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."
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.
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hmm... (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 on the bottom line. Accordingly, it makes sense from an ethical standpoint to provide those for free, especially if it's possible to get tax deductions for doing so. If not, there are intangible benefits to be had as well.
Of course, from a macro standpoint, _everyone_ does things for their own gain (including "pure" charity) - sometimes the reward is simply knowing that the world is more as you would like it (i.e. a better place). I'd also say that "you can't put a price on goodwill", but in accounting, they most certainly can.
Re:But what if youv got the AIDS? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 some drugs can be declared a "priority" for the Health System so the Lab HAS to give the patent to the gobernement so he can produce a low price drug to be distributed.
Another Thing is that de PI dont make trials in US, they do it on other countries and when the drug is safe to be sold, they come to the FDA in the US and the ask for permision. Of course those "other countries" are South America or Africa and of course not always the drugs are safe to be sold but the PI can pay very well to the FDA guys.
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:But what if youv got the AIDS? (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 have a ot more complications and will need to be treated differently from someone who caught HIV last week and is immunologically the same as someone who is not infected.
AIDS was a recognised illness prior to the discovery of the causative organism.
Your statement is like saying someone who is in the incubation period of any infectious illness does not have a link with someone who has developed the illness, purely on the grounds that one has not yet had time to develop symptoms.
Then again, you are clearly either a troll or a denier so you probably won't care what anyone says to disprove you. Why don't you go and share some needles if you are so confident?
Re:"Not only" is wrong way round (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But what if youv got the AIDS? (Score:3, Interesting)
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, it was more that people weren't paying much notice. It was only several years later when an independent researcher confirmed his findings that people finally realized he was right.
I think this is a far more common problem in science than actual conspiracies to cover things up. When a large number of people subscribe to a certain view those ideas have a kind of momentum that isn't easily changed. The thing I like about Marshall's story is that it shows that the scientific method can (eventually) work to win over sceptics. That's just not always going to happen unfortunately.
Re:nothing wrong with sleeping around... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:He who gets AIDS deserves to get AIDS... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pessimistic about this... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But what if youv got the AIDS? (Score:4, Interesting)
A cure would save the insurance companies lots of money.
Re:he's kind of correct (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 the HIV carriers were the true part of the AIDS disease, and the other cases were other diseases with similar symptoms. People who then were found to have HIV couldn't be said to have AIDS because they had a healthy immune system (for a while, anyway). AIDS sufferers also need to be treated differently for other diseases as well, and unlike other immune deficiency sufferers, may be helped by drugs that suppress HIV.
While it is certainly important to develop drugs that help boost the immune system, these are not cures, and can not save AIDS victims from death, or stop the spread. A cure for aids, or a vaccine, will have a much larger impact on global health. It's kind of you to try to keep in mind those suffering from less common ailments, but treatments for them will not stop this [wikipedia.org]. And no, they're not magically better, they're suffering from a different disease that will require a different treatment.
Cheers!
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.