other causes as well. Now that the definition of AIDS has been modified, do these people no longer have Aquired Immonodeficiency Syndromes? They're all healthy and OK now?
Furthermore, if that's all AIDS means anymore, why do we even need the term? For other infections, we don't have a separate name. If you are infected with tuberculosis and then start coughing, we don't change the description to Aquired Coughing Syndrome (ACS).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Medical science identified a group of people who had 'acquired' a 'syndrome' of 'immune system deficiency' that did not match historical cases of suppressed immune systems. Everyone with these symptoms was said to have AIDS because the cause was a mystery. A lot of testing was done to find a commonality between patients that might be a cause. The vast majority of this identifiable trend were found to have HIV when it was discovered. It was clear that
Re:But what if youv got the AIDS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it's entirely possible that the code is indeed useless, but that would seem to go against the tendency of evolution to be frugal.
Many geneticists hold this view. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Back in 1980, I was taking a genetics class. I had a teacher at the time argue the current philosophy of the time which was that RNA was simply a carrier of information and that it did no work. I pointed out that it did not make sense, since life will seek the lowest cost of energy that it can and there was LOTS of extra RNA. Later that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
wtf? evolution occurs by selective breeding, not by viruses modifying our DNA. do you think monkeys caught the virus to become human one day and started walking upright?
Re:But what if youv got the AIDS? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No guarantee can be made that any DNA modified
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
i really hate that bullshit fucking myth. i don't know who started it, but their a stupid douche bag.
are you seriously suggesting drug companys are going to run out of sick people, or illnesses to treat? To prove my point, i will use the example of small pox. small pox is a lethal infection that has been wiped out in the world population through vaccinations. by your logic, drug companys would not have manufactured the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This do
Re:But what if youv got the AIDS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering the extent to which pharmas withhold treatment from dying people, (backed by WTO threats, patent manipulation, WIPO lobbyists, etc) I'd say it's quite obvious they could be classified as total sociopaths.
And really, a vaccine, or a cure, for AIDS would be a short-lived media bonus; when was the last time you heard anything about whatever companies created various vaccines (apart from allegations of causing things like autism, or for needlessly encouraging tax-financed and uncessary vaccinations)?
The thing is, if you analyze it, the entire economy of patent incentives is based on the ability to _deny_ everyone the right to produce a certain substance. The worse the consequences, the higher the price can go. Patents dont generate a lot of money for curing or preventing disease; they generate the maximum level of revenue when they set the price so high that they _deny_ a certain subset of customers access, and deny that subset of customers the right to buy the medicine from anyone else. (And please, dont give me the 'but they need the money to research' crap; the money is largely wasted on marketing, administration and inefficient production; we'd get five times the research for what we're paying today if we outright just paid for it and scrapped medical patents).
The very foundation of the system is so ethically corrupt that it's no wonder the pharmas are the way they are.
Personally I dont doubt for a second that they'd simply bury any substance (reorganize, change strategic direction) that appeared to actually have a chance at curing something they were selling a symptom treater for.
Re:But what if youv got the AIDS? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think not.
Not everyone who gets AIDS can afford drug therapy. The vast majority of new infections in 3rd world countries will most certainly not engage in treatment. Drug companies are only making money off "daily regiments" by bleeding dry a very small minority of AIDS sufferers.
Now think about a vaccine. If a viable vaccine is released, *EVERYONE* gets immunized. Get the picture? Not just rich HIV+ westerners Even those who are poor, even those who *DON'T HAVE THE DISEASE* will likely get immunized via global public campaigns of the type that eradicated smallpox. After having identified AIDS as a major factor in geo-political instability, you can bet that the UN (among others) is going to make a very good effort to pump money into any viable efforts to halt/reverse the spread of this disease.
No money to be made? only a fool would walk away from this.
I hear the cynics say this type of thing an awful lot and it just makes no sense. Has there been any actual real life case of pharmaceutical intentionally siting on a cure due to profit motives? Seriously, I genuinely want to learn about historic examples that justify this kind of fear.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Has there been any actual real life case of pharmaceutical intentionally sitting on a cure due to profit motives?
There was a lot of resistance when a simple cure was found for stomach ulcers. Barry Marshall [wikipedia.org] eventually won a Nobel Prize for proving that Helicobacter pylori bacteria was the cause of most stomach ulcers but it took him years to do it.
There's some good background on it in this interview [achievement.org]. It gives a pretty good insight into what happens when you challenge the conventional wisdom. The medical community were extremely sceptical and resistant to his ideas. There was no great conspiracy to discredit him, i
Re: (Score:2)
Since AIDS/HIV is a very serious disease, even being an epidemic in some parts of the world, do you think that governments would allow pharmaceutical companies to kill it? I think that at least regarding their own population, governments might just ignore any patents to be able to administer such a vaccine.
Re:But what if youv got the AIDS? (Score:4, Interesting)
A cure would save the insurance companies lots of money.
You can participate in the clinical trials now! (Score:5, Informative)
Sad.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sad.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Coupled with:
- not being born to an HIV positive mother
- not sharing needles when injecting drugs
- not receiving tainted blood product transfusions
- not being bitten, scratched or otherwise suffering an infectious injury from a carrier
- not sustaining a needlestick injury if you are a healthcare worker from an HIV carrier
- not partaking in lower (but still not zero-) risk sexual activities (e.g. oral sex)
- not being exposed via other means (e.g. blood injuries in sports)
there are probably a few others I haven't thought of, but stop being so sanctimonious. There are a lot of people out there who contracted HIV through no fault of their own - one of the largest groups were haemophiliacs before the disease was even known about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's called abstinence.
This is not true; does the name Kimberly Bergalis ring a bell?
It is also true, of course, that the majority of infections are directly traceable to either sexual activity or IV drug use. Leaving aside the fact that a lot of people may be infected by partners to whom they're faithful and who they simply don't know are engaging in risky activity on the side
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe we should accept the fact that people will eat crappy food and drink and smoke and not exercise, they will drive cars and climb mountains and walk through bad neighborhoods, and they will have sex whether anyone approves of it or not. And then deal with the results on that basis.
The problem is not in accepting that fact, but in who exactly you want to "deal with the results" once they happen. The GP was correctly modded down for playing down the importance of finding a cure for this terrible thing, but as you noted, the majority of people afflicted with AIDS have contracted the HIV virus through needles(usually illegal drugs) and sexual intercourse. Just because god doesn't exist doesn't mean that keeping sexual contact with one healthy partner and avoiding dangerous practices is
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's called abstinence.
But it only works properly if you wear a special magic ring [guardian.co.uk].
Always check the article source... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Google News isn't showing anything else on this (aside from this very
2. The claims it is making about the vaccine are astounding and are, unless you have a paid subscription to the single medical journal article referenced, unverifiable. Neither are there any quotes attributed to anyone.
3. The site in question is not even a hard news site; it appears to however be chock full of dressed up press releases by non-profits.
As promising as this "article" may read, there's no evidence that we should take these claims seriously.
Yes, please tell them to wake me... (Score:2)
We've seen these kinds of claims before (in HIV research, cold fusion, and many other areas).
Here the only source is "a group of Russian researchers." How about some peer review before we get all excited?
Re:Yes, please tell them to wake me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
On the topic of pharmico's covering up a vaccine I don't find that likely. Vaccines are for people who aren't sick yet after all. An HIV vaccine would likely become a medical requirement for every 1st world country on the planet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://pastebin.com/f406eb7f9 [pastebin.com]
Re:Always check the article source... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, apart from the fact that I study economics and business and therefore cannot a) know about the journal's reputation and b) the authors' reputation, the article does exist and ends with a rather optimistic conclusion.
I don't have the time to even do some basic research on the authors' scientific merits (or at least check a citation database), but if YOU feel like doing that, I will glad
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Not only" is wrong way round (Score:4, Insightful)
An HIV vaccine would, depending on price and risks, most likely be distributed to those who do not yet have the disease but may be at high risk. Since some of the highest risk patients (people who engage in unprotected sex and IV drug users) are less likely to go tell their doc they need it, let's hope it gets cheap and safe enough to make it a mandatory childhood shot!
Re:"Not only" is wrong way round (Score:4, Interesting)
Resistance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the analogy is similar to locking the door instead of leaving it unlocked and open. If the virus cant spread anywhere then it's going to die.
Not quite (Score:2)
Shweet (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shweet (Score:5, Funny)
It just reduces your chances of exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
But THAT'S funny!
Please mod as such
Re: (Score:2)
About Pharmaceutical Industry (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact WTO tries to impose protections for the pharmaceuticals in "third world" countries. Any time US negotiate a new commerce treaty with any "third world" they impose those conditions.
But has been some changes, in Africa
Not the first... (Score:5, Informative)
That same article mentions that there is a great degree of diversity in HIV, meaning one HIV vaccine won't protect against all strains.
Pessimistic about this... (Score:5, Informative)
While VLPs (virus-like particles) are certainly a promising vaccine technology (the cervical cancer vaccine that's been in the news recently is VLP-based), I really am pessimistic that it is the solution to the substantial problems that any working HIV vaccine would have to overcome. At this point, I don't think anything will work short of somehow granting a patient's immune system innate resistance to HIV through some kind of gene therapy approach (there actually are people working on this sort of approach, but gene therapy as a whole has a long way to go).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The temporal continum has burped (Score:5, Informative)
Mumble mumble making a vaccine for a polymorphic virus mumble - wish I hadn't bought that company's stock...
Terminology (Score:2, Funny)
The day they come out with a cure for AIDS. (Score:4, Funny)
IF IF IF it were truly an artificial virus (Score:2)
Talk about an effective delivery system. HIV would be wiped out quicker than it got started (pretty dang quick)!
But then I guess it would be hard to make money off of it. It really stinks how our society is driven by greed. Maybe I would change my mind on this if I was Oprah rich. Everyone PayPal me $5 towards making this happen :
Destroys the most useful HIV test? (Score:2, Informative)
This has been one of the controversies with tuberculosis for quite awhile (where antibody-based tests are also the most efficient), where being vaccinated with a partially effective vaccine you essentially destroy the ability to easily see if you are infected or not (I believe more sensitive tests,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ask the drug companies if theyd prefer 100k a year for 20 years or a one off fee that they couldnt justify as being anywhere near that much.
Uh.. of course they could justify it. A cure is worth a lot more than a temporary treatment.
What you're ignoring is competition. There's more than one drug company out there, and they want to steal each other's profits. If Pharmex is selling the $100k/yr non-cure, PillCo will want a share of that market, and the way to get it is to sell something better. If PillCo sells the cure for a one-time price of $500k, that's still $500k they weren't getting before - it's in their interest to sell it. Financially, t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Countries will declare it a National [Something] and mandate compulsory licensing.
Then they'll have their own native factories churn out a generic at dirt cheap prices while paying the patent holder a fraction of the original asking price.
This is 100% legal under international laws/treaties.
Clinton was the one who signed TRIPS into law.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/tripfq _e.htm#CompulsoryLicensing [wto.org]
Bra
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for an "ulterior motive", there may be some tax advantages to it, and at the very least, it's not much of a cost. R&D and advertising are a good part of the cost of a pill; there's no profit in selling to those who can't afford it. Many drugs have a very low cost per-pill to produce, and by not passing on the advertising/R&D costs, the free medication won't make much of a difference
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many major pharma companies offer steep discounts to those without the means to pay. Some offer completely free access to drugs (even brand new ones).
Does that in itself fix the drug-access problem in the US - certainly not. But it isn't a bad gesture until the problem is actua
Re: (Score:2)
...can get the SAME EXACT course of treatment made in China for about $800.
Dude! Are you seriously going to make such a comment with current headlines about food/drug safety in China right now?
disclaimer: I am Chinese.
P.S. However, *I* don't harvest organs from executed convicts, oppress Tibetans, hate human rights, support/oppose the current regime in Beijing, know anything about Falungong, or practice esoteric kung-fu in my spare time. (Did I miss anything?)
Re:hmm... (Score:4, Informative)
How about we begin by naming a effective vaccine that was killed by the drug companies? How about in reporting on an AIDS we link to something more persuasive than a blog? National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Ongoing HIV vaccine trials [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Some of these companies are run by what appear to be utter bastards but they still actually want to improve the world to an extent - otherwise they would be in advertising, real estate or something else with big returns for little effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Prison populations might also work, however.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't ethically ask those people to try to get infected after receiving
Re:He who gets AIDS deserves to get AIDS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pro: The classic argument for survival of the fittest religion is Circumcision for the early Hebrews. Other area religions sacrificed their first born sons to the various Bels (Baals in the OT spelling) and Tiamat types. The Jews made it a symbolic sacrifice, their populations grew faster, and they won a series of wars by it, or so the argument goes.
Con: A sexually transmitted disease is a half-assed infectious disease that can't spread by a
Re:He who gets AIDS deserves to get AIDS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, indeed, to someone who got AIDS from having some fun and sleeping around. WTF is wrong with that?
nothing wrong with sleeping around... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're one of those people who 'sleep around', do so cleanly, do so safely, keep track of who you sleep with, get tested regularly; and if you do get tested positive for any STD, tell those who you slept with since the previous test (+ some time, due to incubation times) to get tested as well, as it is likely that 1. you got it from one of them* and 2. you gave it to some of them.
If you can't bring yourself to act responsibly, then I'm sorry - I can't bring up much sympathy for you when you do get an STD.
* assuming you didn't get the STD through blood contact/kissing**
** yes, the virus involved with a cold sore ( herpes labialis / HSV-1 ) will happily live in those other mucous warm areas, albeit extremely rare for it to travel southward. Similarly, genital herpes ( herpes genitalis / HSV-2 ) will happily nestle in the mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:nothing wrong with sleeping around... (Score:4, Interesting)
So we have the actual harm of discouraging condoms in regions where that kind of activity would be tantamount to murder. And we have the homegrown people who love to preach the evils of sex and homosexuality (see above in this thread). If this worked, it would piss off the latter group, and prevent the harm of the former group.
My aunt spend a good number of her years at an orphanage she founded in Africa taking in AIDS babies. My hope for a cure has nothing to do with pissing women like her off, it's these sort of AIDS is God's Gift People, who really will be crying bloody murder that I want to see the faces of. I want to laugh as their favorite disease is ripped out from under them by science. The very first post on this thread is this sort of sanctimonious bullshit I want crushed.
Saving the lives of millions of people is a good bonus, but I really want to see these disease lovers get punched in the face. The same sort of thing happened when antibiotics starting curing other STDs, they got all pissy because they needed that disease for their God punishments.
Re:He who gets AIDS deserves to get AIDS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He who gets AIDS deserves to get AIDS... (Score:4, Informative)
Just a question, what do you think AIDS means? AIDS is not plural of AID, and thus calling it AIDs is wrong. AIDS expands to Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome, so either capitalize every letter or capitalize nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Doklady Biochemistry and Biophysics is in English (Score:2)
Are you joking? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- more tissue trauma in receptive anal sex
- more promiscuity in gay community in general
HIV has recently become more transmissible during vaginal intercourse too (possibly through its fairly rapid evolution) though so it may catch up, but until the straight community becomes as promiscuous as the gay one, the transmission rate will remain lower.
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer is an astrological sign, right? That makes it good. Liver is yucky anyway, even with onions.
Re:Woohoo! (Score:4, Informative)
That is false. I think that you mean that the first cases detected were with gay's. The first cases were shown to come from Africa and traveled around via hetro sexuals. It was seen first in the gays, because of the liberal attitudes in bath houses of the 70's and our attitudes of gays back then (most were married).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Never ceases to amaze me.. (Score:4, Insightful)