Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Canada Medicine Science

HIV Vaccine Approval For Human Trials 365

An anonymous reader writes with news that researchers from the University of Western Ontario have been given approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to begin testing an HIV vaccine in humans. From the article: "The vaccine is the first based on a genetically modified killed whole virus, [researchers said.] ... a clinical trial on 40 HIV-positive volunteers will begin next month. That phase will last a year, after which 600 HIV-negative volunteers will see how the vaccine impacts their immune systems. A final phase, which will take about three years, will involve about 6,000 HIV-negative volunteers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HIV Vaccine Approval For Human Trials

Comments Filter:
  • by burning-toast ( 925667 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:23PM (#38441126)

    I hope this vaccine is as effective as the smallpox and polio vaccines have been. The world would do well to be rid of this particularly crafty and deadly virus. It is also a whole lot easier to introduce vaccination programs into third world countries (which counts as medicinal treatment) which would otherwise have severe religious problems with contraceptives like condoms (which counts as interfering with "God's work").

    - Toast

  • A brighter future? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by willaien ( 2494962 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:29PM (#38441226)

    Good to hear that this is going forward. Hopefully, this will lead to a brighter future for Africa.

    I worry about the health of the participants, but, HIV isn't a death sentence anymore. I would volunteer for the trial, assuming that, in the worst case, they cover my medical expenses and anti-retrovirals to control it.

    It would be worth it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:29PM (#38441238)

    Don't worry, once HIV goes the was of Smallpox and Polio, there will be an even more deadly infectious disease to fill the void. People keep forgetting that mother nature isn't just sitting on her ass while our scientists are working hard coming up with vaccines. SARS and Swine Flu where probably some of her clinical trials for her new disease. =P

  • Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iceaxe ( 18903 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:34PM (#38441280) Journal

    Why does a Canadian University need approval from the U.S. FDA?

  • Re:Numbers game. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fned ( 43219 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:35PM (#38441292) Journal

    Could more people be saved overall by considering testing volunteers semi-expendable in order to hasten medical advance?

    Ask the volunteers.

  • Re:Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gman003 ( 1693318 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:44PM (#38441428)

    I assume it's because they want to run the trials in the United States. I imagine there's practical reasons for that - the US is a pretty significant pharma market, and anything denied there is quite likely to be blocked in other countries, whereas Canada is a smaller country (11% the size of the US by population) that's not as critical for a pharmaceutical company to sell in.

  • Re:FP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:47PM (#38441464)

    Near as I can tell, those perpetuating the sex with monkeys jokes are racists wanting to malign Africans with beastiality claims.

    Or they're just making dumb jokes and you have chosen to project wholly invented motivations onto people you know nothing about. One of the two.

  • by geekoid ( 135745 ) <`dadinportland' `at' `'> on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:49PM (#38441504) Homepage Journal

    delivers the goods.

    Seeing aids go from you are going to die, to testing a vaccine in 25 years is freaknig awesome.

  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @06:49PM (#38441506) Journal
    The test with HIV+ people is to check for side effects. They won't get any benefit from it, but they will experience all of the side effects that come with it (hopefully none, but the point of testing is to try to turn 'hopefully' into 'definitely'). The next round of testing (with the HIV- people) is to see if it actually works. These people are likely to be selected from demographics deemed to have a high risk of HIV infection, and if none of them become infected then it worked. If some of them, but a lower population than would be expected, become HIV+ then the vaccine is partially successful and may be used anyway if it has no side effects: reducing the probability of infection by 50% goes a long way towards eliminating the disease, because now there's a much higher chance that no one who is not immune will come into contact with a carrier.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:02PM (#38441702)
    Amputation reduces the spread of STDs even more. That doesn't mean we should encourage it.
  • Re:Numbers game. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:02PM (#38441706)
    "The ends never justify the means" is just a cliche excuse people use to escape having to make the hard decisions.
  • Re:Numbers game. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by idontgno ( 624372 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:14PM (#38441882) Journal
    "Making the hard decisions" is just a cliche excuse people use to justify doing the unthinkable.
  • Re:Just curious? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LanMan04 ( 790429 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:37PM (#38442182)

    Imagine if 15 years later we discover every adult who receives the vaccine is fine. But every child has become sterile. Sucks to be the human race.

    Imagine if 15 years later we discover every adult who receives the vaccine is fine. But every child has gained super-human intelligence. Awesome to be the human race.

    I can play the "let's make shit up" game, too!

  • Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ericartman ( 955413 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:46PM (#38442266)

    IMO it pays the lawyers, who put everything but curing you as a bad side effect. "Hey we warned ya it would fall off, see, turn the page over."

  • Re:FP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jhoegl ( 638955 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:48PM (#38442286)
    You presume too much about me with your statements.
    I know about the trials and tribulations of the communities when HIV was found out and pointed out as being "god's punishment" by those whom are uncaring and hateful.
    But such hate and ignorance doesnt mean I cant joke about the hate or ignorance.
    If anything, it points out our history... much like blackface, hooded cloaks, and hitler of which you see many jokes making fun of these topics.
  • by Zemran ( 3101 ) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @11:55PM (#38444220) Homepage Journal

    If you are offered a drug that has a 90% chance of saving your life and a 1% chance of giving you a life threatening side affect, would you take it? I do think that with these things we should be given the choice. If I am in a strong loving relationship, would I want to take the 1% risk with an AIDS vaccine? My choice, do I really trust my partner? If I am playing around, would I want to risk not taking the vaccine...

    All drugs have a risk as does all surgery. If you get taken into hospital next month for a life saving operation, there is a very small chance that the surgery will kill you. If the chance that not having the surgery will kill you is greater then you have the surgery.

    The MMR vaccine has risks associated with it but the benefits far outweigh those risks and in my opinion those parents who do not vaccinate their children are not responsible parents.

When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing," it's the money. -- Kim Hubbard