HIV Vaccine 848
The Sexecutioner writes "WebMD is reporting on a new vaccine which has had an incredible effect in clinical trials. The vaccine, composed of human dendrites holding dead HIV viruses, has dropped test patients' viral load by up to 90% in one year. Could this be it?"
hold on there (Score:1, Interesting)
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be nice though.
Cost (Score:2, Interesting)
If it is, my only apprehension is that countries who need it most will not be able to afford it.
What's a dead virus? (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope so.. (Score:1, Interesting)
What I do fear though, is if we have a 'cure' then the fear of catching a deadly STD starts to fade away, even though there are other serious STD's out there still.
I remember being very afraid after waking up the next day.. then on I've been very careful and have been tested.. Simply don't want to trash more lives then my own if I did do something stupid.
Re:FDA approval? (Score:3, Interesting)
and to add to that look how the government was trying to stop people from getting their drugs from canada.. and yet when the flu vaccine had a shortage here who did they get more vaccine from? oh yes. canada.. who's drugs you can't trust...
On a related matter. (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently Brazil is ready to go ahead and break the patent of several drug companies because they can't afford to pay for them.
New drugs are great but only if you can afford to take them.
Re:Mixed feeling (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mixed feeling (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the biggest reason drugs are cheaper in Canada is because per capita income is about 20-30% lower in Canada than in the US and there are drug trade barriers between the two markets. If there were no barriers, then the prices would equalize across markets since one could buy a drug in Canada and sell it in the US. But with barriers, drug companies can easily set different prices in different markets, charging their richer customers (US) more than the poorer ones (Canada.) This is a classic monopolist tactic known as differential pricing. Ultimately it is the lower income caused by socialism in Canada and free trade barriers between the countries that cause such a large price disparity.
But you have raw materials inside you already! (Score:4, Interesting)
The bottom line is that now that the positive effect is demonstrated, the next step is to find out the cost-effective way to combine cells and dead viruses, preferrably in-viro. Let's hope that someone will manage to do it!
Paul B.
Re:I Hope not. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mixed feeling (Score:3, Interesting)
The cost is not directly subsidised by any tax dollars, sorry. No, just because we have socialized health care does not mean drugs do not have a price, it's just that most of that price is paid by the government for us. The drugs are still cheaper. There are several reasons why, and I've seen some of them discussed in this thread already.
But government subsidy simply is not one of the reasons.
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already (Score:3, Interesting)
Nowhere else in the world except Africa do you have a significant chance of contracting AIDS through heterosexual sex. Figure out why this is, and you'll win a Nobel.
Re:Mixed feeling (Score:3, Interesting)
During the times in my life when I've had benefits (now is one of them, thank god), i've been amazed at the huge difference in cost for drugs. I can understand that doctors cost money, and without benefits, I'll pay them upwards of $100 a visit. I think it's bonkers that with insurance, I pay ~$15 a prescription, and without, I can pay $200+.
Somewhere, Somehow, I believe there is a legal/market structure that causes non-insured people to subsidize insured drug purchases, and I find that abhorrent.
It's fine that my benefit payments go towards reducing my drug costs. It's not fine that the average non-insured sap out there is making my drugs cheaper. That needs to be fixed (even if it makes my drugs more expensive).
Non-insured people might have to pay more than insured people. This should have to do with the insurance covering my payements, not with some fancy-shmancy rebate structure where a portion of the pre-insurance costs of my drugs get refunded to big pharma.
Mind you, this doesn't mean that I'll turn down my health insurance. I'm not sure if that make me a hypocrit, but I'm simply not willing to be sick, and I couldn't afford treatement (when I need it) otherwise.
BTW: I agree, Canadian drugs are perfectly safe. Also, I'm not sure we need a socialist health system in the U.S., but us Americans do need to take a good, hard look at the laws/regulations that allow the insurers/big pharma to operate the way that they do.
If we decide that the regulatory system is simply unsalvigable, then maybe we need national healthcare. But so far, no one has even been willing to address all the red-tape, all of the monopolies and other crap that we assign to big pharma. Here we are, talking about universal health care (in national politics, I don't mean
I think that could make a serious difference. Add some tort reform, and the whole health care industry changes.
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:FDA approval? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the case of vioxx, the treatment was designed for anti-inflammatory pain relief in arthritis, by inhibiting an enzyme COX2. It is about as effective as another drug many of us have taken ibuprofen (Advil) for this purpose but instead of being 3-5 bucks for a bottle of 50 to 100 pills, it was sold at ~$2 a pill (it is also how aspirin works to relieve pain as, thus the running joke that the pharmaceutical companies had invented the $2 apirin).
So what was so much better about vioxx that it was developed, FDA approved and prescribed by doctors.
Well it doesn't inhibit another enzyme COX1, like aspirin and ibuprofen do. Inhibiting Cox1 has several effects, the two most important are: the negative effect, gastrointestinal problems like stomach bleeding and ulcers; but it also has a positive effect which is prevention of blood platelet aggregation which prevents blood clots, heart attacks and strokes. This is why aspirin is taken to prevent heart attack, if you take aspirin to prevent heart disease and a specific COX2 inhibitor for arthritis like vioxx together you are really losing the benefit vioxx had over ibuprofen.
Anyway not everyone has a sensitivity to asprin and Ibuprofen, there are estimate that only 8% of those prescribed Vioxx actually got a benefit over cheaper alternatives, but vioxx had a great ad campaign that convinced everybody that they should "ask" (read demand) their doctor to prescribe it, even though it is vastly more expensive. Also the FDA approval could be pushed through because of the "benefit" to those 8% of patients that had gastrointestinal sensitivity to aspirin and ibuprofen.
So what have they found out now- well just inhibiting COX2 by itself actually causes increased blood platelet aggregation and increased risk of heart disease and stroke, this effect is balanced out by the inhibition of COX1 in aspirin and ibuprofen etc. that prevents platelet aggregation.
Now the real issue, Vioxx was pushed out to compete with very cheap, safe and well charactised drugs (so we know all the side effects etc., why do you think you can buy them at the supermarket) due to a very long history of use. Patent it and get it approved for use by the FDA targeting it to one small specific group that have a problem with current treatments to help push the approval through. Once it is approved marketing it to a much wider group of people that are not the specific target group, and will not gain any benefit over a cheaper, better characterised and now known to be safer alternative. To compound the problem the TV advertising of prescription drugs now almost approaching saturation increases this problem by getting the public to demand drugs they don't need.
Re:Hmm, bad news title? (Score:3, Interesting)
The study only lasted one year. That's not enough time to really say whether it will prevent AIDS symptoms. They could, in theory, get sick next year, or next week.
reduces the risk of infection
No it doesn't, since the vaccine must be manufactured from a victim's own blood, and HIV virus from their own blood. The way I'm reading the article, it seems the vaccine is made on a person-by-person basis and can't be used on people who aren't already infected.
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, read the news articles that are coming out today. The spread of AIDS in the heterosexual population is not just an African thing. It may be more advanced in Africa, but it's coming to the rest of the world.
Re:Wait, a vaccine? (Score:2, Interesting)
As many people in Africa aren't very educated and many are very religious, the priests become the most reliable source of information. That is, the church says that you can get get HIV by using condoms, therefore we will not use condoms. The catholic church also promotes monogamy and no-sex-befor-marriage, but that message seems to get lost somewhere... The church's opinion on condoms is backed all the way to the top in the Vatican, and even though their claims of virus slipping through condoms, they continue to spread that message.
In my opinion, the catholic church has a very big part in the HIV/AIDS catastrophe happening before our eyes on the African continent, and I'm actually inclined to consider everyone who spreads misleading facts about prevention as accomplicits to murder.
So when everybody talks about the lack of education on these issues, please don't forget that some africans also get educated wrongly.
Just my 25c
Re:Mixed feeling (Score:4, Interesting)
But you're right about the odds. The only organizations that invest more in actuaries and statistical monitoring of their clientele than casinos are the insurance companies. Incredible, really. And, I guess, successful: the amount of money these companies rake in is truly phenomenal, and as health care delivery gets poorer and poorer they take in more and more.
Some years ago my girlfriend's father had to go in to the hospital for an MRI. No big deal, in and of itself, but after he was released and his wife was reviewing the hospital bills, she noticed that the insurance company was being billed for not one, but TWO MRI's, at the same time on the same day! Sure, it wasn't their money, exactly, but it did count against their liftime cap. And besides
My own father, some years ago, was in the hospital after a minor heart attack. He was only there for two days, and had some minor tests done (EKG, etc.) and a couple of X-rays and the rest was just for observation. The resulting bill was over thirty - thousand - dollars. The list of charges was almost an inch thick! Well, we decided to fight that one, and camped out in the outer office of the hospital's accounting department. After several hours going up the chain of command, we got to speak with a very, very nice woman who was the chief accountant. We explained that were disputing, well, pretty much almost all of the charges. She said, well, let's see what we can do. She went down the list, item by item, and asked "Did you see this doctor?" "No." "Did you have this test?" "No." It was MIND BOGGLING how many people and companies got some juice money stuck on his bill. By the time we were done it was less than five grand. An afternoon well spent, I'd say. But you can see why I have very little patience with the entire industry.
Re:Forget about it (Score:1, Interesting)
There was a small study of 5 HIV patients done in the early 90's and published in JAMA I believe. Study showed significant drop in viral load but not complete clearing which seems similar to this vacine report. There are currently some independent studies either in progress or in discussion to continue some of this work.
This therapy is believed to down regulate the immune response among other things which would seem at odds with any benefit we might expect given our prevailing understanding of HIV.
The interesting thing is that this therapy takes about 3 hours begining to end and is already available in many university hospitals. It is a newish therapy and just now begining to get a hard look as the mechanism of action is finally being better understood.
This therapy is a kind of individual cellular therapy where the patient's blood is treated directly without ever taking cells to a laboratory. It is all online while the patient is connected to the instrument. The safety profile is good and the side effects mild.
It will be interesting if the vaccine and photopheresis work in similar fashion. Perhaps someone will do a comparison and start some interesting thinking.
Re:Education is definitely not stressed enough. (Score:3, Interesting)
"The problem is getting the third world (where the epidemic is most serious) to accept western medicine."
I won't argue your central point, that people from under-developed nations often don't trust western medicine. You have to remember, though, that this judgement is largely based on experience. Hospitals in many parts of the world are where you go to die.
Health care is so thin on the ground in most nations that hospitals simply cannot afford provide the kind of care that North Americans take for granted. Staff are under-trained and over-worked, materials are antiquated or absent, and as a result, treatment is often poor.
This is of personal interest to me, as I'm currently working in a developing nation. I've seen the son of a close friend crippled because of a little scratch that got infected; I've seen the child of a friend of mine die because a boil in his nose went septic. I've been to the hospital myself, and I can testify that it this was my only experience with western medicine, I wouldn't have any faith in it either.
A vaccine that can be easily administered in the field would have a huge effect in mitigating the damage being done by HIV/AIDS. It is not, however, a solution. Public education and lifestyle changes are also essential. Long-term, they're more important because prevention doesn't cost nearly as much as treatment. The nations most afflicted by HIV/AIDS are those who can least afford to fight it.
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already (Score:3, Interesting)
That is completely false.
and another cause is less sanitary conditions and more disease (open sores and such)
"open sores"? You must be joking.
Nowhere else in the world except Africa do you have a significant chance of contracting AIDS through heterosexual sex.
You really seem to have this fixed idea that homosexual sex is somehow inherently different and that transmission through "normal" sex is nearly impossible. I am wondering where you got this idea. It is completely false and dangerous. I also can't help wondering whether you are over the age of 12.
The only difference with Central African HIV is that it is so common. It has reached truly epidemic map-clearing proportions. Ignorance and superstition definitely seem to play a part in this (ie. the virgin cure, lack of condom use, distrust in the "germ theory" as the cause of AIDS).
The bottom line is HIV is easily transmittable through heterosexual sex. The fact that it is even more easily transmittable through sodomy is actually not all that important. Either way, if you are having sex with an HIV infected partner your chances of acquiring it from even a single encounter are quite high.
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mixed feeling (Score:2, Interesting)
Scientific experiment? (Score:2, Interesting)
There should be groups who are infected with HIV who get the treatment,
groups who are infected with HIV who don't get the treatment,
groups who are not infected with HIV who get the treatment,
groups who are not infected with HIV who don't get the treatment,
groups who are infected with HIV who think they get the treatment but actually don't (placebo),
and groups who aren't infected with HIV who think they get the treatment but actually don't.
I'm sure I'm missing a few more groups, but the point remains that this is hardly conclusive, or even an acceptable test.
Re:"Could this be it?" NO. (Score:3, Interesting)
Which, of course, is not to deny that AIDS is daunting.
One rather interesting point raised by a recent book I read, I forget if it was The Tipping Point [gladwell.com] or Linked [human-nature.com], was that we probably had the virus with us in benign forms even in the 50's. The difference was that the HIV possibly underwent a mutation somewhere in the mid-70's / early-80's to become the virulent organism that it is today.Re:Welcome to capitalism (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:you forgot patents! (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly the same in the UK. The NHS negotiates (note *negotiates* - the drug companies are not forced by law to participate) massive discounts this way based on a modest but reasonable profit for the drug companies. This saves us *billions* as a country. The drug companies charge whatever 'local conditions' allow and the US system allows them to charge just about what they like.
Question: Would it be illegal (competition law etc.) in some way for all US health insurance companies to get together and negotitate bulk discounts in a similar way? If not, why don't they do this?
cat FIV vaccine invented in one year (Score:3, Interesting)