HIV Vaccine Safe Enough To Pass Phase 1 Human Trials 141
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from Western University in Canada:
"The first human applied clinical study (SAV CT 01) using a genetically modified killed whole-virus vaccine (SAV001-H) to evaluate its safety and tolerability was initiated in March 2012. This study is a randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled study of killed whole HIV-1 vaccine (SAV001-H) following intramuscular (IM) administration. Infected men and women, 18-50 years of age, have been enrolled in this study and randomized into two treatment groups to administer killed whole HIV-1 vaccine (SAV001-H) or placebo. Sumagen announced today the patient enrollment has progressed smoothly and there have been no adverse effects observed including local reactions, signs/symptoms and laboratory toxicities after SAV001-H injection in all enrolled patients to date. With these interim results, the SAV001-H has proven safety and tolerability in humans and given Sumagen confidence for the next clinical trials to prove its immunogenicity and efficacy evaluation."
What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Along with the anti-vaccine nutters?
Clearly using real HIV viruses must be very risky and dangerous
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I dunno, I'm starting to think vaccines really do make people retarded.
Higher population and better reporting technique makes autism and other disease more visible. If anything our diets are solely responsible for it.
Re: (Score:2)
as troll and lacking in taste/etiquette as this comment is...i did laugh...
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I'd rather mess with my body as little as possible when it comes to stuff like this. Vaccines aren't always a sure fire bet, and something like AIDS warrants extra circumspection. I'll wait for version 1.5 or 2.0, or 3.0, thanks.
See, this is why they're doing phase I trials on people who are already infected with HIV. You know, like it says in the summary?
This also mitigates the risk of unwanted kids as well as the unjust pressure feminist law has foisted on society in the context of relationships.
What the fuck are you talking about, and what the fuck does it have to do with the article? You know what? Never mind, I don't want to know.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I shouldn't (and for all I know the US child support system is totally screwed) but dude, those are his kids, kids cost money and effort to raise, and he needs to provide 50% of both. If he loses his job, then surely these things get re-assessed (I know they do in my country). His kids welfare matters, not his, and if they've been raised by their mother so far, then obviously a judge is going to have her continue to provide that care.
Sorry, but men's choice point over kids is at choosing to have sex,
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Sorry, but no. If a woman becomes pregnant and wants to keeps the child while the man wants an abortion then that child should be the sole responsibility of the woman. She chose to have sex too, she chose not to use any kind of birth control too and ultimately she decided that she wanted to keep the child.
No more of this inequality. This bullshit were a woman can basically trap a man for his money or his life by forcing him to have her child with her.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Those are some pretty hilarious excuses for why you can't get laid. I know it's hard for virgins to understand, but seriously, AIDs is worth it.
Depends on how desperate you are.
If you are not desperate you have options. You can afford to be with low risk people.
If you will fuck anything that moves and says yes - well you are engaging in risky behavior. And what, are you going to say you didn't know that? That slut you're banging that you met in a bar 3 hours ago well just how well do you know her anyway? You trust her to be honest and forthright? Why? Her or him if thats your thing I'm not here to judge but you get the point.
Funny th
the low-risk choice (Score:5, Funny)
If you will fuck anything that moves and says yes - well you are engaging in risky behavior.
Definitely. The low-risk choice is to find something that says no, then make it stop moving.
Re: (Score:1)
Any real God hates nothing, obviously. Those people are douchebags. But it does make them feel justified in their little tiny minds.
I dunno.. If you read mythology, any real god hates EVERYTHING. ... But I agree; those "God hates fags" guys are douchebags.
Re: (Score:2)
seriously, AIDs is worth it.
What the hell? Just how desperate are you? Sex is nice and all, but personally I find it more of a nice bonus when in a serious relationship, rather than something that's worth getting a life ruining disease over just for a bit of fun with some skank.
Re: (Score:1)
This also mitigates the risk of unwanted kids as well as the unjust pressure feminist law has foisted on society in the context of relationships.
"Waaaaaaaah I don't get to be a deadbeat dad!! Woe is me!!".
Yeah like anyone believes you'll ever gave the chance to father a child.
You dont go out much huh?
Every 350 pound fatass lardass blubbery fat white chick in America has at least one half black kid.
Im just sayin man. Some people will fuck anything. A quick fuck is just a sacrificed dignity away. Enough time passes without something desirable coming along and most ppl will cave.
Re: (Score:1)
Now I have to Google who it is.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Jenny+McCarthy&l=1 [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It all depends on how much you dilute it.
Re: (Score:1)
Along with the anti-vaccine nutters?
Clearly using real HIV viruses must be very risky and dangerous
You go first. If you're still healthy in 20 years, maybe I'll try it.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Along with the anti-vaccine nutters?
Clearly using real HIV viruses must be very risky and dangerous
Is that your informed opinion or just baseless fear and nonsense? What makes it dangerous? ..and what makes you think you're smarter than the genetic engineers who are developing it? the Internet just sucks sometimes because stupidity spreads just as fast as logic.
Wow, since AC knows that its safe, I wonder why they are even bothering doing safety trials on already infected people. Why not just jump directly to mass inoculations?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It is dangerous. Very dangerous. (Score:4, Funny)
You mean that stuff cures HIV and on top of it I get a fashion sense and a higher mean income? Sign me up!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A small price to pay. I mean, what's the problem? At least he won't get pregnant, and I can keep my high mean income!
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean (Score:4, Funny)
That I can tell women that I have the AIDS vaccine at the bar, and can give it to them through intra-muscular administration.
Re: (Score:1)
It still means Africa is going to be the last place to get the vaccine
Re:Does that mean (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not the problem. Believe it or not, the problem is getting them to use it. My father has worked in Africa for more than 20 years now and there is a massive amount of distrust for this sort of thing among the native populations. Many average people even think this type of thing is a CIA plot to kill them off. With the things people have done to them over the centuries, I'm not terribly surprised, but there has been a lot of effort over the last few generations to fix that, and yet it still remains. It won't be easy to overcome.
Re: (Score:1)
We bring them crap such as war, drugs, weapons and Christianity, and they embrace it. We instead bring them the cure for HIV, and they reject it. WTF.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
strictly speaking, their wars had simpler motivations, their drugs where natural and for ceremonial use, their weapons far less advanced, and they certainly didn't have something as retarded as christianity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. But we keep spending money on this waste of space.
We have to stop spending money on all the world's problems.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Spending money would be one thing. We're spending debt, money we don't have.
It's the same as charging to your credit card a thanksgiving meal to a homeless person, so that you can go home and eat a can of beans.
I'm all for charity, but you have to take care of yourself first (take care of, not live in luxury.) The country needs to get out of debt before we continue all this foreign aid.
Re: (Score:2)
Your sarcasm detector seems to be broken.
Anyway, nobody asked anything from the US. Actually, you've caused most of this century's international conflicts, so please stay home.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Empathy is overrated...
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, like this: http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1921#comic [smbc-comics.com]?
So... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
A very small percentage of the population makes them. One option for a vaccine is to try and hack that immunity into the rest of us.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
As I understand it, humans will always produce antibodies to fight infections like HIV. Unfortunatly, the antibodies that humans normally produce in the attempt to neutralize and HIV infection don't appear to be very good at it. [caltech.edu] The short story is that somehow HIV evolved to avoid having many fewer binding locations so the most effective "Y" shaped antibodies cannot effectively attach bivalently (in two places). This bivalent attach is apparently the most common strategies used by our immune system.
Apparently some people can make more potent antibodies called bNAbs, but often HIV mutates to avoid these as well, but sometimes there are successes.
I'm unclear on why this new Canadian/Korean HIV vaccine would be any better at bootstrapping the immune system than the most recent failed attempts. The only novel part that I can tell about this, is that they are using "whole" (but genetically modified) HIV instead of putting HIV protein genes codings into more common viruses, but if HIV is as crafty as it seems to be, this may only be a simple shot-in-the-dark hope that somehow bootstrapping the immune system will allow the body to come up with a way to fight off HIV before it gets a chance to overwhelm the immune system. Color me skeptical as that was what the other vaccines attempted to do, but it's not clear that this will be a successful route.
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, look at it this way:
Worst case scenario, nothing happens. Good-case scenario, it cures aids. Best-case scenario, HIV mutates into something radically worst and gives us the zombie apocalypse we've been waiting for.
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
At least it would be very easy to identify safe sex partners. If it moans and feels like a corpse... uh...
Damn, my last girlfriend... I think I should get checked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to the very small percentage of people who are immune to HIV, and trying to figure out what causes that, and how to get it into the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3)
A very interesting question. /. summary) that this vaccin is claimed to cure HIV.
Especially (from the
Vaccins usually empore your imune system to protect against starting infections. However they don't cure an infection that already has broken out.
Re:subjects were already infected (Score:5, Informative)
I find it interesting that all the subjects were already HIV positive. It looks like this study only shows that it is ok to inject into a human, not that it does anything useful.
That is all Phase I testing is: identify a safe dosage range and screening for side effects...
Phase II, they will be attempt to determine if it does anything useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial#Phases [wikipedia.org]
Re:subjects were already infected (Score:5, Informative)
Yup. Phase I results aren't generally considered newsworthy. Pharmaceutical companies have drugs get through phase I trials many times per year. Most turn out to not work, or to have subtle but serious side effects.
The kinds of problems that you can actually spot in Phase I trials are the kinds of problems that would wipe out entire cities if you actually put the pills on store shelves. We're not talking about "maybe causes a 10% increase in heart attack risk" dangerous - more like "causes half those who take it to turn purple and gasp for air" dangerous.
It is the logical first step in testing drugs on people, and it confirms that testing it on sick people isn't going to outright kill a bunch of them, and it helps you to understand how it is metabolized so that you can get the dosing about right when you start the "Real" tests.
Re: (Score:3)
"Most turn out to not work, or to have subtle but serious side effects."
Sure but also sometimes (sildenafil citrate) the side effects are so unsubtle that the test objects are reluctant or flatly refuse to give back the rest of the drugs after trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Vaccinating People Already Infected? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Vaccines can still be effective on people recently exposed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because if the vaccine is still active in any way, it can't infect anyone further.
Re: (Score:1)
We should go ask magic Johnson
Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (Score:5, Insightful)
Phase 1 trials are the "prove the vaccine doesn't give you AIDS" (or cause other medical problems) stage of things.
It's not a bug... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
guessing:
Because HIV is the virus, not the disease. If you develop an immune response to the virus before it causes AIDS, then that's the prevention.
Re: (Score:1)
Vaccinating for HIV usually has no real effect since it only immunizes the host to one HIV antigen when there a multitudes due to highly recombinant genes. The only way this vaccine could work is if it immunizes the host to all possible antigens of HIV or somehow allows the adaptive immune system to recognize some kind of shared antigen that is otherwise not recognized as being pathogenic.
Usually vaccinating for an infection already in place is pointless since the adaptive immune system will either already
Re: (Score:1)
In the highly unlikely case that it goes Horribly Wrong, it won't give them HIV again.
Re: (Score:1)
This.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, each strain of the virus is unique, and if an infected individual gets infected again with a different strain, it can actually make it worse.
It's not. (Score:4, Informative)
They're testing whether or not it's safe, not whether it will be effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Think about it. They are giving someone the full blown HIV virus. Modified, but still the HIV virus. You know how people sometimes get sick with teh flu after being given flu shots? Same deal.
Do you really want to be responsible for giving someone, who was healthy before, HIV from your experimental vaccine?
So you test its initial or macro scale safety on people who already have HIV.
Details?!? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Killed virus" means the virus is damaged to the point that they cannot be replicated, but the immune system can still recognize and remember it.
Re: (Score:2)
A virus is made up of a protein shell containing RNA or DNA. This virus is enveloped in cell membrane and contains RNA transcriptase to generate DNA from RNA (meaning retrovirus). The virus latches to a beta T4 cell and injects RNA+transcriptase, which transcripts DNA and then inserts it into the DNA, which produces RNA to build new viruses. These viruses are packaged in a protein shell and then budded--they push against the cell wall until a lipoprotein envelope wraps around them (cell wall material), t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also don't be the child of someone with HIV, or the wife/husband of someone who gets around (esp in countries where the wife is not in a position to refuse the husband), or be in a country that isn't great with medical sterilisation.
Or don't contract it in a freak incident such as sharing a leg razor with sister, or the other numerous ways the infection has spread through no fault of the infected.
Re:my vaccine already works (Score:5, Informative)
..or get raped by somebody that is infected .Or get a blood transfusion from somebody that turned out to be infected. Or cut yourself on something with blood from an infected person.
Re:my vaccine already works (Score:5, Informative)
"Or get a blood transfusion from somebody that turned out to be infected. "
BTW, that's the reason we don't get any more Isaak Asimov novels.
Re: (Score:2)
How sad. I've been reading a lot of his books for the first time recently and some of them are really good. What a way to lose a great author.
Re: (Score:3)
Easy and cheap, and it works, but it's not a lot of fun. Unknown, untested wet holes are exactly the place you want to be.
Hardly the first trial to get that far... (Score:2)
There are *lots* of HIV vaccines in development, many reaching phase I and others going further. There's even one recent phase III showing some evidence of a preventative effect.
For a review check: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22710904 [nih.gov]
Yahoo! (Score:2)
I'm going to cheer for these folks.
It's been almost 20 years since i lost friends. :-(
With a little help from Bill (Score:2)
From Sumagen's website:
"Sumagen’s HIV/AIDS vaccine is also supported for its R&D cost from the HIV/AIDS vaccine development fund, jointly launched by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the government of Canada."
Re: (Score:2)
But now that I think of it, Microsoft is already quite an efficient protector against typical situations where you could get or give AIDS...
Re: (Score:1)
The same goes with Jobs
Yeah, I sure hope Jobs gets off his lazy ass and starts donating some of his money to charity after he retires......
It's the University of Western Ontario (Score:2)
There is no (Canadian) Western University. It's the University of Western Ontario, sometimes called "Western" for short, but never Western University. It's also only western if you're from southern Ontario since its actually located in the south east corner of the province.
Dr Sebi (Score:1)
Infected men and women (Score:2)
I don't think they understand what a vaccine is?
Re:Calling BS (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
If you knew how clinical trials worked you'd understand what a phase I trial is and isn't, but apparently you'd rather just call BS and remain ignorant.
Re:The government created HIV (Score:4, Interesting)
It is not found in mankind prior the last 100 years.
In many ways you are misguidedly correct. If the governments of Europe did not initiate their heavy colonisation of Africa during the late 19th century, it is unlikely that AIDS would have ever spread outside of the remote areas of Africa where it orginated and would not likely be the pandemic problem that it is today.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and which government do you think had the ability to engineer a lentivirus 100 years ago? Because I'd like them to provide my healthcare...
Re: (Score:1)