HIV/AIDS Vaccine To Begin Phase I Human Trials

An anonymous reader writes "An HIV/AIDS vaccine developed in Ontario has applied for Phase 1 human trials. Safety and immunogenicity studies of the vaccine, dubbed SAV001-H, have already been completed on animals. Phase 1 human trials will check the safety of the vaccine on HIV positive volunteers. Phase 2 will then test immunogenicity."

Comments

Which is It?

[sexconker]

Is this a vaccine for the virus, as one with half a brain would assume?

Or is this a magic serum that cures you of AIDS while not dealing with HIV?

HIV/AIDS is stupid.
HIV and AIDS are separate, though related, things.

Think of the confusion:
Person with AIDS gets vaccine and thinks it's okay to have unprotected sex willy-nilly.

Re:Which is It?

[eneville]

Michael Jackson beat you to it.

Re:Which is It?

[Excelcia]

HIV/AIDS is stupid

Are you trying to promote the HIV doesn't necessarily cause aids point of view?

The vaccine in question does as any viral vaccine does, which is to help prevent an exposure to a virus from turning into an infection. In this case, it is intended to help prevent exposure to HIV from becoming AIDS. Once exposure has progressed into an infection, vaccines have little, if any, efficacy.

Re:Which is It?

[sexconker]

No I'm not.
Are you trying to promote that they are the same thing?

Re:Which is It?

[Ian Alexander]

If you have AIDS you're probably better-educated about your syndrome than your average bear.

I find it highly improbably that anyone could confuse AIDS and HIV that badly; I was educated on the difference in middle school as part and parcel of the health curriculum.

Re:Which is It?

[sexconker]

Did anyone read my post, or my own reply?
No, guess not.
And no one will read this.

I KNOW THAT THIS IS FOR HIV.
MY BEEF IS THE USE OF "HIV/AIDS" IN THE HEADLINE.

Re:Which is It?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about GNU/HIV/AIDS?

Re:Which is It?

[Flea of Pain]

Researcher1: Are you sure this will work? Researcher2: Not only am I sure, I'm HIV positive! Sorry, had to throw a South Park joke in there...

Re:Which is It?

[Hojima]

I would use my mod points to help you, but I think it's best to post a reply telling future moderators that the above is not a troll. That is what I thought before clicking the link. This is in fact a post spreading the awareness of child abuse in South Africa (at times resulting in gang-rape of an infant) because of the foolish and terrible myth that having sex with a virgin infant can cure your AIDS. Click on the link and help with the petition if you are interested

Re:Which is It?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone confused by what you wrote? Maybe it's you!

Re:Which is It?

[Excelcia]

Are you trying to promote that they are the same thing?

Of course not. No more than the common cold is the same thing as the enterovirus that causes it.

There has always been a differentiation between illnesses and the viruses that cause them. Partially because sometimes there is more than one virus that causes a given named set of symptoms, but mostly because of the simple fact that knowledge of illness predated knowledge of viruses. Because people think of HIV in terms of the illness it causes, we are going to hear about this vaccine that way - as an AIDS vaccine, rather than an HIV vaccine. Just like the smallpox vaccine was just that, and not the variola vaccine.

Re:Which is It?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that link is explaining that the cause of rape in Africa is not in any way linked to the myth that sex with a virgin would cure AIDS.
Read the whole page.

Re:Which is It?

[lazy_playboy]

Of course not. No more than the common cold is the same thing as the enterovirus that causes it.

Common cold is most commonly caused by rhinovirus.

Re:Which is It?

[slapout]

"HIV/AIDS"

Have you ever heard the media mention the term "HIV" without immediately following it with "the virus that causes AIDS"? It's the media that's bonded those terms.

Re:Which is It?

[similar_name]

It's like developing a vaccine for the common cold instead of rhinovirus, or getting your pets vaccinated against rabies as opposed to the lyssa virus. Medicine and society are entrenched with diagnosing and preventing symptoms.

Re:Which is It?

[nedlohs]

Vaccines don't cure things so there's no need to specify that. The unusual case would be a vaccine that did cure an existing condition that would be worthy of mentioning.

Re:Which is It?

[sexconker]

I rarely see the media talk about HIV anymore, actually, they usually just call it AIDS.

Re:Which is It?

[nedlohs]

No way!

Vaccines just stop you getting the thing, rather than curing you once you already have it.

Who knew?!?

It's pretty obviously (without even RTFA) a vaccine for HIV with the intention of hence stopping you getting AIDS if you get exposed to HIV later. Like every other bloody vaccine in the universe.

You confusion is stupid. No one with AIDS would be given the vaccine since it's pointless at that point. Even if they were why would they think it would stop them infecting others? Do people who get flu shots start coughing on everyone they meet???

Re:Which is It?

[martas]

since this post is 4 insightful, i'm going to assume that having sex with a virgin infant (as opposed to a slutty one) really is going to cure my AIDS.

Re:Which is It?

[sexconker]

No one in the US maybe.
There's a place where this confusion might cause actual problems, though.

Re:Which is It?

[SUB7IME]

Within the medical world, we routinely talk about HIV/AIDS. The former is the sine qua non for the latter. Preventing the former leads to prevention of the latter. Thus, a successful vaccine will prevent HIV/AIDS.

Re:Which is It?

[sexconker]

When administered properly and completely to a properly educated populace, yes.

There's a place where that's a huge fucking task.

Re:Which is It?

[Baseclass]

Not a cure for aids but vaccine as the article stated.

Re:Which is It?

[unifyingtheory]

Surely you realize AIDS is a progression of HIV. So naturally if you get the vaccine prior to HIV exposure you cannot get AIDS, assuming the vaccine works of course. Thus the vaccine does protect against both (in a unexposed host).

Similarly we have the "flu vaccine". We don't bother listing all the viruses that cause the flu because they don't really matter; the disease is the important part. HIV by itself never killed anyone.

Re:Which is It?

[s4ltyd0g]

One would hope that a person with AIDS would realize that unprotected sex willy-nilly can never be an option for them vaccine or not.

Re:Which is It?

[TheRealMindChild]

AIDS is a symptom of HIV. Of course they are going to be talked about together. That's like not talking about a cough when you have a cold.

Re:Which is It?

[TheoMurpse]

I've never heard of GNU/HIV.

I have heard of GNU/leprosy, what with the open sores and all...

Re:Which is It?

[polymeris]

It seems that it is possible. I don't know if this vaccine works that way, but a couple years a story got posted on slashdot about a compound that "could not only inoculate the patient against future infection, but destroy an HIV infection in progress.":

http://science.slashdot.org/story/07/07/22/0437213/HIV-Vaccine-Ready-For-Clinical-Trials

Re:Which is It?

[quadrox]

While your statement is technically correct, vaccines can and do help with existing conditions as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination

"Some modern vaccines are administered after the patient already has contracted a disease, as in the cases of experimental AIDS, cancer and Alzheimer's disease vaccines. Vaccinia given after exposure to smallpox, within the first four days, is reported to attenuate the disease considerably, and vaccination within the first week is known to be beneficial to a degree."

My father - who is a doctor - has confirmed this to be true. Apparently some infections (not only HIV, any infection) ARE treated with a vaccination, although it is not the only part of the treatment.

Re:Which is It?

[trifish]

Since when are personal attacks, based on unconfirmed accusations by a convicted fraud, attacks on people who just died, moderated as Funny? Mod this post into oblivion, if you are still human beings.

Re:Which is It?

[dontmakemethink]

Detectives were initially stumped by the kids underwear tied around MJ's upper arms, until a hospital orderly stated the obvious:

"He's on the patch"

Re:Which is It?

[Hurricane78]

There is no "magic serum" that cures AIDS.

Typical medical doctor behavior. In reality, you should say:

I do not KNOW of a serum that cures AIDS YET.

You know, you aren't god, despite you possibly thinking so. ^^
You can not predict that it will never happen. You can not say if it's just you being uninformed.
You can not know if humanity as a whole just does not know enough yet.
And most likely, you are wrong with all three assumptions.

Re:Which is It?

[mog007]

AIDS isn't solely caused by HIV. There are numerous viruses that can also cause the disease, HIV just happens to be the virus that causes so many cases of it. A cure for AIDS wouldn't just benefit people who have HIV, but the people who have contracted it through other means.

Re:Which is It?

[jacquesm]

having unprotected sex willy-nilly with or without aids is dangerous anyway and should be avoided.

There are more STDs out there than you can count on the fingers of your two hands and toes and
some of them have very serious effects.

Re:Which is It?

[ciderVisor]

Do people who get flu shots start coughing on everyone they meet???

That's unexpectorated behaviour.

Re:Which is It?

[Excelcia]

I'd be very much interested in knowing what other viruses or pathogens cause aids. There are other immunodeficiency diseases, but to my knowledge, the sole cause of AIDS is infection by HIV.

The only promoters of other causes of AIDS that I have seen have been those in the HIV denial crowd.

Re:Which is It?

[pato101]

AIDS is a symptom of HIV.Of course they are going to be talked about together. That's like not talking about a cough when you have a cold.

Dr. House?

Re:Which is It?

[mog007]

AIDS can be caused by any pathogen that can cripple the immune system. Any virus, not just HIV, that attacks the immune system can cause it. Anybody who's undergoing a bone marrow transplant has his or her immune system intentionally destroyed to minimize rejection of the bone marrow. The opportunistic infections that afflict people who have AIDS due to HIV are a potential danger for those who are getting bone marrow transplants, but those people usually live in bubbles for a few days so their immune system can rebound.

Re:Which is It?

[soren202]

Oh psh, it happened like, what, a week ago?

By now, it's fair game.

Test on

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Phase 1 human trials will check the safety of the vaccine on HIV positive volunteers

Well, at least they're not doing drug trials on animals anymore, better to use those damn AIDS people. Finally good for something

/Sarcasm

Re:Test on

[Monkeedude1212]

PETA will be happy.

Re:Test on

[SlashDev]

Actually drugs trials did take place on African people with AIDS without their knowledge. The would inject them with supposedly malaria drugs, along with other drugs. And test them a few months later...

Re:Test on

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you heard, we humans are monkeys! This is clearly PETA's jurisdiction.

Re:Test on

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]. And I don't mean this in an aggressive way; I'd like to know more of the details.

Re:Test on

[bretticus]

Funny? This is Insightful!

Re:Test on

[atraintocry]

Me too. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence.

Re:Test on

[Bacon Bits]

Animal tests are already complete. First they do laboratory testing on blood and tissue samples. Then they do whole animal testing. Then they test for safety on humans (often testing the drug on completely healthy subjects). Then they test for efficacy on humans. Then they test it against other, similar drugs which do the same thing. In the US, it takes roughly 15 to 20 years to progress through all the tests and analysis required before a drug hits the proverbial shelves.

Re:Test on

[quenda]

Phase 1 human trials will check the safety of the vaccine on HIV positive volunteers

Sensible move. They should tested TGN1412on an AIDs patient first.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

RTFA

[Swordopolis]

"We hope this vaccine is it, and hopefully this vaccine will prevent HIV infection and save millions of lives."

Re:RTFA

[sexconker]

Obviously.
The point is that saying HIV/AIDS in headlines is stupid.
This is a vaccine for HIV.

Fast forward to when we're passing it out like candy in Africa.

People who already have AIDS will get it, and with a lack of good information (such as the headline's "HIV/AIDS"), people will think they're cured, that they can't pass it on, etc.

Re:RTFA

[sexconker]

No, it isn't, but it IS safe to assume that YOU are ignorant of the situation in Africa.

A lot of people there ACTUALLY BELIEVE having sex with a virgin will cure you. Or that you're supposed to cut the tip off of the condom.

Education has to be the priority there.

Re:RTFA

[tsm_sf]

I agree, and I must have misunderstood you.

I thought you meant to imply that sending a HIV vaccine would be a waste of time AND that Africa wasn't already awash in misinformation. You certainly could not make the situation worse.

Re:RTFA

[sexconker]

Probably not, but you COULD waste tons more money and lives on another bungled effort.

Re:RTFA

[scottblascocomposer]

How true is that, though? According to the research cited by the Snopes article referred to above, that belief is much less common than you seem to be saying it is (emphasis on "seem"). The more common motivation for rape by HIV positive people in South Africa seems to be anger and despair.

Re:RTFA

[AmigaMMC]

Finally! LOL

Re:RTFA

[ultranova]

People who already have AIDS will get it, and with a lack of good information (such as the headline's "HIV/AIDS"), people will think they're cured, that they can't pass it on, etc.

If this thing will kill the HIV in your body, it will indeed make you unable to pass it on, as well as the associated symptoms (AIDS). It won't instantly cure the AIDS, as that is more like a wound caused by HIV, but once the virus is out of the way your immune system should start recovering. So for all intents and purposes, it's a vaccine/medicine for AIDS.

If you disagree, please explain just what of the above is incorrect, and why?

Re:RTFA

[sexconker]

Seems to me vaccines don't kill pathogens, they prompt your immune system to kill (and thus form markers for) gimped versions of the pathogens / things that look like the pathogen.

If you have AIDS, you have no immune system to learn from the vaccine. Thus, you do not get immunity.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[Starlon]

Not all of us conservative Christians are superstitious like you illustrate. Some of us even believe in evolution. Some of us don't mind gays getting married. People want to believe that the stereotype is real though, and you don't help the situation.

Is this it?

[davek]

From TFA:

"We hope this vaccine is it, and hopefully this vaccine will prevent HIV infection and save millions of lives." University of Western Ontario professor Chil-Yong Kang.

Human trials are necessary to test the efficacy of the vaccine in protecting against HIV infection because the HIV virus does not cause AIDS-like symptoms in animals, says Kang. However, the immune responses in the animal trials have been promising, he says.

Sounds like if this is for real, HIV will go the way of smallpox and polio. Is this as huge as it sounds?

Re:Is this it?

[geoffspear]

No, because parents will refuse to let their children get vaccinated because that would encourage them to have premarital sex.

Re:Is this it?

[BlueBoxSW.com]

Phase I is really too early to get any hope up. Most "promising" drugs that enter Phase I don't make it to the end of Phase III (FDA approval).

Re:Is this it?

[im_thatoneguy]

I assume that depends on the level of immunity it provides. Are we talking Flu Vaccine or Small Pox vaccine level of protection?

Re:Is this it?

[Jason Levine]

Or because they fear it'll cause autism (ala Jenny McCarthy). Combine the two and you have premarital autistic sex! We can't have that! Won't someone think of the children?

Re:Is this it?

[dunezone]

The question is really if this is a vaccine or therapeutic vaccine, I couldn't find that in the article. The difference being a regular vaccine will prevent the virus from infecting you while a therapeutic will either prevent the virus from spreading in your body but you might still be a carrier or eradicate the virus from you completely thus destroying it.


Just a side note since a lot of discussion on HIV and AIDS. HIV is the virus, the virus attacks the immune system destroying your white blood cells, when your white blood cell count falls below a certain amount per 1mm of blood or some measurement you have AIDS or auto-immune deficiency syndrome caused by HIV.


The virus wont kill you, what will kill you in the end is a basic infection that your body cant handle, even the common cold.

Re:Is this it?

[sfritsche]

Relax. Just think of this as natural selection in action. It's all good.

Re:Is this it?

[Opportunist]

Could some mod drop some insightful on that post?

It was pretty much what I was thinking. Vaccine for a highly mutating virus. Good for how long? A day?

What we should wait for before rejoicing is whether the vaccine is still working a year from now.

Re:Is this it?

[Jafafa Hots]

It will be worse than that. It will be "this vaccine is part of the gay agenda to indoctrinate and recruit our children!"

Re:Is this it?

[rumblin'rabbit]

It wouldn't have to be 100% effective to eradicate HIV. Slowing the spread of a disease can be enough to make it (eventually) disappear.

Re:Is this it?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a phase I test.

The huge one is phase III

http://www.iavi.org/RESEARCH-DEVELOPMENT/DEVELOPMENT-CYCLE/Pages/review-process.aspx

Other vaccines passed phase I and failed after that.

These are good news because scientists doesn't start human trials if they don't feel good about the vaccine developed but it isn't the time to celebrate yet.

Re:Is this it?

[gzearfoss]

Except for that whole concept of 'Herd Immunity'. There will always be some people who are unable to be vaccinated - whether from a weakened immune system, an allergy to ingredients in the vaccine, or other reasons. If enough people are vaccinated, then anyone who gets sick can't expose enough people to propagate the disease, leading to the disease dying out. Can a person going through chemo who gets infected and dies from a vaccine-preventable disease really be considered a victim of natural selection? (Well, I mean, they could, in that any death can be attributed to natural selection of one sort or another. But this isn't natural selection against those who *choose* against vaccines, but rather against those who are *unable* to have vaccines)

(I'm assuming you were going more for funny than insightful; thus I'm not so much responding to you as I'm responding to those who mark you insightful.)

Re:Is this it?

[haeger]

Except that the kids can't help that their parents are thick as bricks.

Re:Is this it?

[Anonymous Coward]

A few points;
 
1: While you can inject the HIV virus into other animals, the virus will not enter their cells due to the variations between human CD40 and the animals' copy. They can get the virus in them, but it won't do anthing.

2: There are animals whose cell surface ligands are similar enough to the human ones that the virus *does* infect them. if I recall correctly, HIV is capable (though much less efficiently) of entering the cells of certain apes, cats, and armadillos (an eclectic combination to be sure).

3: Of those animals that will play host to the virus, none of them develop symptoms of AIDS. They will host the virus, spread it around, but will not suffer immunoinhibition. This really isn't that uncommon; humans carry several viruses with no measuarble histological effect. This means that there are no suitable animal models for vaccine testing; human testing really is the only viable option.

4:It has long been theorized that the difference between being HIV positive and having AIDS is merely the amount of virus spreading in the system. i.e. if you can keep the viral load low enough, you won't get AIDS. If this is indeed the case, then even a therapeutic vaccine will be a huge step forward in the mortality rates of those infected.

5: Yes, HIV mutates quite quickly. For this reason, the approach that has long been favored is a competitve virus that targets the same cell types as HIV, yet does not have the same level of virulence (a latent infection rather than an actively spreading one). This is the same strategy employed with polio; the original polio vaccine was an actively spreading infectious virus that simply didn't cause the same disease symptoms. It also spread from person to person just like the disease it was meant to treat. This "similar but safer" strategy is likely the only way to have the 'treatment' evolve quickly enough to keep in step with the target. This is also the most difficult type of vaccine for which to acquire testing approval (for obvious reasons).

6: Other vaccine types are much less likely to be effective against a quickly mutating target like HIV. While they may prime the immune system effectively enough against a single strain of the virus, it's much less likely to work against other strains (same reason that you have to get the flu shot every year rather than just once).

7: It was recently shown that HIV can spread through cell:cell junctions. This being the case, it is unlikely that typical vaccines (other than live virus) will be effective, because there is no chance for antibodies (the typical immune system mediator) to interfere in this infection process. Now, it is unlikely that cell:cell spread is sufficient to get viral load to the point of causing AIDS, but it is still a factor to be considered when making predictions about vaccine efficacy (viral clearance is extremely unlikely).

8: This is a phase 1 trial. It's a small scale trial where they're testing for toxicity, not efficacy (phase 2/3). In other words, this trial is designed to answer the question, "is it safe?" It will not answer the question, "does it work?"

Re:Is this it?

[h3llfish]

No, this is nothing to get excited about. It's not even newsworthy. Dozens of other potential vaccines have made a splash in the media, but ultimately proved ineffective. I really do hope that this is the one, but... call me when it WORKS.

Re:Is this it?

[fastest fascist]

Perhaps, but try convincing people that sure, they took the vaccine, but they'll still need to be just as careful as before.

Re:Is this it?

[CodeBuster]

I am also highly skeptical of the vaccine approach with HIV. Although I am not a medical doctor, it seems to me that the error catastrophe approach to prevention of retrovirus production is much more promising. In particular, the KP1461 enzyme (described in the linked article) shows particular promise in clearing active HIV infection. Basically, it accelerates the mutation rate of the virus so much that the virons are no longer capable of reproducing (i.e. it mutates itself to death). This is actually a very clever approach; taking advantage of the error-prone reverse transcriptase which the virus uses to replicate itself and turning its greatest strength into its Achilles' heel.

Re:Is this it?

[Aladrin]

Why would that be a problem? I'd sign up, just for the extra insurance. I mean shit, accidents happen... I want my chances to be as good as possible.

Re:Is this it?

[unifyingtheory]

Sounds like if this is for real, HIV will go the way of smallpox and polio.

Funny you should mention polio because Africa is the last continent that still has polio infection. Africa is also the heart of the AIDS epidemic.

Re:Is this it?

[moosesocks]

This is indeed true. Most notably, HIV/AIDS is much less prevalent in the gay community than it was 10 years ago, and most now tend to be extremely cautious about who they sleep with.

Education and comprehensive testing are by far the two most effective weapons against sexually transmitted infections.

Re:Is this it?

[lawpoop]

I don't know. The dormancy period of AIDS is so much that I think if it fell of the public's radar, people would stop practicing safe sex, and after 10,15, or 20 years, we would have a resurgence of AIDS cases. I think that's sort of happening now, if I understand correctly.

Re:Is this it?

[ChromeAeonium]

Yes, and if the vaccine does work, they'll claim that HIV was eliminated by sanitation and that AIDS wasn't really that bad and didn't kill that many people and was going away before the vaccine and that it can easily be cured by natural remedies that 'they' are hiding. Believe it or not, that's what they already say about diseases that have been largely eliminated by vaccines.

Re:Is this it?

[Baba Ram Dass]

That would suck if it's the former. If you hate when people bitch about getting the flu after they get the flu shot, just wait...

Re:Is this it?

[Anenome]

"I assume that depends on the level of immunity it provides. Are we talking Flu Vaccine or Small Pox vaccine level of protection?"

First of all, even the Smallpox vaccine only lasts for about 5 years before you need a booster shot. Your immune system forgets. Just about everyone in the world would get Smallpox today if it got out. We don't vaccinate for smallpox anymore (foolishly perhaps) because the virus no longer exists in the wild.

"It was pretty much what I was thinking. Vaccine for a highly mutating virus. Good for how long? A day?
What we should wait for before rejoicing is whether the vaccine is still working a year from now."

Secondly, deeper insights into virology would allay your fear here. There are parts of a virus that mutate rapidly and parts that basically cannot mutate at all, or at least mutate very slowly. This is like the difference between changing clothes everyday and leaving your heart at home. A true and effective vaccine targets the parts of the virus that mutate very slowly.

There are some seven people in the world genetically immune to HIV. I wonder how much we could learn from their DNA.

Re:Is this it?

[bhiestand]

Or because (for you US residents) it was created in a "Socialist government run health care system", and anyone who would take such a vaccine would be at risk of "Socialist ideals regarding the merits of government run health care".

Oh the horror!

Simple solution. Canada can lease the rights to manufacture the vaccine to a single US company, and that company can charge $5,000/dose. We Americans will feel good because somebody will still be making an obscene profit off somebody else's work.

Re:Is this it?

[Repossessed]

No, but the others don't scare people the same way.

Re:Is this it?

[definate]

There's a lot of other STD's out there which suck, which could be used for fear mongering

Re:Is this it?

[Japie_H]

That depends on whether it is of human origin or not. If there are animal carriers it will not disappear. But the number of infected people
(especially in countries where the animal carrier does not live) will drop drastically.

There is however another risk and that is recklessness, if the chance of getting HIV gets very low (or lower, if you live in the western
world and look at the infection rate) there is a danger that people will stop being
carefull. There are already reports that people are taking less care because of improved treatment.

Furthermore as others pointed out this is just a Phase I trail, just to see whether you can actually administer the drug
in therapeutic dosages to patients without killing them and to assess parameters like the half life etc.

Re:Is this it?

[feepness]

Except that the kids can't help that their parents are thick as bricks.

Perhaps, but should those kids fail to grow to be adults there is less likelihood we'll have more kids with thick parents.

Re:Is this it?

[Hurricane78]

This will happen just as long, as it takes for all those children to get AIDS, die and then not reproduce, because people with that mindset will be extinct. ^^

Re:Is this it?

[Hurricane78]

But you must agree, that it is a huge step, that we got as far as Phase I at all. Instead of just hoping, wishing, and trying out some substances.

On the other hand, I know that at least 3 different potential vaccines are in development. One coming from finding out how a genetically immune group of humans in Africa can be immune.

Re:Is this it?

[Hurricane78]

But how can you get rich from that?

-- Your pharma industry.

Re:Is this it?

[geoffspear]

Unfortunately, memes don't spread entirely through reproduction.

Re:Is this it?

[geoffspear]

Most of them are easily curable with antibiotics or not deadly. HPV is the other big deadly sexually-transmitted virus, and there are parents who refuse to get their daughters vaccinated for the same reason.

Re:Is this it?

[Jason Levine]

Unfortunately, I believe it. Not vaccine related, but there was that case recently of the kid with treatable cancer who was dying because his parents insisted on using "natural remedies" instead of chemo. The courts ruled he needed to have chemo so he and his mother fled. They were eventually caught and he was put on chemo. Sure enough, his tumors shrunk. Did the mother suddenly realize the benefits of chemo? Of course not. She attributed it to their natural remedies. The same ones that didn't work all that time just suddenly kicked in right then and took out the tumor. The fact that it went away when chemo began was just a coincidence to her.

Re:Is this it?

[registrar]

Smallpox vaccine is not nearly as effective as you might think. See http://www.who.int/vaccines/en/smallpox.shtml

The reasons that smallpox could be eradicated are that there were only a few types, no animal host, and it was a frigging nasty disease, so everyone wanted to eradicated it.

Re:Is this it?

[QuoteMstr]

The gays are corrupting our precious bodily fluids, after all.

Re:Is this it?

[celtic_hackr]

Yeah, just like Gonorrhea and Syphilis have disappeared ...

oh, that's right, they're still around.

Re:Is this it?

[rumblin'rabbit]

Gonorrhea and Syphilis are far more contagious than HIV. What's more, you can't be immunized against them.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[Attila Dimedici]

I'm sorry, who on the religious right has ever expressed sentiments similar to what you are suggesting?

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[Anonymous Coward]

you sound more like an enlightened christian than a conservative christian

how do you test it?

[mofag]

If I take the vaccine and I only sleep with my wife and in 10 years I'm HIV free does it work?

Or is one of the pre-requisites of joining the trial that you commit to sleeping with as many sleeezy whores as you can find?

These are the questions that keep me from being a productive member of society.....

Re:how do you test it?

[Kurusuki]

I'd imagine introducing the HIV virus to a test subject requires far lest effort than sleeping with multiple prostitutes.

Re:how do you test it?

[Ian Alexander]

Geez, can't people even be bothered to read the summary anymore? From the summary:

Phase 1 human trials will check the safety of the vaccine on HIV positive volunteers.

Presumably this is a therapeutic vaccine intended to equip the immune system to fight HIV before it trashes your immune system irreparably. I didn't bother to read the article (but I was able to finish the summary) so I wouldn't really know.

Re:how do you test it?

[CanadianRealist]

They give the vaccine to people in high risk groups. Over time they watch to see if the rate of infection ends up being less than the rate in other people in the same group, who were not vaccinated.

Deliberately infection someone with a fatal disease, to test a vaccine that you are not sure is effective (hence the need for the test) sounds like criminal negligence, on top of violating the Hippocratic Oath.

Re:how do you test it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No there is no prerequisite like that.

Here's how the studies typically work.

1. Locate a country that has an extremely high HIV prevalance (some countries in Africa have 20% or higher HIV rates)
2. Advertise for a few thousand prostitutes and IV drug users and other high risk people to participate (even if some non high risk people come no big deal .. because statistically half of them will get he placebo so it will not hurt the study).
3. Offer adequate compensation for participation in the study
4. Inform each particpatant equally and thoruoghly about the dangers of risky sex
5. Stress that being vaccinated may not protect them and that furthermore they may be getting a fake injection (termed a placebo).
6. Innoculate half (or whatever) of the participants with the vaccine, the other half get a bogus injection (the placebo).

Human nature is such that no matter how sincere and good faith your effort was to inform them of the risks of HIV, many of the participants will still go out and have risky sex.

7. After 1 or 2 years test the participants in the study. If the vacccinated group has significantly less HIV positive people than the ones from the placebo group .. you vaccine works. If there is no statistical difference .. your vaccine's a dud. If the placebo group has less HIV positive people (like what happened in a recent study) .. then yikes your vaccine increases the risk.

Re:how do you test it?

[Anonymous Coward]

But is it as much fun?

Re:how do you test it?

[avilliers]

The original smallpox immunization test was run on an orphan girl by exposing her to smallpox after she'd been immunized. Practices have been changed since then.

The 'ultimate' endpoint for a vaccine trials compares two large groups, one vaccinated, one not, over a long period of time and compare to infection rates. Since volunteers are assigned randomly to one group, if the overall rates are lower in the vaccine group than the control, and the difference holds up to statistical analysis, you have good evidence it works. The signal is weak, meaning the trials have to be long and large to tell the difference. They are expensive.

In the early stages of trials, you're looking more directly for markers that the vaccine might be working--are you stimulating antibody production of the type you intended to do? These are smaller and cheaper, and can at least tell you it won't work.

Re:how do you test it?

[TheRaven64]

This is a phase one trial, which doesn't test whether it works, it tests whether it is harmful. The vaccine will be administered to a number of people who already have HIV to see if they have any adverse reaction to it. Presumably the next phase of the trial will be to give it to some people in high-risk demographics and see whether any of them still manage to contract HIV. If they do, then the vaccine doesn't work, although if a smaller number of them contract the disease than would be expected to statistically then it may be worth bringing to market anyway. The final stage will almost certainly involve injecting someone who has been vaccinated with blood from an HIV-positive patient to see whether it really works.

Re:how do you test it?

[tinkerghost]

Deliberately infection someone with a fatal disease, to test a vaccine that you are not sure is effective (hence the need for the test) sounds like criminal negligence

That would be "depraved indifference" not negligence.

Re:how do you test it?

[religious freak]

That's very evolved of us, and I do agree with the practice. However, I've got to admit a part of me does say "Why don't we give this vaccine to ten creeps on death row, throw them a few hookers and see what happens".

We would have the answer so much quicker and in the end, if the vaccine turns out to be effective, we'll save so many more (important - yes, I said it) lives. Is it really moral to trade the lives of a few dozen creeps over hundreds of thousands of African lives to preserve OUR sense of humanity? Yeah... I guess so... I guess.

Re:how do you test it?

[bugnuts]

If I take the vaccine and I only sleep with my wife and in 10 years I'm HIV free does it work?
Or is one of the pre-requisites of joining the trial that you commit to sleeping with as many sleeezy whores as you can find?

Wouldn't that also depend on how sleazy of a whore your wife is over those 10 years?

Re:how do you test it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The final stage will almost certainly involve injecting someone who has been vaccinated with blood from an HIV-positive patient to see whether it really works."

You guys modded this informative? No one will EVER do this!

Re:how do you test it?

[duffel]

Only if you inject someone else. Dr Barry Marshal jointly won the Nobel prize for Medicine in no small part for infecting himself with Helicobacter pylori. Different league of disease, true, but infecting someone isn't necessarily out of the question. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the researcher that proves the effectiveness of this vaccine by injecting themselves with HIV also won a nobel prize, given how many people die from AIDS.

Re:how do you test it?

[thesandtiger]

One of the studies we're doing in my lab is an intervention with (currently) HIV- youth who engage in frequent risk behaviors (most are sex workers, a little under a third are IV drug users, a very small portion just have risky sex because that's what they do). As part of the study, we do HIV testing every 3 months. We have an "expected" rate of conversion (obtained from other studies) and then we compare our actual rate of conversion to see whether our intervention is having an impact. While I'm no biostatician, I imagine the process is similar for a vaccine trial as for an educational intervention - you get people who are extremely likely to convert, vaccinate them, and if fewer convert (hopefully none of them!) despite engaging in risky activities, you can say that there's very likely been an effect.

Re:how do you test it?

[fullfactorial]

Presumably this is a therapeutic vaccine intended to equip the immune system to fight HIV before it trashes your immune system irreparably.

No, it's a preventative vaccine. They are testing it on HIV positive volunteers to be sure that it doesn't have any serious side effects (like infecting you with real live HIV).

Re:how do you test it?

[Anonymous Coward]

So when you run out of test subjects on death row will the drug companies begin lobbying for harsher sentences and halting the abolishment of the death penalty? Perhaps people with life sentences should get bumped up to death sentences for the betterment of medicine which could save thousands, perhaps millions? There are a number of reasons to ensure that society doesn't benefit in any way from executing people (besides the obvious permanent removal of them from the general populace).

Re:how do you test it?

[religious freak]

I think you're over analyzing my comment without addressing the main question. And as I said, I do agree with the modern stance, but it is a question that does deserve to be considered.

Or do you think it's an easy decision to sacrifice many hundreds of thousands of lives for a few dozen?

Re:how do you test it?

[tehfrr]

not necessarily. Perhaps older people who are late in life that want to help benefit humanity. Not that they would be lining up to volunteer, but certainly someone would. I would think its safe to assume if the did in fact contract HIV, they would probably get the best health care available to keep it in check for the rest of their lives.

Re:how do you test it?

[avilliers]

Well, we could also start cutting up death row inmates for organs, which is a much more certain benefit than what you describe. In terms of utilitarian logic this makes more sense. One of the many reasons not to be a strict utilitarian, IMHO.

Ignoring ethics, the proposal is, I suspect, pretty weak practically. I don't know enough to do hard numbers. But the number of death row inmates (especially with exhausted appeals) in the US is pretty low, HIV transmission rates are naturally low, and if you try to make up by lots of sex (or even worse, direct injection) your experiment environment wouldn't model the real world system at all.

So it's quicker result, but not a quicker answer. Barring a very strong signal, and possibly not even then, you'd have nothing until you do the full size study anyway, and actions taken on interim results from prisoners could cause harm (by, e.g., encouraging risky behavior in recipients, or exposing people to side effects that have no benefits.)

Re:how do you test it?

[TheoMurpse]

it is a question that does deserve to be considered

Not in a country that still believes in the Eighth Amendment. No. No it absofuckinglutely doesn't. I'm pretty sure intentionally infecting people with a deadly virus constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment."

Re:how do you test it?

[Do You Smell That]

"Why don't we give this vaccine to ten creeps on death row, throw them a few hookers and see what happens". We would have the answer so much quicker and in the end, if the vaccine turns out to be effective, we'll save so many more (important - yes, I said it) lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates#United_States

...just sayin'...

Re:how do you test it?

[religious freak]

Thank you to the one person who actually thought about a logical response and crafted it w/o getting indignant and not even paying attention to the question I was posing!

Yes, this is essentially the conclusion of the Nuremberg trials post-WWII, and one of the many reasons delineated in why clinicians, to this day do not use the "clinical" trials imposed on WWII prisoners of war, despite the fact that there was unique (and admittedly terrible) scientific, medical facts gathered from the tests, which may be helpful in other areas that may benefit humanity.

Re:how do you test it?

[Jaeph]

"throw them a few hookers"

You have taken slashdot callousness to a whole new level. Congrats.

-Jeff

Re:how do you test it?

[bhiestand]

not necessarily. Perhaps older people who are late in life that want to help benefit humanity. Not that they would be lining up to volunteer, but certainly someone would. I would think its safe to assume if the did in fact contract HIV, they would probably get the best health care available to keep it in check for the rest of their lives.

Insightful? You're off your rocker. Any doctor stupid enough to do this is at risk of both losing his license and going to jail.

This is akin to amputating a patient so you can test a new prosthetic. Not happening, and certainly not happening under FDA's watch.

Re:how do you test it?

[all_the_names_are_ta]

This is a bad idea not only because trialing things on death row inmates seems to be a cruel and unusual punishment but also because it creates a perverse incentive. Specifically, suppose that testing on prisoners provides a noteworthy improvement in development speed for this vaccine. There will then be the motivation to use this model again in the future (surely we should use these death row inmates to speed the development of a malaria vaccine, etc). If this keeps providing benefits there will then be a demand for death row inmates to provide a source of test candidates. If this seems far fetched, consider the example of China which (at least until recently) has likely been selling the organs of prisoners http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5386720.stm and has an unusually broad number of crimes for which the death sentence applies.

Re:how do you test it?

[Going_Digital]

Actually there might be some merit in this by giving the inmate the option. Your execution date is X but instead of being executed that day you have the option of being vaccinated with a test vaccine and then can have sex with 24 sex workers that are infected with HIV over the next 6 months. The following 6 months you will be tested for infection resulting in 1 year stay of execution. Some would go for it considering they get to live an extra year and get to go out having had a pleasurable time. The only danger is that nerds might start trying to get themselves on death row just to get laid.

Re:how do you test it?

[MariusBoo]

It is not moral in any way. The death penalty is not moral therefore so is death by snoosnoo. But we should do it anyway.

Re:how do you test it?

[neumayr]

You can not expect people to just answer your questions and ignore the way they're phrased.
And your question was presented in a way that disqualifies you from being taken seriously in this discussion.

Re:how do you test it?

[Rich0]

Speaking of which, according to the US news, I had thought Canadas socialized medical system prevented this kind of innovation?
How is it Canada and their inferior socialized medicine is able to develop this kind of drug?

The same way that all drug companies innovate without regard to their geographic location - they sell their drugs in the US where they can make lots of money (or they are taxpayer-funded). The fact that non-US-based drug companies do well really has nothing to do with socialized healthcare in their own nations - they make their money in the US the same as everybody else. If the US institutes price controls on patented drugs you'll see the Sanofi-Aventises and GSKs of the world collapse just as quickly as the Pfizers. Some smaller companies do more generic business (Apotex comes to mind since you used Canada as your illustration) - they could continue to do fine, but generic drugs and branded drugs are really two different businesses. You won't see much in the way of new drugs, however, unless they're completely paid for by taxpayers or otherwise incentivized (which is really no different from what we have now but by a different name).

The other thing that I should point out is that this drug hasn't gone through any of the expensive parts of the drug development process. They're only starting Phase I trials now, and that is where things just start to get expensive. The most expensive part of developing drugs is also typically the least creative part - the clinical trials.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for changing the model by which drug research is paid for. However, don't think for a minute that the same thing can be done for 1/10th the cost or anything like that. The biggest expense in developing drugs is the clinical trials, and the only way that will get cheaper is if the state forces people (especially doctors) to participate in them.

No Optimism on HIV

[reporter]

I am not optimistic about this vaccine. HIV mutates at an astonishing rate, and I doubt that one brand of vaccine can prevent an infection.

Right now, we in America -- of all places -- have a silent crisis: an HIV epidemic. Read the shocking article published recently by "The Washington Post". About 3% of the residents of the District of Columbia is infected with HIV. That percentage is roughly the percentage in Uganda and parts of Kenya.

The only way to eradicate this virus is either (1) universal mandatory testing for all Americans and visitors to America (followed by tough enforcement of laws prohibiting unsafe behavior by those who are infected) or (2) a gene therapy that transfers the natural immunity enjoyed by a few Europeans to the American population. As for point #1, mandatory testing is taboo and would never be implemented. As for point #2, a small percentage of Europeans have a cellular mutation that prevents HIV infection.

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[Yold]

(3) Abstaining/reducing risky sexual behaviors. For slashdotters, this shouldn't be a problem.

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[Opportunist]

Great idea. It worked for teenage pregnancy, it should work like a dream for a disease that you don't notice after 3 months when your belly starts to swell.

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[TheMohel]

Unfortunately (OK, it's not unfortunate at all, actually), option #1 isn't just taboo, it's impossible in any human society. Even if we had a completely accurate test (which we certainly do NOT have), and even if you could somehow prevent all positive contacts from continuing their infectious behavior (and I'm not sure anything short of summary execution would be reliable), you'd still have leakers, avoiders, corruption, and resistance. Not even North Korea has managed to avoid HIV, although they're close, at least by report. Largely, I suspect, because summary execution is a routine thing for them.

Option #2 is science fiction for now. The genetic resistance to HIV is conferred by the lack of a particular cell-surface receptor, so you'd have to find a way to effectively eliminate that piece of genetic material from every genome in the body. And since T cells are quite long-lived, you'd have to mess with a lot of quiescent DNA to do it. Maybe some day, but not soon.

Which leaves vaccination. I'm in agreement with your skepticism on this one, not because it's impossible but because HIV, due to its unique targeting system, has been very intractable. You do have to target relatively stable regions of its proteins or its DNA, but this isn't unique to HIV, and we've solved it with polyvalent vaccines elsewhere (think Menactra, or the recent HPV vaccine, or even the flu shot). HIV is a pretty wimpy virus from a spread perspective, so a good polyvalent vaccine would seem possible. The problem is practical immunogenicity, and that's the issue that has torpedoed previous vaccines.

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[ae1294]

The only way to eradicate this virus is either

You forgot one option. We can nuke the site from orbit as it's really the only way to be sure...It's DC after all...

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[Your.Master]

It may be unrealistic, but so is the first option presented, and the second option is wishful thinking for a miracle vaccination despite the rest of the post repudiating the possibility of vaccination (albeit using a new method, but based on a supposed immunity of certain European populations that actually only impacts a subset of all HIV infections).

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[petrus4]

(3) Abstaining/reducing risky sexual behaviors. For slashdotters, this shouldn't be a problem.

a) Use condoms/spermicides etc.

b) If you're going to be in more than a one night stand with someone, (which is preferable, from a disease point of view) then at least see if they'd be willing to get tested; especially if they've previously engaged in bisexual activity. It might not be politically correct to say it, but outside of the Third World, HIV is a primarily gay or bi disease. Call me a bigot for that as much as you want, and then once you've finished, go and look up the statistics.

c) Don't go near the ass. No anal sex, no analingus, and none of the other related activities, either. In sexual terms, HIV's primary means of transmission/propogation are either anal sex or anal/oral contact.

d) If you need blood work or transfusions done, find out what the hygeine policies of the place in question are, in advance.

e) Realise that abstinence will not kill you, and that consequently, contrary to popular perception, sex is actually a want, rather than a need.

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a case of stupid people doing stupid things, getting a chronic and fatal disease

Sadly, such ignorance is helping spread the virus. You can get infected from tainted blood transfusions, as happened before screen blood donors for HIV was routine. You can get infected if you're faithful to your partner, but unbeknownst to you, they are not being faithful in return. You can get infected through rape or other assaults involving exposure to bodily fluids.

While abstinence and faithfulness are the best way to contain the disease, they're not going to eliminate it completely. Hence it's still worthwhile to look for a vaccine.

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[greymond]

um not that I don't agree with some of what you're saying but 3% of DC's population versus 3% of Uganda and/or Kenya's population is like comparing 3% of one apple to 3% of a barrel of apples...

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[HTH NE1]

e) Realise that abstinence will not kill you, and that consequently, contrary to popular perception, sex is actually a want, rather than a need.

Colossus: HOW MANY NIGHTS A WEEK DO YOU REQUIRE SEX?
Dr. Forbin: Every night.
Colossus: NOT WANT. REQUIRE.
Dr. Forbin: [looks sheepish] Four times.

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[CodeBuster]

HIV mutates at an astonishing rate

In fact there is a different type of treatment that takes advantage of that very fact, accelerating the rate of mutation so much that the virus is unable to remain viable. This approach to anti-retroviral therapy is called error catastrophe and a promising enzyme, KP-1461, is currently being investigated for its ability to cause this chain reaction with HIV.

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[lawpoop]

Option #2 is science fiction for now. The genetic resistance to HIV is conferred by the lack of a particular cell-surface receptor, so you'd have to find a way to effectively eliminate that piece of genetic material from every genome in the body. And since T cells are quite long-lived, you'd have to mess with a lot of quiescent DNA to do it.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, we don't really need to 'upgrade' all the bone marrow in the body to start producing resistant T-cells. We just need to establish a colony of modified cells that produce resistant T-cells. So, while they could still spread HIV, it wouldn't totally wipe out their immune system.

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[Tolkien]

They must be thinking about the bigger picture! After all, the human race *needs* sex to survive!

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[Sir_Lewk]

That only applies to the rather limited "individual" context. For the species as a whole reproduction is as necessary to survival as eating or breathing.

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[Ginger Unicorn]

Abstinence and faithfulness aren't the "best" way to contain the disease. There is a difference between "most effective on an individual level" and "best".

The "best" solution is one that protects as many people as possible, and has a realistic chance of actually happening, rather than relying on people struggling against fundamental human behaviour. A lot of people who decide to try to modify their behaviour in this way find it a constant battle, let alone the billions who really aren't interested in monogamy at all.

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[mrrudge]

Mr Maslow would like to disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Sex is right up there with breathing, sleep and food. It's an essential part of being a human, therefore a need.

Re:No Optimism on HIV

[RiotingPacifist]

b) requires cheap, easy tests and a change in attitude towards stds.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[RelaxedTension]

People want to believe that the stereotype is real though, and you don't help the situation.

Conservative christians are doing just fine at reinforcing that stereotype by themselves. Oklahoma-Morality-Proclamation-blames-gays-porn-abortion-for-economic-woe

No Cure?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the expected effect of giving the vaccine to HIV positive test subjects?

Re:No Cure?

[Artifakt]

If it doesn't work, they don't end up catching HIV, because they already have.
Only if the vaccine is actually harmful and not just ineffectual are they put at greater risk. Animal testing has already proved that some kinds of harmfulness aren't possible here, so all phase one is doing is looking for a quite low chance of an unforeseen harmful effect. The researchers will watch to see if there's a large improvement in health of the subjects, just in case, but that's not the primary goal yet.
    I'd suggest reading up on Thalidomide to see why this is necessary. For the short version, Thalidomide doesn't cause birth defects in most animals, but does in humans. A few species such as horses are at risk, but those species weren't routinely used for animal testing back then. Sometimes in developing new medicine, you get a situation where it's damned near impossible to catch harmfulness before you go to human testing. Because of Thalidomide and some other cases that could have been as bad, animal testing is done on a lot more different species, and human testing is usually done on select groups before it is applied to the general population. It's now common to not test on people who are or might become pregnant in the first series of human tests, or to test only on young people, or people who don't have certain other diseases.
    In phase 2, the vaccine would be tested in ways that actually measure its effectiveness. Note that the vaccine could have had moderately bad results on a limited percentage of people in phase 1. but also showed some actual promise that might make it worth developing anyway - that's why the researchers do watch for other effects and not just harm even in phase 1.

Re:No Cure?

[HTH NE1]

What is the expected effect of giving the vaccine to HIV positive test subjects?

They expect to see whether it makes them worse or not worse (i.e. if the vaccine is toxic). That's Phase I.

Whether it improves their condition by producing white blood cells that are immune to the infection (without hindering their ability to respond to other infections) which could eventually outnumber the vulnerable white blood cells as HIV burns through the latter isn't part of this phase.

Too late; Gambia's president claims cure for AIDS

[Culture20]

Gambia's president claims he has cure for AIDS: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17244005/
No need for a vaccine, people. When will people learn that science can't hold a candle to sympathetic magic?
FYI, I am not a doctor, and this is not medical advice. Ask your Doctor if Gambia's President's magic is right for you.

Influenza Vaccine

[Anonymous Coward]

The influenza vaccine works extremely well against the strain of flu it's developed for. The problem being that there's so many strains of flu, and they're constantly mutating.

Course, that's also true of HIV. So I'm going to guess it's going to be more like the influenza vaccine.

Re:Influenza Vaccine

[sixsixtysix]

so, in 50 years, we'll have swine-hiv?

How does this work?

[Nautical Insanity]

This is great they have a vaccine ready for human trials. However, I went through the article (suprise!) and it seemed absent of any details as to what mechanism the vaccine used to inhibit an HIV infection. I thought the difficulty in making a vaccine was that the virus mutated quickly and attacked the immune system, the typical tool that vaccines train to attack viruses. Does anyone have any more information on what's novel about this vaccine? (Other than it works)

Re:How does this work?

[Artifakt]

HIV mutates a lot, but a whole lot of that is thought to be stochastic mutation. The most basic version of this would be where type A becomes type B, but type B also mutates back into type A just as fast, so after a few dozen generations, the population reaches an equilibrium, half of each type. The point is, it's not evolutionary mutation - you have the random mutation part, but until there's some sort of selection pressure, you don't have evolution. There's a difference between having to deal with non directed mutation (which is what stochastic means in this context) and actual evolution. HIV mutates a lot - HIV is NOT evolving rapidly.
      HIV appears to have four types (in this case, of outer protein coats) which are usually called A, B, C & D, but again, nothing is selecting for one type over the others and there's theoretically no pressure for HIV to evolve because of this particular mutation. Some flus have a lot more than four types. Right now, the swine flue that has people worried is type H1N1, and there are six or seven types just for the N part of that classification, and maybe 30 or so total type combinations possible.
      A highly effective vaccine in this case would probably require it make the body's immune system target some part of HIV's protein coat that doesn't usually mutate, just so it doesn't have to fiddle around dealing with the cycle of forward and backwards mutation.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[localman57]

If you're dumb enough to contract HIV in any way other than a clinical fuck-up, then frankly, I hope you die, and I hope you never managed to reproduce.

Nice sentiment. Until you find out that your husband/wife was not, in fact, on a hiking trip. Suddenly you need an urgent blood test, despite never having done anything more risky than trusting your spouse.

And, just for the record, you should care because empathy is one of the things that separates you from lower species.

Re:Yay!

[aegis17]

Thank the government? You should be furious! I mean, think of all the children who could have been saved by the vaccine attempts drug companies tried and failed to create. Who cares if it turns your eyeballs into slush and your intestines catch fire - the drug showed so much promise! All these clinical trials and testing, for what? Verifiable drugs that don't kill those people it tries to save?

We need to get rid of all these government imposed hoops, and let companies sell drugs and test on humans the moment they have a prototype of any vaccine, serum, or medication they develop. It's especially important in cases such as AIDS, where current drugs are only effective at stalling the progression of the disease for what, 20, 30, 40 years? So many people could resume the life they are already living by testing a cure with the negligible risk of a 99% mortality rate. What faster way is there to get a product on the market or saving our loved ones?

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[dyingtolive]

Yeah, but I know plenty of atheists who are douchebags as well. Correlation != causation, again, even in this case.

It's just phase I testing

[Animats]

Don't get too excited. A few other promising AIDS vaccines have made it this far. Phase I testing is just testing for safety, not effectiveness. Phase II testing is for effectiveness, and phase III testing is for effectiveness in a larger population. VaxGen's vaccine made it to Phase III before it turned out not to be very effective. 95% of the new drugs that make it to the beginning of testing in humans don't turn out to be useful.

Re:It's just phase I testing

[TheMohel]

Amen. The vaccine has showed animal immunogenicity, which is not a bad thing, but since the animals in question don't get AIDS from HIV, their immune systems don't react the same way that human ones do. Which means you need to proceed to human testing, and that takes a long time.

Phase I trials are important, and announcing them is not a bad thing. And nobody particularly expects cures in the HIV-positive population, although circulating HIV may be interesting (if the virus can cause a practical immune response in subjects with HIV but who have fairly normal T4 counts and you can show reduced circulating viral load, you have an interesting data point for efficacy).

My biggest problem with this kind of press release is that they don't include the details. I'd be interested in knowing why this vaccine is likely to work better than the last two hundred that have been tried, what the actual animal studies showed, and so on. Oh well. I'm not going to be waiting up this weekend to hear more. It will be a couple of years before we know whether this one works.

Re:It's just phase I testing

[Mortiss]

Are there any links or details actually available regarding the nature of this vaccine? SAV001-H doesn't show up on PubMed.

Re:Too late; Gambia's president claims cure for AI

[Opportunist]

It works! Sure, the patient dies in the process because he develops AIDS and croaks, but the virus dies as well. Sympathetic, ya know...

Re:Yay!

[TheRaven64]

Thalidomide.

Well, If I ever learned anything...

[jonaskoelker]

If I ever learned anything from watching South Park, it's that any successful HIV vaccine has to contain large amounts of raw money! ;-)

All kidding aside, this is wonderful. I hope this gets to save a lot of people very soon.

And to be pedantic, since it's a vaccine, I guess it works against the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, not the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

Re:Well, If I ever learned anything...

[unifyingtheory]

Right, but if you don't get the virus you can't get the syndrome.

What kind of injections? (Rim shot)

[SoundGuyNoise]

A vaccine is usually a weaker version of the original virus, right? If HIV is spread sexually, does the vaccine spread sexually as well? This really puts a wrench into sex education.

Re:What kind of injections? (Rim shot)

[Elder Entropist]

A vaccine is usually a weaker version of the original virus, right?

If HIV is spread sexually, does the vaccine spread sexually as well? This really puts a wrench into sex education.

No, a vaccine is usually a DISABLED version of the original virus - one that has the protein coat that the immune system would use to recognize and create antibodies for, but has the part that creates copies of the virus disabled so it can't make any more to overwhelm the host or to spread.

Hicks

[WilyCoder]

When they find a cure for HIV there will be fucking in the streets.

-Bill Hicks

Re:Hicks

[markringen]

for at least a week!

Re:Hicks

[markringen]

but that will probably cause a new aids.

Re:Hicks

[TheRaven64]

Right until people realise that there still isn't a cure or vaccine for herpes...

Re:Hicks

[martas]

and a syphilis epidemic shall follow.

bummer, AIDS isn't the only STD. (don't you just looove acronyms?)

Re:Hicks

[werfu]

Free penicilin for everyone! Thinking of it, that would be the best way to get rid of STDs, just cure everybody against what can be cured. No more syphilis, clamedya or gonorrhea. Man what would life be without STDs ... open sex with everyone you'd like.

Re:Hicks

[martas]

yep. until a new one comes along. don't forget, many people today remember the days when there was no such thing as hiv

Re:Hicks

[werfu]

What new one? Virus don't spawn from nothing, they derive from something. We don't know how HIV has happened, but we know similar virus from which it could come. Now, maybe there could be a new one coming from a mutating STD. If nobody sleeps with animals we should be ok for a while :P

Re:Hicks

[martas]

first of all, i don't think sex with animals is necessary for a new human std to appear (maybe not from nothing, but from some very unlikely source. that's usually how these things go, i guess...), and second, people do screw animals.

Who is nuts enough to test effectiveness?

[gubers33]

I want to know what crazy bastards are volunteering for Phase II and Phase III testing.

Re:Who is nuts enough to test effectiveness?

[SurenPala]

Statistical sampling, they give the vaccine to a large number of people and see if the rate of infection among the vaccinated is lower than amongst those in a control group. If the vaccine is 100% effective then no one in the vaccinated group will become infected, and inevitably some in the control group will be.

Re:Who is nuts enough to test effectiveness?

[markringen]

your already dead. how much deader can u get?

Re:Who is nuts enough to test effectiveness?

[sznupi]

I'm curious, what they tell them it is for? (you can't exactly tell that it's a potential HIV vaccine...) And how they ensure later checks among vaccinated?

Re:Who is nuts enough to test effectiveness?

[ECCN]

If it makes it to phase II trials, I see street corner recruiting operations in Big Cities...

"Get this shot, we will pay you $100.00; come back once a month to have blood drawn, we will pay you $25.00"

It will be marketed toward the low income, homeless, 3rd tier of society types and active homosexuals. They will have more people signing up than they can handle.

If it makes it to Phase III trials... it is anybody's guess... Perhaps, targeted toward people that have other terminal illnesses, using either the "help humanity" approach, or the "we will pay your surviving relatives $$$" approach.

Re:Who is nuts enough to test effectiveness?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Just give the shot to every man going into a bathhouse on a Saturday night.
Do that for a couple of months and see if the spread rate in the area goes down.

Test: How?

[Fallen Kell]

I mean, how are they going to really test that it works? Because, I am sure there are just tons of people out there that want to be exposed to HIV just to see if the vaccine they took actually keeps you from getting a virus that WILL kill you.

Re:Test: How?

[Tom DBA]

Actually, there are tons of people available for the Phase II and III trials. There's a whole generation of young gays who are catching HIV left and right because they don't use protection.

Re:Test: How?

[unifyingtheory]

Why was the parent modded down? In phase II and III trials they vaccinate large numbers of people (more in phase III) and after a couple years they compare the rate of infection in the vaccinated group versus a control group.

Re:Test: How?

[TheoMurpse]

Not to mention the subset of those who are bug chasers. Fucking ridiculous practice, if you ask me. People who attempt to get as many STIs as possible.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not all of us conservative Christians are superstitious like you illustrate...."

Actually, I think you'll find that the definition of your religion REQUIRES superstitious belief.

Re:Yay!

[johnsonav]

It's especially important in cases such as AIDS, where current drugs are only effective at stalling the progression of the disease for what, 20, 30, 40 years?

Tell that to the average HIV-positive African. Sure, he probably has trouble affording a simple dose of penicillin, but I suppose a lifetime supply of expensive HIV drugs is no problem.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[Calithulu]

Good plan. The next time an atheist comes to my door to preach at me I'll just tell them to go away. Oh, wait, that never happens.

On the other hand, evangelical religious folk do come to my door and try to convert me or, as has happened int the past, try to convince neighborhood kids to join their church when they think the parents aren't home.

Fixed that for you ;)

[turing_m]

(3) Abstaining/reducing risky sexual behaviors involving other people. For slashdotters, this shouldn't be a problem.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[SlashDev]

The Christian religion clearly states that the world and humans were Created and did not evolve before then, they may have evolved afterward, but not prior. Can you please clarify your position as a Christian who believes in Evolution?

I ain't superstitious...

[nietsch]

No, although their beliefs are weird, they are not superstitious. Extra curricular beliefs, not sanctioned by the church are. Regular religious beliefs are just plain stitious, they have nothing to be super of.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[mevets]

Sorry, it is the rotten millions that spoil it for the good few.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[Starlon]

I believe strongly in scientific fact over what the pious wrote in a book. I feel the Bible is symbolic in many aspects. I would rather not have this discussion on /. though, it's not the appropriate place, nor the appropriate thread. There are many Christian scientists who feel the same as I. If you want to believe that's superstition, I ask you to look at all theoretical science. Science does not disprove a higher life form.

Uganda & Kenya

[vondo]

When the article says "Some parts of Kenya" that means the good parts. The overall infection rate in 2003 was estimated at 6.7%. Uganda is the birthplace, as I recall, of the ABC strategy.

This article makes it sound as if DC is as bad as "Africa" when it comes to AIDS. Unfortunately (for most of sub-Sahara Africa, not DC residents), this just isn't true.

3% may be bad, but 3% with decent health care is a world away from the 15+% infection rate and poor health systems that some countries are dealing with.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[TheRaven64]

Yes, it's really irritating when atheists wake me up early in the morning by ringing my doorbell to preach at me. Oh, wait, that's never happened, those are Jehovah's Witnesses.

+5 Informative!

[SirJorgelOfBorgel]

I never thought I'd say this about a post, but seeing as your score is 0 ... : MOD PARENT UP!

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[CAIMLAS]

So what's a conservative Christian, exactly? You realize that you're insulting both conservatives and Christians, right? By considering the "bad", "zealot" Christian (or whatever your qualifications for the amorphous label "conservative Christian") as "conservative", and the Christians by lumping them in with the far-gone "conservatives", you're doing nothing but feeding a stupid stereotype.

What's an "enlightened Christian" for that matter? How about a "reasonable democrat" - is that insulting to those which do not fit in your categorization of "reasonable"?

Same goes for the other side of the fence. It does no service to anyone by calling an avowed Marxist a "socialist"; a mild social democrat a Marxist, or anything like that. All very stupid.

Re:Kenya?

[CAIMLAS]

You're making the dangerous assumption that all of Kenya has a shared culture. They do not. There are dozens (hundreds) of people groups there (albeit, many are fairly small).

That's like saying "I hear that in America they parade around a burning cross and hang black people from oak trees", I suspect.

Granted, this is Africa we're talking about.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[grolschie]

Can you please clarify your position as a Christian who believes in Evolution?

One can believe in evolution (e.g. Microevolution, which is observable) while not believing in Common Descent. This doesn't not contradict the belief that man was literally created in the God's image.

Yay

[mqduck]

Great! Now we can start fucking again (so long as birth control is used) without any concern about anything bad happening ever again, right?

RIGHT??

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[schmiddy]

Preposterous. I for one trust my husband completely. When he says he's out on a hiking trip, I know he's out hiking the Appalachian trail, not up to mischief. Perhaps you should be more trustful of your spouse instead of worrying about contracting AIDS.

Sincerely,
Jenny Sanford

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[tbird81]

...generally close to being sociopathic; the proverbial 4chan or WoW-addicted, 15 year old asshole who exploits online anonymity to be savage and devoid of empathy towards as many people as possible...

And again, you're thinking fundamentalist Christians.

Is this it? Small chance

[Tom DBA]

http://www.hvtn.org/science/trials.html Many trials have come, gone, failed, are in the works. HIV is very complicated. Is THIS IT? Likely this is a low news day or a University of Western Ontario alum day. Phase I is just to prove people don't die from taking the vaccine. A far cry from a real, successful vaccine.

A great Boon for anyone in the medical field!

[jameskojiro]

Now they won't have to worry about catching aids from trauma patients if a glove fails or if they accidentally nick themselves in the O.R. while working on a AIDS patient.

This should help lower the cost of Healthcare as Doctors may need slightly less hazard insurance once inoculated.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[thesandtiger]

I'm an evangelical agnostic. I'll come to your door for no particular reason.

HIV/AIDS Vaccine vs Marrow Cure via CCR5 Mutation

[RandomUsr]

I wonder how many people will think it's ok to have unprotected sex because they've either had the Vaccine or they figure they can have a Marrow Transplant from a donor that has the CCR5 receptor mutation. The CCR5 mutation is soo rare however that very few people could even consider it. One has to wonder if this can be introduced via artificial insemination thus creating a baby who might have natural resistance to HIV. The Vaccine would only be interesting to those doing Drugs, those sleeping around, and those afraid of their partners doing the first two. I jest, however as this is not only important to these groups, but you'd think adults could handle sexual responsibility, wait.... So my question then becomes, Do parents rely on gene therapy whic could have fewer side effects or just say F--- it, let the Wedlock child take the cheap vaccine. This is the cultural reality, is it not?

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[rand0mbits]

Why is this getting modded Interesting? Is it really that interesting that there are exceptions to every rule? By and large, though, conservative Christians don't believe in evolution and are against gay marriage. But this isn't really news either.

Damnit!

[jameshofo]

Now the only excuse I will have not to be having sex is my social ineptitude!

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[scottblascocomposer]

Speaking as a life-long Christian with a Master's in theology: No, it doesn't.

If you stop at the word "created," you're good. The second half of your first sentence may be believed by some Christians, but it is not "clearly stated" anywhere. In fact, the majority of the Christian churches in the world do in fact believe evolution is a fact of history (the Catholic Church being only the biggest and most obvious choice). Christians believe the universe was created in the sense that it was brought about by the Creator, but as to the mechanics of its origin... well, that's why we have the physical sciences.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[jhol13]

The question therefore is: do you trust so little as to get a vaccine for this quite rare disease.
Bloody hell, I would not get vaccine for H1N1! After all, vaccines are not without side effects.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[captjc]

Well, from the Wikipedia:

Conservative Christianity (also called traditional Christianity) is a term applied to a number of groups or movements seen as giving priority to traditional Christian beliefs and practices. It is sometimes called conservative theology, an umbrella term covering various movements within Christianity and describing both corporate denominational and personal views of Scripture.

The term conservative Christian is frequently used by Protestant evangelicals and Protestant fundamentalists as a way to distinguish themselves from the more liberal Protestant denominations, in which the Social Progressive Christian and Christian Modernist movements flourish.

Within most religions it primarily refers to the upholding of the church official teachings concerning the sanctity of marriage, the prohibition of artificial birth control, the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, prohibitions on homosexuality, and other similar theological and moral matters. In short, believing in evolution and not being against gay marrage, by definition, makes you a liberal (some may say enlightened) christian for the simple matter that you do not follow the churches strict teachings and beliefs.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[petrus4]

Good plan. The next time an atheist comes to my door to preach at me I'll just tell them to go away. Oh, wait, that never happens.

This piece of inanity masquerading as intelligence had already been posted in response to my GP, and yet this post gets modded Insightful rather than Redundant, purely due to conformity with the groupthink.

How much more evidence do we need to be confronted with, that the WoWtards have truly inherited Slashdot, and that this site's older (read: vastly more intelligent) population have now moved on?

Re:Kenya?

[bhiestand]

According to a report by CNN, the Kenyans still hunt and burn supposed witches. Curiously, Barack Hussein Obama has often parised the culture of Kenya. His father is a Kenyan.

According to your use of Barrack's middle name, you are trolling as a Republican. It is interesting to note that many prominent Republicans believe in witches as well, isn't it?

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[bemymonkey]

Uuuuh... what about people who are atheist because they just don't care?

Sure, if some hardcore Christian tries to convince me that I should be worshiping the Lord and repenting for my sins, I'll go on the offensive and point out all the things that are blatantly wrong with most major religions... but why the hell should I try to convince perfectly happy, religious people, to become atheists?

Belief systems are nothing more than a system of beliefs. If it works well for someone (who doesn't become a fanatic or otherwise let it go to their head - I'm guessing that includes about 99% of Christians), why would I want to convert them to something else?

Trying to convert people to Atheism is stupid... why try to convince someone to believe in... wait for it... nothing?

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[atraintocry]

(a) Look up empathy, it's not what you think it is
(b) If they do then they're not lower species.

Good job as usual, AC

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[atraintocry]

Yes, evolution does not have a goal per se. It is a response to selection pressure. I'm sure the parent understands that. You find me a dog that passes all the theory of mind tests, though. I'll wait.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[atraintocry]

You realize that you're insulting both conservatives and Christians, right?

They should pray for thicker skin.

I hope I am wrong but

[Chrisq]

I hope I am wrong but this is probably more informative than troll. After all the have already objected to the HPV vaccine and prevent distribution of condoms in areas with high HIV rates. I suspect we will hear objections from the religious right.

Open Sores will prevent that !

[freaker_TuC]

They'll fix it with free software!

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[drsmithy]

Try doing that with an evangelical atheist sometime.

I'm a little unclear on how you can have an "evangelical atheist".

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[drsmithy]

In fact, the majority of the Christian churches in the world do in fact believe evolution is a fact of history (the Catholic Church being only the biggest and most obvious choice).

The Catholic Church does not agree with evolution. It cherry picks agreement with the bits of evolution that don't contradict its teachings (basically, everything except evolution wrt. humans).

Literalism or lies...

[copponex]

"Everyone's an atheist. No one believes in the Sun God Ra anymore. Nobody believes in Huitzilopochtli anymore. Nobody believes in Juno and Venus anymore. You're all atheists as far as that's concerned, and you look with pity on those who support, or ever did, such cults. All we say is make it consistent. Go one god more, and you're nearly there." --Hitchens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[RiotingPacifist]

It's much harder for an atheist to blow himself up, killing innocent civilians and himself forever, than a theist! .'. the only sane course of action is to kill anybody that believes in an afterlives, just to be on the safe side.

Oh George Carlin, You Left Us Too Soon

[CyberPhart]

I was looking at the objections to the HIV/AIDS vaccine trials from the bible-banger and was immediately put in mind of one of the late, great George Carlin's dialogues. George was describing being in a social situation and having to listen to drivel from some brain-damaged nitwit. He advised that the socially correct thing to do was to nod politely while making non-committal comments so as not to offend the blathering party. At that point, he began to tremble and, with his eyes bulging, lamented that, from deep within our very souls, wells up the proper but less polite response: "BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS!", "BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS!" Ah George, I do miss you so....

ZOMG Zombies!

[werfu]

Hoo shit, that's it, when is it gonna start? I need to grab a shutgun and a lot of ammo before first people get vaccined!!!!

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[iPhr0stByt3]

How on earth is this funny? First off, AIDS is a serious disease. It is not my desire for anyone to have AIDS, but I do believe you've gotta be pretty dumb (see Western countries) or pretty desperate (see African countries) to contract this disease.

But to the point, schmiddy's comment is right on track. If you can't trust your spouse, then AIDS is not the biggest concern in your life. Try a marriage counselor. And not a freakin' shrink. I assume you got married in a church, see how they can help. For those who didn't, trusting your spouse is not actually recommended.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[Voyager529]

As someone who (presumably) fits the bill for the "religious right", I personally believe that God's ways are higher than our own. Thus, I have trouble believing that God is going to say something to the extent of, "now let me punish {person} by giving him/her HIV...wait, there's a cure...crap, I gotta rethink this now".

Rabies vaccine

[quenda]

Rabies vaccine is a good example.
The infection spreads slowly, so you have time to get a vaccine after infection (animal bite) but before symptoms show.
Which is good, because rabies is about the only disease with a higher death-rate than AIDS.

Three user accounts, one God

[tepples]

Everyone's an atheist. No one believes in the Sun God Ra anymore. Nobody believes in Huitzilopochtli anymore. Nobody believes in Juno and Venus anymore.

I, for one, believe in one God who has revealed himself to the people in many ways. Religions differ in how many "personas", or user accounts, they attribute to God: Christianity says three (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), and some Hindu denominations say the same (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva). A lot of "gods" that various cultures worshipped correspond to user accounts that God was thought to use.

Re:Cue objections from the religious right:

[SlashDev]

I'm sorry to day, no Church on this planet represents what the Bible states, they all contracdict one another. What the Bible clearly says is that the world was Created, plain, simple and very clear; whether that statement is symbolic is another discussion. Evolution contradicts the Bible in many ways, and the most basic contracdiction: According to Evolution the world starts (- creation irony there) with a sincle cell organism, according to the Bible the world starts with a multiple cell organism.

so basically

[ClioCJS]

So basically, you get to cherry pick and selectively believe what you want from a book that was supposedly written by an all-knowing God? Hell, I could probably cherry pick stuff out of Scientology and end up with a sane set of beliefs. But I'd still be a mislead sheep.