HIV Vaccine Trial Shows 90% Immune Response

fergus07 writes "Researchers at the Spanish Superior Scientific Research Council (CSIC) have successfully completed Phase I human clinical trials of a HIV vaccine in which 90% of volunteers developed an immunological response against the virus. The MVA-B vaccine draws on the natural capabilities of the human immune system and 'has proven to be as powerful as any other vaccine currently being studied, or even more,' says Mariano Esteban, head researcher from CSIC's National Biotech Centre."

Comments

90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Synerg1y]

Healthy relationships would kill HIV 100%, not 90.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

Your dumb.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[BradleyUffner]

Healthy relationships would kill HIV 100%, not 90.

Meanwhile, back in reality....

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[cachimaster]

That's not the way vaccines work. If the prostitute is also vaccinated (very likely) probabilities compound and you have 90%*90% = 99% chance that prostitute won't kill you.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[magusxxx]

Thank you, June. Now go fix Wally and the Beaver their dinner.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you get raped. Although you probably didn't think of that, because you have a penis.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[cpotoso]

I wish I had modpoints to mod you up. Indeed, fantasyland is just that...

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

Your != You're

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

except for rape, IV drug use, and medical accidents.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[ShavedOrangutan]

I don't understand why the concept is so difficult. There is a 100% effective way to prevent catching HIV. Don't have sex with someone who has it! Why is that so unrealistic?

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[kimvette]

Well, yeah, aside from tainted transfusions, blood contact from sports injuries, at dentists, unlicensed back-alley tattoo shops, or giving first aid to an infected person, as well as the small (some tiny nonzero) possibility of contracting HIV through hard surfaces such as toilet seats, as well as contracting HIV from the mother (yes, there are babies born with HIV) - and let's not forget idiots who shoot up and even more moronically share needles. Aside from those few? Sure, healthy relationships will prevent 100% of HIV/AIDS cases. Oops, we forgot another one: your BF or GF is a windower/widow and his or her spouse was infected, and didn't know, and you don't know, so in your healthy relationship you contract HIV. But yeah, healthy relationships will be a 100% iron-clad guarantee that HIV will be vanquished over the course of a single generation, so let's not devote resources toward finding a cure or preventive vaccine.

At least, that is your opinion now, until you're a car accident victim and are treated by an infected EMT, or an infected doctor, or are tattooed by an artist who is violating all kinds of health codes by putting ink back into the bottle for reuse, or you happen to be the unfortunate soul who proves that the infinitesimal chance of contracting HIV from a toilet seat isn't so improbable after all, or until you found your wife's previous partner had HIV and it has been incubating in her body but when you got your marriage license she still tested clean, or your dentist is infected and infects you, then, suddenly, you won't be such an ass and will see the good sense of spending money to protect the responsible folks from the sluts and the drug users, and even from the innocents (EMTs, men and women who have been cheated on, doctors, etc.) who may be harboring the infection.

Contrary to your belief, not everyone with HIV is a reckless intravenous-drug-using slut. The idea is to protect everyone from the disease because there are too many opportunities for the responsible to contract the disease from the reckless.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[i kan reed]

If only there were any evidence of that. Lifetime monogamy is not necessarily a healthy relationship. There are lots of reasons for that, not least of which being that people change, and not always positively. Moreover you are pretending the only transmission vector is sex, which is just absurd given how the pathogen actually spreads.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

And AC apparently has nothing better to do than to grammar troll.

Nice to see that he doesn't have anything of value to contribute to society.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[nomel]

So, you're saying you can have sex with 100 vaccinated prostitutes and only get HIV once...

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[reeno49]

Consider yourself sued!

We could alternatively settle out of court with a game of Quake 3.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Dahamma]

And don't ever get sick enough to need a blood transfusion.

Oh, and don't ever work in the health industry or volunteer anywhere that you could accidentally come in contact with infected blood.

Are you trolling or just that naive?

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[HateBreeder]

Because HIV infected individuals have a large glowing neon sign attached to their foreheads saying "I HAVE HIV!"

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Synerg1y]

Getting raped doesn't imply a healthy relationship at all, the consent is KINDA MISSING (unless thats your thing rofl). Also men get raped all the time, DOC, strange european ladies (she was actually kinda hot), etc...

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[flaming error]

It is not "100% effective" because sexual intercourse is not the only transmission vector.

It is unrealistic because we have a very strong instinct to reproduce, and that generally involves at least one other person/orangutan whose HIV status we don't really *know* except perhaps a short period immediately after they are tested.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[hedwards]

That's not prevalent enough to be much of an issue. What you're forgetting is that rape only spreads HIV in a subset of cases where one party has HIV already. And HIV would almost certainly have died out years ago if rape was the primary driver of new infections.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

Not "herp" but "aid"

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[ShavedOrangutan]

Show me some numbers on how many catch it through these non-risky acts versus how many catch it from casual sex. Sure, there are numerous ways to catch it, but I'll bet the vast majority is through unsafe sex.

And nobody's advocating not searching for a cure/vaccine, I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with abstinence or long-term relationships (which ARE safer).

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Radres]

90% * 90% = 81%. This is the chance that two events with 90% probability will occur at the same time independent of each other. I think what you're trying to say is 90% + (90% * 10%) = 99%.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[S.O.B.]

I don't understand why the concept is so difficult. There is a 100% effective way to prevent catching HIV. Don't have sex with someone who has it! Why is that so unrealistic?

Perhaps it's unrealistic because it's not true. For example,

Contaminated haemophilia blood products
Blood transfusions
Transmission from mother to child
Needlestick injuries to health workers

It's also theoretically possible to get it from tattoos and piercings although no known cases have been documented.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anon-Admin]

Not taking a side but you did ask for numbers. CDC Published numbers for 2009

Estimated Number of Diagnoses of HIV Infection, 2009

Male-to-male sexual contact 23,846
Injection drug use 3,932
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,131
Heterosexual contact 12,860
Other 76

There are the 2009 numbers.

BTW, in a Healthy relationship Men and Women cheat and do not tell there partner! The percentages of cheaters among men and women were 52% and 66% respectively.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[ShavedOrangutan]

Thank you for researching that.

I realize that nobody ever decides to catch it, but 99.8% of those cases COULD have been avoided.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[ewieling]

Having only "safer sex", sex with only one partner, and abstinence goes against our nature. Our entire biology is geared to reproducing and spreading our genes as widely as possible. You will never get 100% of people to have protected sex 100% of the time. You will never get 100% of people in monogamous relationships to not cheat. The best we can do is get the largest percentage of people we can to do things which reduce their chances of contracting HIV. Rather than live in the fantasy world where nobody makes bad decisions, why not live the real world? I don't understand why the concept is so difficult.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[bky1701]

I don't know about that, but I have a sure-fire way to not die from HIV. You see, it is simple. If you find you have contracted HIV, jump off the nearest bridge. You will no longer need to worry about HIV! Of course, this process only has about a 99% success rate, so you might need to repeat it a few times to ensure you are cured of HIV.

Yes, that was sarcasm. I know it's hard to tell with some of the idiots out there on this topic.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[aristotle-dude]

Healthy relationships would kill HIV 100%, not 90.

Have you heard of the saying about not throwing "pearls" before swine? Worldly people don't like to think of the consequences of their actions or think of relationships in terms of emotional entanglements.

I agree with you 100% but many people just don't seem to get that STDs exist as a deterrent for certain types of behaviours.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anon-Admin]

I think your percentage is off. 30%+ are Heterosexual contact. You are assuming that all of that is from unhealthy relationships where in reality an unknown percentage is contact within a healthy relationship.

Remember, in a normal and healthy relationship men and women will cheat 52% and 66% respectively.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[bky1701]

Yes, just never have sex. Uh huh. How about you head back to the pulpit, where people feel obliged to listen to you (and then ignore what you said afterwards).

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[pixelpusher220]

Even throwing out the ridiculous concept that the 'male-to-male' doesn't include long term stable relationships, the heterosexual contact certainly contains a significant number of long term stable relationships.

Since people *do* cheat, you can't prevent what you don't know about, since cheating is quite frequently...secret. So all the long term stable partners of 'cheaters' who caught HIV couldn't do anything to prevent infection.

Injection drug use - insulin is a legal form of this and certainly has some placement in the numbers. So unless you want to live in the fantasy world of Leave it to Beaver, no, 99.8% weren't preventable.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[ShavedOrangutan]

I never said anything about sexual preference having anything to do with whether a relationship is safe or not. You're assuming that because I said "Abstinence is safest" that I must be some bible thumping homophobe.

How can insulin have anything to do with HIV? I know lots of diabetics and none of them are sharing needles. Spreading HIV through drug use should be 100% preventable. I thought drugs were expensive? Why share a cheap IV needle? Most people wouldn't share a toothbrush!

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[jdpars]

I think this may have been a reference to the now-infamous "your an idiot" response. Not sure though. 50% possibility it's an actual idiot, 50% possibility of a reference.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Duradin]

If you know how monogamous hetero relationships can prevent transmission from non-sexual activities could you pass that along to the proper authorities?

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[jimbolauski]

In the US there has been one known HIV transmission through blood transfusion in the last 8 years the chances of getting HIV from a blood transfusion are 1 in 1,500,000. 1 in 400 people who get stuck with a needle or cut with a sharp from a person with HIV contract the virus there have been 57 cases of health care workers getting HIV at work there are 12,000,000 health care workers. Getting HIV is not that easy mostly bad decisions have to be made to get HIV. The chances that you get HIV from a source besides sex and sharing needles is too small to consider 0.000002% you have a better chance of dieing from constipation.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

What's he's trying to say is (1 - 90%) = 1 - 99%

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on your argument, getting angry and beating someone to death is also natural. Should we accept that natural animalistic instinct and therefore not punish those who behave that way?

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[X0563511]

This isn't /b/, so your use of 'fag' makes you an intolerant asshole of a bigot.

Kindly go dive into a fire.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Synerg1y]

I knew I'd have to define this for you fine intelligent people, but here you go...

http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_mind/relationships/healthy_relationship.html

I'll give you a hint, if a girl likes / loves you, she is much more likely to state that she has an STD (like 100% likely) and let you make up your own mind, than a random stranger looking to get laid not caring what happens to you? Is this human nature concept really that hard to understand? I bet most of the people in this thread are still EHMMM holding out for their 1st girlfriend.

I'd mod you for off topic since you missed the point by about a football field, but meh. We have a troll mod already :)

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[X0563511]

DOC?

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

In no way does gaysex spread your genes as widely as possible. It may spread your jeans, though.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, .. and not smoking would save thousands of lives. .. and eating healthy would save thousands of lives .. and not drinking and driving would save thousands of lives .. and not shooting people would save lives .. and not having wars would save lives.

You can come up with a ton of things that we could do better to prevent disease, death and human suffering. Some of them are things that will work without a change in people's existing behaviour, and some would require a change. Those that require less change in behaviour, are going to work better.

I'm also not sure the term "Healthy Relationship" can so easily be non-circularly defined.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[CyprusBlue113]

Tell that to Africa

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[robot256]

Based on your argument, anyone who contracts HIV should be put in solitary confinement so they cannot transmit it to others, same as murderers. You can only get so far in suppressing animal instincts while ignoring the consequences of the ones that inevitably slip up. Besides, I'd much rather have a society where people go around fucking each other than beating each other to death, which is why the prisons are full of violent offenders instead of adulterers. (Though IIRC, there was an article a while back on how promiscuity vs. monogamy was actually a genetic spectrum and people naturally wind up all over this spectrum. It's not like *everyone* is programmed to be irresponsible.)

And you also ignore the fact that the site of the real HIV epidemic is Africa, where many cultures almost *expect* everyone to have multiple sexual partners. There are efforts to change the culture, but culture changes VERY slowly and in the mean time people are dying. A vaccine like this would be of immeasurable value to them.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[CrazyDuke]

I frequently find that people that people that push for extremely limited sexual contact usually only take that advice seriously when it involves other people contributing other genes to the gene pool, their teenage daughter. (That changes BTW. Usually in the twenties and later, the heat is on for grandkids.)

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[MightyMartian]

Yes, because the only possible vector for HIV infection is through sexual intercourse

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

There are efforts to change the culture, but culture changes VERY slowly and in the mean time people are dying. A vaccine like this would be of immeasurable value to them.

Why are there efforts to change this culture, if it's natural? Seems that most people here on /. think morals are nothing but man-made religious-fanatic beliefs pushed on to society. We should be stopping any efforts to change the African culture of multiple sex partners. In fact, we should be encouraging that behavior in all modern 1st world countries. It's natural, therefore it is good.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[morari]

I wish I could settle [i]everything[/i] out of court with a match of Quake III Arena. My 1337 skills would practically position me above the law! :)

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[duguk]

In the US there has been one known HIV transmission through blood transfusion in the last 8 years the chances of getting HIV from a blood transfusion are 1 in 1,500,000. 1 in 400 people who get stuck with a needle or cut with a sharp from a person with HIV contract the virus there have been 57 cases of health care workers getting HIV at work there are 12,000,000 health care workers. Getting HIV is not that easy mostly bad decisions have to be made to get HIV. The chances that you get HIV from a source besides sex and sharing needles is too small to consider 0.000002% you have a better chance of dieing from constipation.

So, still not 100% then?

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[duguk]

In no way does gaysex spread your genes as widely as possible. It may spread your jeans, though.

Your face when you realise you're the only person who's brought up 'gay sex'...

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Synerg1y]

Thnx for citing your sources, your clearly not new to the news sites on the internet...

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

You are right, except for...

your still new to women so, http://www.wikihow.com/Have-a-Healthy-Relationship have a good life young one.

Where do needle drug users and other scum fit under that model?

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[electron sponge]

Department of Corrections?

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Falconhell]

If it quacks like a duck....

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Dahamma]

What the hell does any of this have to do with the US? The vaccine from the original article wasn't even developed in the US. HIV isn't an epidemic "in the US", but that doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing a vaccine.

If you want to quote statistics - in Africa the estimate is 250-500 people a DAY contract HIV from unsafe (either contaminated blood or equipment) transfusions. Some 3rd world countries in Asia are almost as bad. And since there is such a higher rate of HIV and such poor health care conditions, it's much more dangerous for the health care workers as well.

But I guess same pseudo-moralistic bullshit attitude that would pretend to argue HIV is not a world epidemic and is only contracted by all of those fornicators and addicts probably doesn't give a shit about anyone outside of their tiny little world, anyway.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Synerg1y]

I bet your the 1 case in 8 years (#37547026) is referring to :)

Your the naive one, no facts, no source, no pants (what?), no r/l experience w this shit, no stats.

I'm tired of this argument though, too many ignorant stupid people AND ignorant stupid MODS (mod me bitch) chiming in on what started as a satirical joke :)

Needles are very real, but needle users by majority don't have health relationships, so I did comp for that even though 90% of slashdot failed to pick up.

Time to go home and count my monies peace.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Synerg1y]

AH, but I've moved on to battlefield 3 and SC2 (long timer) nowadays. Quake 3 ftw though :) I remember!

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Duradin]

He agreed 100% that a healthy relationship could prevent 100% of HIV so I was really curious how it takes care of the non-sexual transmission vectors.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Ocker3]

Exactly, you Still don't want to be one of those 57 people. It would be a Huge boost to peace of mind for healthcare workers to have this on hand, they could have a blood test for active T-cells of the right type, and be confident that any HIV infection would get stopped. I'd be interested to know if being vaccinated pre-infection would mean you'd never have to worry about passing it on to anyone though, that would still make sex a problem, even if you weren't going to die from AIDS.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[im_thatoneguy]

You missed the obvious one:

Partners could lie. Sure you're in a "healthy" relationship...

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[MightyYar]

People without vaginas often have a hard time remembering the whole rape thing, but women do get raped.

Aside from that, there is always the good ol' cheating spouse. You can be a Good Christian(tm) and still get AIDS from your fallen-from-grace spouse.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Dahamma]

Well, you are clearly a troll, too, but I didn't even reply to you, jeez.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is this whole goddamn article has anything of value, reading it in order of what was posted when... FUCK!

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems that most people here on /. think morals are nothing but man-made religious-fanatic beliefs pushed on to society. We should be stopping any efforts to change the African culture of multiple sex partners. In fact, we should be encouraging that behavior in all modern 1st world countries. It's natural, therefore it is good.

1. Are morals anything more than man-made religious-fanatic beliefs pushed onto society? I've given up hope on believing they're anything more (I would be classified as a Christian, btw, although people tell me that if you ignore the whole Jesus thing I don't appear to line up with Christianity what so ever to them; truth is, I'm a lot closer than they realize, I just interpret the world a little differently).

2. Generally, I do agree; changing a culture based on morals is bullshit. However, being honest about a culture's problems and suggesting something that would make it better (just safe sex, or better yet, working vaccines and cures) is not bullshit. We should do it first to our own culture (regardless of where you live, I truly believe that there is some sort of problem somewhere within every culture), but it's not necessarily bad to suggest other cultures ways that you find work in your own culture either.

Just sayin'...

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Surt]

Because over 75% of people are surprised to learn that their monogamous sex partner made a different life choice.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because men can't be raped. Fuck off feminazi!

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[moortak]

Yet you can be in a lovely monogamous screened relationship and your partner could choose not to be. Life throws curveballs sometimes.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US there has been one known HIV transmission through blood transfusion in the last 8 years the chances of getting HIV from a blood transfusion are 1 in 1,500,000.

That should be two sentences.

1 in 400 people who get stuck with a needle or cut with a sharp from a person with HIV contract the virus there have been 57 cases of health care workers getting HIV at work there are 12,000,000 health care workers.

So should that.

The chances that you get HIV from a source besides sex and sharing needles is too small to consider 0.000002% you have a better chance of dieing from constipation.

And that.

Fuckpot.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[IgnitusBoyone]

AIDS is a much bigger problem for underdeveloped countries. Look at the rates in Africa compared to the US and like it or not lowering the transmission rates through proper education drastically reduces the transmission rates through transfusions and other methods. No reason not to research a vaccine and a cure, but when you compare AIDS to something like Malaria or Small Pocks things that are passed through the air or by insects that are virtually impossible to avoid I don't find it so hard to understand why a person would rather donate to other causes.

Forced and accidental transmission are a problem with any STD, but really want to lower the incident rate which will require a combination of treatments, vaccines and preventive treatment. Weather you want to admit it or not for all STDs this involves both protective measures during and before engaging in sex and saying its not in our nature isn't really the answer.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[2fuf]

> Don't have sex with someone who has it!

Hmmm, so tell me, how do I control with 100% certainty that my wife never strays and never gets infected?

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Artifakt]

Diabetic needle reuse and sharing is seen almost exclusively in diabetics who are homeless or otherwise at severely low incomes, but it is documented. People who are unable to afford all the oral meds also used, or who have trouble getting the required prescriptions for injectors refilled regularly, do sometimes reuse needles, and even borrow from each other. Needles are controlled by prescription since they are also sought by illegal drug users, meaning diabetics without good access to doctors can run short. In other cases, not being able to afford the oral medications means the diabetic uses needles faster than their doctor thought they might and runs short. It's not that they are as uncaring about the risks as for typical heroin users or similar, but even with some risk awareness, sometimes it's the only option left.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[werepants]

What he's trying to say is 10% chance of getting HIV * 10% chance of hooker having HIV = 1% chance of getting it, or 99% chance of not getting it.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Dahamma]

And those statistics are only for the US, which is a first world country with a modern health care system that provides ready access to retrovirals, thorough testing, and sterile equipment. HIV vaccines aren't about the US.

There are an estimated 1M cases of HIV in the US, while Sub-Saharan Africa is estimated at well over 30M, with thousands of new cases daily. The WHO estimates 200-400 of those a day come from blood transfusions, so the "1 person in 8 years in the US" is pretty narrow minded...

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[drsmithy]

Hmmm, so tell me, how do I control with 100% certainty that my wife never strays and never gets infected?

Make sure her leash doesn't reach to the doorway and install a good security system, of course.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[LingNoi]

because humans lie, don't know they have it then spread it to others that don't know they have it. They rape women and infect them and babies are born with AIDs as well.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[ShavedOrangutan]

I challenge you to find anything in any of my posts that indicate my religious beliefs. Advocating keeping your dick in your pants outside of a monogamous relationship is just common sense and proof that we've evolved beyond monkeys.

Or maybe we haven't.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[manwargi]

I know! How come these people don't use their powers of omniscience to avoid all the infected people they meet?? And those nurses assigned to HIV patients are such dirty whoring sluts, too.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[tragedy]

Synerg1y wrote:

Healthy relationships would kill HIV 100%, not 90.

Clearly you've never heard of rape. While it doesn't fall under the category of healthy relationships, it can still affect people who would otherwise only engage in healthy relationships. For that matter, a person might believe themselves to be in a healthy relationship and be deceived. The arrogant presumption implicit in your post that HIV only strikes moral degenerates is quite incorrect.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[tragedy]

99.8% (I'm just copying your made up statistic) of car accidents COULD have been avoided as well. What's the actual point? Is it that we shouldn't bother developing an AIDS vaccine? Should we similarly not bother trying to make cars safer since people could just drive more carefully? In fact, people could abstain from driving altogether and all car accidents would go away (unless it still counts when a tornado drops one on someone).

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

Having sex with a HIV positive prostitute doesn't mean that you have an 100% "chance" of getting HIV. The risk is somewhere around 0.05% "per act". So 0.05% * 10% * 10% = 0.0005% per act if both are vaccinated.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[felipekk]

I wish I could mod you -1 Naive.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[felipekk]

And even then (after testing) you can't be sure because of the window period:

"Antibody tests may give false negative (no antibodies were detected despite the presence of HIV) results during the window period, an interval of three weeks to six months between the time of HIV infection and the production of measurable antibodies to HIV seroconversion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_test#Window_period

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[felipekk]

99% chance that she won't kill you?

Don't pay that bitch and you'll see how likely she is to kill you, vaccinated or not!

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

What... This is slashdot. Is everyone really this bad at math and statistics!?

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Phoghat]

Qu'ell Schmuck !

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[StikyPad]

I'm not sure, but keep it up -- she hasn't cheated on me yet!

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Phoghat]

And don't ever get sick enough to need a blood transfusion.

Oh, and don't ever work in the health industry or volunteer anywhere that you could accidentally come in contact with infected blood.

Are you trolling or just that naive?

Little of both actually, with a touch of insanity, just for the flavor of course.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[_0xd0ad]

No... This is slashdot. It's really bad at displaying characters like the superscript 2 which would have made GP's post correct.

(1 - 90%)^2 = 1 - 99%

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Yert]

Yeah, those dirty diabetics were cursed by God anyways, so they don't count, right? Or they're in unhealthy relationships. Or both. Goddamned dysfunctional diabetics. Fucking junkies.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

You ought to have a parent go with you to the bank, you could trade in your piggy bank for a debit card, that way you could crack a book instead of emptying it nightly, the net result of which should be you gaining the ability to fucking communicate in English.
You might also consider that the majority of us don't browse at -1, so while it makes you feel awesome to troll around in the gutter, consider: To the vast majority of this sites users you simply don't exist.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you question my sexual activity!

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Grizzley9]

No because you should probably more careful than trying to fulfill what you think of as an immediate sexual desire.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[TheCRAIGGERS]

You can be a Good Christian(tm) and still get AIDS from your fallen-from-grace spouse.

That's ok. Good Christians know that everything that happens to them is part of God's Plan (tm). So it's alright to contract HIV from your cheating bastard of a spouse.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what you're trying to say is that an unknown percentage of relationships are unhealthy, including some relationships which one or both partners would call a "healthy" relationship. However, if they were being objective they probably would admit that the relationship had problems, but nothing they couldn't "work through".

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah reading his comment made my head hurt it was painful I hate reading stuff like that don't you?

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[kimvette]

That's just the USA, right? How about African regions?

http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv5.htm

Africa

In sub-Saharan Africa, there are an estimated 22.5 million (range: 20.9 million–24.3 million; 2007 figures) people infected by HIV with over 2.8 million new infections in 2006. In this region, there were 2.1 million deaths (figure 11 and 12). Ten million young Africans between the ages of 15 and 24 and 3 million children are infected. In contrast to western countries, young African women are more likely to be infected with HIV than young men. According to UNAIDS, 61% of HIV-infected people in sub-Saharan Africa are female and the gap is increasing. Women are being infected with HIV at an earlier age than men in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The differences in infection levels are most pronounced among young people (aged 15 – 24 years) with, on average, 36 young women living with HIV for every 10 young men in sub-Saharan Africa.

Check out this one:

http://www.avert.org/safricastats.htm

From 2008:

65,646 deaths of children age 0-9

http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-africa.htm

Sub-Saharan Africa is more heavily affected by HIV and AIDS than any other region of the world. An estimated 22.5 million people are living with HIV in the region - around two thirds of the global total. In 2009 around 1.3 million people died from AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and 1.8 million people became infected with HIV. Since the beginning of the epidemic 14.8 million children have lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDS.1

The social and economic consequences of the AIDS epidemic are widely felt, not only in the health sector but also in education, industry, agriculture, transport, human resources and the economy in general. The AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa continues to devastate communities, rolling back decades of development progress.

Sub-Saharan Africa faces a triple challenge:

        Providing health care, antiretroviral treatment, and support to a growing population of people with HIV-related illnesses.
        Reducing the annual toll of new HIV infections by enabling individuals to protect themselves and others.
        Coping with the impact of millions of AIDS deaths2 on orphans and other survivors, communities, and national development.

Again, it's well worth finding a sure-fire preventive vaccine to protect everyone, regardless of whether or not you personally think they deserve it. Eliminating HIV is good for all health care workers who come into contact with HIV carriers, and for everyone else those health care workers come into contact with, everyone who uses public restrooms (due to the infinitesimal chance of contracting HIV from hard surfaces), everyone who might be a "good samaritan" and help someone at a car accident, a slip-and-fall, work mishap, etc., and for nice folks who have a lying, cheating husband|wife|bf|gf.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

Healthy relationships would kill HIV 100%, not 90.

Meanwhile, back in reality....

What if u had a healthy relationship with someone with HIV?

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know you don't have sex after you get married, so I don't know what you're so worried about.

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[victorhooi]

heya,

Hmm, ok, so the parent was a bit sensationalist with the 100% claim, and the pseudo-moral overtones are a bit weird.

But he does have a point - practice safe sex goes a long way to cutting down on HIV.

You can talk all you want about all the other possible transmission vectors, but in the grand schema of things, they're a drop in the ocean compared to the number of cases via unsafe sex.

And look, at the end of the day, a person who screws around and does it with random people from bars is a lot likely to contract HIV (or some other STI) than somebody who stays married to the same person for 55 years and doesn't cheat. And this is a broad brush, but that sort of person is probably not likely to get random tattoos every Sunday, or engage in drugs or other risk-taking behaviour.

Like it or not, but as humans, we do reap what we so. Sure, it all boils down to percentage. But you don't do stupid things - whether it's drugs, tattoos, or jumping out of buildings or cagefighting - and chances are, your odds are less of stupid things happening to you. Of course, I'll be the first to admit that stupid things can often be fun or tempting *grins*. But meh, that's life for you.

Cheers,
Victor

Re:90% chance that prostitue won't kill you

[S.O.B.]

If the OP had presented the argument the way you did then I would have agreed.

Unfortunately overly simplistic, uninformed opinions repeated often enough seem to become fact. I was just injecting a bit of knowledge into the hyperbole.

warning!

[Cyko_01]

link is goatse

Re:warning!

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is a troll, link is not goatse.

Re:warning!

[GillyGuthrie]

parent has dns hijacker installed?

Re:warning!

[_0xd0ad]

No, it's an Aeonity blog hosting Goatse via a bit.ly link. Telnet comes in handy sometimes.

I also took the opportunity to add a few more AdBlock Plus filters.

||bit.ly^$third-party
slashdot.org#a(href*=/boredgeek)

Re:warning!

[X0563511]

Can you explain this one for me? I can't parse what it's doing.

Re:warning!

[MightyMartian]

What the fuck is wrong with you? Did your mother drop you on your head, or are you just a fucking mental case by default? Grow up you infantile halfwit.

Re:warning!

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

No, he's just 14. One day, he'll eventually grow up and feel embarrassed about this.

Re:warning!

[_0xd0ad]

Explain what?

It's a 404 now. Or did you want me to explain one of those filters?

Re:warning!

[X0563511]

Oh, they are a pair? Makes sense now. I thought they were interacting.

Re:warning!

[slackbheep]

The world is full of assholes, and at best giving them the attention they crave makes you an idiot, at worst it paints a target on your back. Just... throwing that out there.

Getting an immune response will not help

[Anonymous Coward]

The macrophages engulf it just fine now. Of course, they break it up, and then parts ultimately get picked up. So, what is needed is to BLOCK its site without causing any side issues.

Re:Getting an immune response will not help

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm certain that eminent molecular biologists who developed the vaccine in question are grateful to you for sharing your valuable insight with the world, because I'm sure that as an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot, you are so much more qualified and knowledgeable than they are about HIV's abilities and vulnerabilities.

Re:But will it able to cure

[Anonymous Coward]

this?

idiot.

Great

[G-News.ch]

That's great. This combined with existing anti-retroviral therapies might actually extinguish HIV from the face of the earth in only a few decades, if used widely.

Re:Great

[AmazinglySmooth]

Abstinence, combined with existing anti-retroviral therapies might actually extinguish HIV from the face of the earth in only a few decades, if used widely.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's funny.

Re:Great

[magsol]

Good luck with abstinence being "used widely".

Re:Great

[sulimma]

Abstinence will actually extinguish the whole human race from the face of the earth in only a few decades, if used widely.

Re:Great

[Colonel Korn]

Abstinence, combined with existing anti-retroviral therapies might actually extinguish HIV from the face of the earth in only a few decades, if used widely.

If you want to discuss fairy tales, similarly probable is that quantum mechanics will allow all the HIV to tunnel its way off the planet at the same moment.

Re:Great

[ani23]

are the guys advocating abstinence trolls, serious or just ones who cant get any?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Abstinence, combined with existing anti-retroviral therapies might actually extinguish humanity from the face of the earth in only a few decades, if used widely.

Re:Great

[Riceballsan]

Abstinance alone, on a global scale in roughly one century can whipe out aids, cancer and every other disease from the human race, even solve world hunger and the economy.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be married.

Re:Great

[medv4380]

I'd be learly of this until Phase II and Phase III are completed. Developing an Immune response is different then having a successful vaccine. The antibodies have to be ones that will help in eradicating the infection, and since HIV mutates so rapidly there is no grantee that it will work long term in world wide eradication.

Re:Great

[Americano]

Abstinence would also... extinguish humanity from the face of the earth within only a few decades, if used widely, too!

Or did you forget that:
1) not everybody contracts aids from sex, and so it will still be able to spread via IV drug use, perinatal transmission, and nonsexual contact with the blood of infected people;
2) humans reproduce using sex;

Or did you have data to share that demonstrates that the sole cause of AIDS is losing your virginity outside of marriage?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

...along with the human race.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Abstinence, combined with existing anti-retroviral therapies might actually extinguish mankind from the face of the earth in only a few decades, if used widely. ...there, fixed that for you.

Re:Great

[Belial6]

Well, sure, if there are no humans, there will no be AIDS in humans.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlimited free condoms, combined with existing anti-retroviral therapies might actually extinguish HIV from the face of the earth in only a few decades, if used widely.

Re:Great

[DriedClexler]

Can I be the one who injects people with HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) to test out their immune response?

Re:Great

[Barefoot Monkey]

Abstinence, combined with existing anti-retroviral therapies might actually extinguish HIV from the face of the earth in only a few decades, if used widely.

Abstinence, whether-or-not combined with existing anti-retroviral therapies, might actually extinguish humanity from the face of the earth in only a few decades, if used widely enough.

Re:Great

[king neckbeard]

Unfortunately not. Technology has allowed people to have children without having sex.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Abstinence can wipe out cancer? Does that mean all cancer is hereditary? Or do you just mean that dead people don't get cancer? Citation needed.

Re:Great

[HBI]

I'd substitute "forced sterilization" for the abstinence. Once effective tests for diseases with at least a component of genetic transmission are commonplace, someone's going to bring this up. Best warm up the ethical arguments now against this, we'll need them.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Abstinence, combined with existing anti-retroviral therapies might actually extinguish HIV from the face of the earth in only a few decades, if used widely.

Huh? Sexual transmission is the only way HIV spreads? Wow...guess I understood wrong all these years.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Abstinence is what my wife and I practiced until our wedding night. Our marriage is great.

Re:Great

[93,000]

Reminded me of : "There are no more elephants. There is also no more unethical treatment of elephants." Flight of the Conchords

Re:Great

[Cryacin]

Here's hoping that the crazy zealot religious types follow their own advice and stay abstinent then. But I guess that's too much to hope for.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

It's dufferent than, not different then.

Re:Great

[medv4380]

So you're the one who shut down the Hollywood Porn industry last month.

Re:Great

[Dahamma]

This *is* Slashdot, so likely all three...

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm glad it's being researched in Spain. If an HIV treatment were being discovered in the US, you know some right-wing whackjobs would do whatever they could to stop it so that "them gays dont live as longer derp derp".

Re:Great

[Nadaka]

Abstinence, if used widely enough would also wipe humans from the face of the earth in less than 10 decades.

Re:Great

[Baloroth]

I wouldn't mention abstinence on /. Most of the people around here are unwillingly abstinent and a little sore about it.

Re:Great

[hedwards]

IV drug use is something that people can avoid. And it's pretty unusual for folks that aren't working as EMTs, military personnel or similar to come into contact with random blood. And in the case of the military, having HIV is automatic grounds for not being allowed to enlist. I would assume that it's grounds for discharge.

As for reproduction, it's not an issue, you only need to have sex with one person for that to happen. And ultimately, if everybody did have sex with precisely one partner or had the appropriate testing done, you wouldn't see HIV routinely being spread via sex.

You might still have some cases popping up, but a virus needs a certain number of new infections to keep from being quarantined or otherwise die out.

Re:Great

[halivar]

No, no, it's different than, not dufferent than.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

So does the lack of abstinence. Although it'll take a decade or few more while we consume pretty much everything else on this planet.

Re:Great

[medv4380]

Are you sure it's not thæn?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex with multiple partners is also something people can avoid... but they don't. Do you really think we'll eliminate heroin addicts by wishing hard to the imaginary sky daddy?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you can say that the sex with your wife is the best sex you ever had. Not many husbands can claim that.

Re:Great

[Xenkar]

Forced sterilization of everyone with genetic diseases pretty much means sterilization of the entire species since there is always some genetic disease in a person, hiding as a recessive gene. Just remember that when they start their little crusade to wipe out diseases.

(Disclaimer: I have Hemophilia B, Osteochondroma, and genetic predispositions to various mental disorders, which means I'm near the top of the list of peeps who'll get sterilized.)

Re:Great

[HBI]

Type 1 diabetes here. I already reproduced, so a non-issue for me.

Re:Great

[jizziknight]

Celibacy would be a more correct term than abstinence for what you and the parent poster are implying. I think abstinence typically refers to something more temporary, like chastity.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with abstinence is that it falls on its face when approached by reality. Repeatedly. Yet people still push it as a solution. It works on paper, not with real people. Sorry.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

This being slashdot, I'm going with door #3.

Re:Great

[bky1701]

Abstinence can also cure cancer, if we can get everyone on board. Wonder why that hasn't been tried!

Re:Great

[medv4380]

I would assume that it's grounds for discharge.

In 1998 in the US the answer is No. HIV is not grounds to be discharged. Heck, in the 90's you'd probably have even made it though enlistment and be HIV positive. They did make sure that they were in non critical jobs. The med requirment to keep it in check basically means you cant put them on front line duty. The GOP had a big argument about it in the 90's about trying to force the military to discharge them. I don't know what ultimatly became of that or if their rules currently apply. You're free to shuffle though the manuals to find out if you'd like to now definitively. Though whether or not our soldiers are clean is irrelevant if it's not the case of all soldiers since I doubt we do exclusive killing of our own men.

Re:Great

[somersault]

It'll work fine if people teach it to their kids, grandkids, great grandkids and so on.

Re:Great

[pixelpusher220]

or is it that the 'little sore' is why they are unwillingly abstinent? ;-)

Re:Great

[NatasRevol]

If there was ever a bigger whoosh....

Re:Great

[mooingyak]

It's okay to be a little dufferent sometimes.

Re:Great

[wierd_w]

Same here.

Aunt has epillepsy, mom and uncle have hypoglycemia and type 1 diabetes respectively, dad has 3 of 4 genes for hematochromatosis (a reasonably rare condition causing the body to sequester lethal levels of iron), my sister has S protien deficiency, and my brother is sterile and has dislexia.

When it comes to the genetic lottery, I pretty much lost. (While never diagnosed, I also exhibit many signs of having fairly pronounced aspergers, but I don't feel that it inhibits my daily life. I just think other people are batshit crazy.)

I feel that the better solution is to do the world a favor and not purpetuate the already large collection of dangerous recessives I seem to carry. Can I get an honorable mention for the darwin award?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

if by sore, you mean chaffed from the fapping to internet porn, then you're on the money.

Re:Great

[Random Destruction]

+1 funny

Re:Great

[BJ_Covert_Action]

As for reproduction, it's not an issue, you only need to have sex with one person for that to happen.

What a boring shitty fate for the human race. I'd rather die of AIDS then spend 80 years on this Earth and only fuck one person. God bless freedom. :D

Re:Great

[MysteriousPreacher]

He's not lying. Sex with his wife is great!

Re:Great

[couchslug]

"are the guys advocating abstinence trolls, serious or just ones who cant get any?'

The three are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Great

[Toonol]

Than, then? So then than?

Re:Great

[Firehed]

That was the joke (also, yes it has - look up IVF). Eliminate humans and their problems also disappear.

Re:Great

[Firehed]

Ugh, it seems that standing at the DMV all day has impaired my reading ability. Disregard that.

Re:Great

[couchslug]

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Re:Great

[MightyMartian]

No it won't. Look at pregnancy rates in the US Bible belt. Abstinence-only education is a failure.

Kids have sex. They have been having sex for millions of years, and they will continue to have sex. Unless you plan on forcing them all to wear chastity belts, your plan has already been proven wrong.

Have any other bright ideas?

Re:Great

[MightyMartian]

Bully for you. You are aware, i trust, that anecdotal evidence is pretty much worthless, and judging by the behavior of many even in areas where abstinence-only education is the norm, you're very likely atypical.

Public health issues should be resolved by reason and by what actually happens on the ground, not by the mad imaginings of people caught in the midst of their own self-delusions. You know, sort of like all those good religious parents who stuff wool in their childrens' ears so they don't here the actual facts about sex and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs, so they ignorant kids can go out, do the naughty anyways (after all, that's what kids do, whether they think God will piss in their Wheaties or not), and get pregnant or get itchies in their critchies.

Re:Great

[Yo Grark]

If your parents never had kids, chances are neither will you. :)

- Yo Grark

Re:Great

[geekoid]

Because no one has AIDS?

Re:Great

[geekoid]

No you wouldn't. Ask anyone dying of AIDS.
As you lay there, alone and cold, the lights dimming, cold sweats send shills, miserable as the worse flu, day in day out for months. The you can tell me it was worth it.

Re:Great

[geekoid]

hollo?! testing , testing...

This is the 21st century calling, you don't need to have sex with ANYONE to reproduce.

That is all.

What a stupid, not practical, shown to not work examples of shit you post is.

Re:Great

[dintech]

He's posting on Slashdot. Abstinence is a given. Unfortunately.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

*Whooosh*

Re:Great

[Ocker3]

Reminds me of the Catholic Priest who got into the business because his father was one, as was his grandfather...

Re:Great

[bragr]

Not many people die of AIDS these days, not in the developed world. The meds have gotten so good that its quite possible to suppress the virus to the point that the virus is undetectable, the person isn't infectious, and the person has normal white blood cell counts. You can stay that way for decades now, and it isn't uncommon for people to contract HIV and die of something unrelated years later. Not to say that I'll be lining up to have unprotected sex with someone with HIV, but we aren't in the 1980's anymore.

Re:Great

[jd2112]

If your parents never had kids, chances are neither will you. :)

- Yo Grark

Unless you were adopted.

Re:Great

[magsol]

I do it for the mod points :)

Re:Great

[Artifakt]

Sex with my ex-wife is the bet sex I've ever had, although it was pretty damned good when we were still married too (just less frequent than it is these days). I was married 23 years, and have been in a monogamous relationship with the same woman for 29 years now.

Re:Great

[JonySuede]

You don't have to inject the virus, you just have to inject gays users of crystal meth users. http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2005/12/ccas3-0512.html.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not much gets by you, is there?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

And never getting injured will stop tetanus!

Re:Great

[somersault]

I have an idea for an anti-whooshing device. I'll let you in on the beta test as you seem like a good candidate for it improving your quality of life.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

Re:Great

[dunkelfalke]

That's not how it works. Even an adopted person had, at some point of its life, parents in the biological sense of the word.

Re:Great

[tracy6413]

http://bit.ly/r2bovO here is the whole story

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

People keep saying that. What's the difference? One of these days, maybe somebody will be able to tell me.

Re:Great

[Nadaka]

I noticed this. I wouldn't mind being able to mod myself redundant after I saw everything else that was posted.

Re:Great

[tehcyder]

I have an idea for an anti-whooshing device. I'll let you in on the beta test as you seem like a good candidate for it improving your quality of life.

You'll have to speak up, he can't hear you over the massive whooshing sound above his head.

Re:Great

[tehcyder]

are the guys advocating abstinence trolls, serious or just ones who cant get any?

Yes, the correct answer is number four "it's a fucking joke".

Re:Great

[tehcyder]

Congratulatins, you are the 100th person to make exactly the same response in this hread to what was obviously a joke.

Re:Great

[tehcyder]

Abstinence is what my wife and I practiced until our wedding night. Our marriage is great.

That's not what she said last night...

Re:Great

[tehcyder]

I wouldn't mention abstinence on /. Most of the people around here are unwillingly abstinent and a little sore about it.

Vaseline is your friend in these circumstances.

Re:Great

[black soap]

It would probably be easier to get widespread testing and awareness worldwide than to get people to stop having sex. Easier, as in "just this side of impossible," as people are incredibly hard to educate.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Abstinence will actually extinguish the whole human race from the face of the earth in only a few decades, if used widely.

Actually, no.. it wouldn't. In fact, it would do the world a lot of good because we are low on resources as is.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but monogamy would just about end STDs and would maintain the human race!

Re:Great

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Looks at how successful Mrs Teach abstinence only Sara Palin was with her daughter.

And that's typical, just look at Texas.

If you look at the Bible, its been taught since the OT. Its never worked.

Abstinence.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have never had sex, have you?

Re:Abstinence.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here. This _IS_ slashdot, have you looked around?

PhiCorp

[jimmerz28]

As long as PhiCorp doesn't stock up on the vaccine in anticipation of Miracle Day I think this looks like some promising news.

Re:PhiCorp

[impaledsunset]

Meh, I don't care, even an AIDS epidemic can't possibly be worse than Miracle Day.

Re:PhiCorp

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to X-Factor. Simon Cowell is calling you.

10%

[tesdalld]

sooo.... what happened to the other 10 percent? They all got HIV? That would suck.

Re:10%

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume they're testing with an inert version of the virus, then checking the response. I doubt 'lets see if you get aids' would pass any ethics board. ;)

Re:10%

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They just didn't show high enough levels of the antibodies that the researchers were expecting.

The trial went something like this: They took blood from someone and put it in a test tube. They added the vaccine to the test tube. They waited a certain period of time, then tested the blood to see how much of a certain chemical/protein/whatever was present. If it was high enough, that's a positive response, which 90% of the samples had. If it was too low, that was a negative response, which 10% of the samples had. It's possible they didn't draw blood first, but in that case they just gave the people a shot, waited a period of time, drew blood, then checked how much of the expected result was present.

Re:10%

[Anonymous Coward]

If think it's better to look at it as, if you sleep with someone(s) with HIV 10 times, you'll get it. If the someone(s) are also vaccinated, you'll have to go to 100 times. Moral of the story, get tested before switching partners.

Re:10%

[Anonymous Coward]

there has been at least one of those...

Re:10%

[DriedClexler]

I thought the "inert version of the virus" was the vaccine?

Re:10%

[pixelpusher220]

A friend of mine who is an *actual* doctor said the available documentation on the risk of transmission from female to male is about 3 in 1000. Which is pretty decent odds for completely unprotected sex.

Re:10%

[Jarik C-Bol]

I was curious about this, so i did some reading on other vaccine trials.
turns out, they are not looking for you to not/get the disease, they are looking for you to develop successful antibodies. (which they can test by taking a blood sample, and infecting it and watching under a microscope).
Additionally, 90% seems to be the benchmark for a useable vaccine. For example, the final tests for some of the Polio vaccines resulted in 90%ish of the test subjects developing antibodies. After that, its basically a war of attrition on the disease.
If 90% of a population becomes immune, the chances of the disease spreading within it diminishes accordingly. Eventually, all live carriers die of old age or the disease, and no new carriers are produced, thus eliminating the disease from the population. Heck, even a 55 % successful vaccine could do this, it would just take longer.

Re:10%

[cplusplus]

*sigh* no mod points. +1 Informative! Hip hip hooray!

Re:10%

[_0xd0ad]

It is, but that doesn't work with AIDS because it targets the immune system.

When you get a viral infection, the immune system doesn't target the virus itself; rather, it targets and destroys the infected cells. This prevents them from producing any more copies of the virus. But when it's the immune system being infected, it ends up killing itself, hence the name "auto-immune disease".

A vaccine works by infecting cells with an inert virus that makes the cell appear infected, but doesn't mass-reproduce itself or have significant ill effects on the patient. The immune system randomly produces a variety of antibodies, each of which targets some specific type of abnormal cell. Eventually an immune cell that has the antibody which detects the infected cells comes along and kills them. Then it starts mass-producing that antibody so the immune system will detect and kill that infection faster in the future.

If you tried to vaccinate against AIDS, you'd just end up killing off the patient's immune system - and since immunity is carried within the immune system itself, you've killed off the cells that were supposed to detect the infection in the future and subdue it before it got out of hand. The bone marrow will rebuild the immune system, but the new generation of cells don't know what they were supposed to be targeting because the cells with the antibodies targeting cells with AIDS were all killed off with the rest of the immune system.

Re:10%

[Carnildo]

If 90% of a population becomes immune, the chances of the disease spreading within it diminishes accordingly. Eventually, all live carriers die of old age or the disease, and no new carriers are produced, thus eliminating the disease from the population. Heck, even a 55 % successful vaccine could do this, it would just take longer.

What you're describing is herd immunity, and the required effectiveness of the vaccination effort depends on the specific disease. For smallpox, with a short infectious asymptomatic period and easy transmission, the threshold is around 85%: a vaccine that is less than 85% effective cannot be used to eradicate smallpox. HIV has a very long period (years) when someone can infect others but has no symptoms, so I'd expect the herd immunity threshold to be very high -- possibly 99% or higher.

Re:10%

[DriedClexler]

Neat, thanks for the explanation!

This is slashdot...

[publiclurker]

What do you think?

Re:This is slashdot...

[reeno49]

What do you think?

I think his/her intention was not to think.

Re:This is slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

... all of the above?

Re:This is slashdot...

[someSnarkyBastard]

Can't they be both?

awesome

[rish87]

I can finally go back to sharing needles. I gotta save money, what with the economy in the gutter.

Re:awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I can finally go back to sharing needles. I gotta save money, what with the economy in the gutter.

You're holding it wrong!

Re:awesome

[sam0737]

Just needles? After all HIV is infamous for STD...

Re:awesome

[jovius]

This is Slashdot.

Re:This is bad

[Synerg1y]

Rofl, they still have aids.

Nice anti-government remark ;)

Natural?

[Atzanteol]

"The MVA-B vaccine draws on the natural capabilities of the human immune system"

Isn't that how *all* vaccines work?

Re:Natural?

[Delarth799]

Most vaccines introduce a dead or severely weakened version of the disease into the body so the immune system can recognize the disease and kill it in the future. This vaccine attacks the virus itself and strips if of the ability to attack the immune system and allows it to do its job. So its not really doing what a normal vaccine would do by introducing a dead HIV virus into the body.

Re:Natural?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it was very fortunate that they had the hindsight to call it a vaccine.

Re:Natural?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes...

It is sad when you have a lot of people who don't know how vaccines work condemning them.

How do they test??

[Anonymous Coward]

I was wondering how do they perform clinical trails? Do they inject the vaccine with a person and then have him have sex with a HIV positive lady?

Re:How do they test??

[tungstencoil]

Historically take a sample set of people considered to be at-risk for HIV, give them safer-sex counseling, and then track them against a control for infection rates. This study was different (hate to say RTFA, but it does describe it):

Development of MVA-B is based on the insertion of four HIV genes in a previously used vaccine (MVA) for smallpox. When injected with the vaccine, a healthy immune system can react against the MVA, whilst the HIV genes are incapable of self-replicating. This guarantees a safe clinical trial for HIV free volunteers. Furthermore by trialing the vaccine on healthy patients, the immune system can learn how to detect and combat the HIV virus components. "It is like showing a picture of the HIV so that it is able to recognize it if it sees it again in the future", says Esteban.

Re:How do they test??

[pixelpusher220]

Yes. Oh and your mom will be home a little late tonight...

Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to take a moment to thank the brave people who are undergoing this study for the sake of humanity. I'm sure they're being compensated accordingly, but I nevertheless think it takes a huge amount of humanity to say, "Sure, I'll try out this vaccine and then you can try and infect me with something I will suffer under for the rest of my life, for the good of the world." Perhaps I could be wrong, and there will be no deliberate attempt at infection, (which would make for a very weak trial, I think). But even still, thanks to all the voluntary guinea pigs in the world who are taking risks to help save the rest of us.

first post-HIV-cure realization

[Tumbleweed]

Oh yeah, they never did cure Herpes, did they? :(

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[vlm]

Oh yeah, they never did cure Herpes, did they? :(

Too profitable.

Imagine the crushing damage to the medical industry if they ever cured the common cold?

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[RenHoek]

To be honest.. once they've tackled HIV, if they start refocusing on the lesser STD's, I wonder if they'll just fall like a house of cards. I mean HIV is pretty advanced. It shouldn't be too hard to take out the remain ones should it? Or am I being too naive?

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Belial6]

Which makes me suspicious. The can make a vaccine for the variant of Herpes (Chicken Pox) that has one outbreak, and that is the end of it, but they can't make a vaccine for the variant that has reoccurring outbreaks for the the persons entire life. For that variant, they can only come up with on going treatment to suppress the symptoms.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[medv4380]

Naive, herpes hides in nerve cells between breakouts. I'm sure if you trained the immune system to hunt it down in those cells their would be other consequences. Your immune system deals with it just fine when it finds it, but killing nerve cells is usually bad. This is also why the 1st outbreak is usually the worst with Herpes since once you're body know what it is it can kill it before it causes too much damage, but depending on the version it still causes damage.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[afidel]

Actually the Herpes virus (varicella zoster) that causes chicken pox does have recurrence in many people, it's what causes shingles. For those people all they can do is help the symptoms as well (though the chicken pox vaccine will now eliminates symptoms for some significant percentage of those so affected). Now that the Valtrex patent has expired (2008) I'm sure there's some incentive to create a vaccine (though getting it used in the general population is going to be difficult, see all the ignorant uproar over the HPV vaccine).

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[medv4380]

Actually even though you only get Chicken Pox once the virus can reinfect and then it's called Shingles. The Chicken Pox Vacinne does not stop the potential of reinfection resulting in Shingles.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[samkass]

Which makes me suspicious. The can make a vaccine for the variant of Herpes (Chicken Pox) that has one outbreak, and that is the end of it, but they can't make a vaccine for the variant that has reoccurring outbreaks for the the persons entire life. For that variant, they can only come up with on going treatment to suppress the symptoms.

Think about it... The vaccine works the same way actually getting Chicken Pox works from the immune system's memory's point of view. The fact that you tend to only get chicken pox a few times in your life (if you include shingles) is why there can be so effective a vaccine. The fact that the immune system can't keep some other herpes in check as well is why a vaccine is less effective for those variants.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of shingles?

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you go to the hospital and buy expensive treatments for every cold? Or are you referring to the Kleenex Lobby? I've heard you shouldn't mess with those guys.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Time_Ngler]

There are a lot of drugs for HIV suppression, too. So why wouldn't HIV also be "too profitable" to develop a vaccine for?

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Altus]

There is considerable research into a herpes vaccine, I have been seeing articles about it for the past few years. Given the chicken pox vaccine is, what, 15 years old? I don't think its that surprising that herpes is taking a little bit longer, especially when you consider that it doesn't get nearly the funding that HIV does (or probably even chicken pox, which can kill people who get it late in life)

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Anonymous Coward]

csic is a government non profitable organisation, of course if the vaccine works Spanish government will get a lot of money from other countries, but they are studying and researching in order to really find a cure and not to get money. Spain is a small country with completely free health insurance for everyone and aids medicines are too expensive for the government, the doctors are focused on finding a vaccine in order to be able to use the money for other medicines and resources.

The common cold medicines are less than two dollars in Spain, I am sure some Csic teams are focused on finding a cure for herpes, but the medicines are not a big economic problem for the government, and not many people dies because of cold sores in Spain, therefore a vaccine is not really necessary.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Poor Africans can not afford HIV suppression drugs.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[geekoid]

You completely misrepresent that link to about.com.
And there is a vaccine for shingles.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[geekoid]

"Which makes me suspicious"

Yes, ignorant people are often suspicious of what they don't understand.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[geekoid]

Yes, all those doctors telling you to stay home and rest would be out all that money there not getting anyways.

Idiot.

If there was a conspiracy, it would be from Vitamin C huxsters... but there isn't.

The common cold is
A) Hard
B) Not very critical.

That said, if a company came up with a 'cure' they would make billion of dollars in a quarter, and the C*O would get hundreds of million in bonuses. Or maybe they're nice guys and they would sit on the cure so some other company can make billions.

Finally, a cure wouldn't make the cold go away. IT would be a vaccine that would get administered to each generation.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[geekoid]

Yes, silly of them putting the money into finding a cure for a disease that kills people instead of one that makes people's crotch itch.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Tumbleweed]

Yes, silly of them putting the money into finding a cure for a disease that kills people instead of one that makes people's crotch itch.

Your righteous indignation would be more impressive if it had anything to do with what I said. I never said nor did I imply anything of the sort. Outside of your head, that is.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[MightyMartian]

I don't think shingles is from reinfection per se, but rather from incomplete infection which allows some of the virus to hide out for long periods of time before new symptoms show up.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[rve]

Oh yeah, they never did cure Herpes, did they? :(

Too profitable.

Imagine the crushing damage to the medical industry if they ever cured the common cold?

This level of paranoia is over the top. The pharmaceutical industry isn't holding back a cure because treatment of symptoms is too profitable. It just happens to be so difficult to develop a cure for a viral infection, that as far as I'm aware, not a single one exists for any virus. All we have (as far as I'm aware) are vaccines, and for some viruses inhibitors that suppress, but do not cure a viral infection.

By the way, how is the medical industry making any money off the common cold right now? Now if they found a cure, then they'd start making billions. Wouldn't you buy a cure if you had a cold? I know I would stockpile vast quantities of the stuff, if there was a cure. Would I pay $100 to cure a cold? Definitely! $250? Probably. $1000? Depends. If I had my 2 weeks of vacation or some special occasion coming up, I'd consider it.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually...whether or not the hpv vaccination's proported benefits outweigh it's proported risks is for the parents of teen and teen to decide not some fake scumbag like perry.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[rakaur]

No one actually knows the exact mechanism of herpes zoster. We know it requires an initial infection with varicella zoster and that it usually takes years to resurface. It does not have anything to do with an "incomplete infection" or a "reinfection." The mechanism is not understood.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Anonymous Coward]

The uproar wasn't because of the HPV vaccine itself, it was because of the MANDATE issued by the Texas Governor, that ALL little girls age 12 (?) MUST have it.

The minute someone tells me I MUST do something (even if it really is the best thing I could do for myself), is the moment I am extremely likely to ignore their decree.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[afidel]

Dude there was uproar about the HPV vaccine before it was even available. All the idiots saying "my 12 year old isn't going to turn into a slut so there's no need for her to get the vaccine". The reality of the situation is they all *should* have it as it's an easy way to reduce their chances of getting a life threating illness, we require all children to get the chickenpox vaccine and the incidence of chickenpox being life threating is miniscule.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Anonymous Coward]

There are effective anti viral drugs for Shingles, if they are taken as soon as an outbreak is detected it can stop it in it's tracks. The problem here is most people and Doctors included don't know how to spot it before it turns into something quite nasty.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Belial6]

Are you seriously claiming that suspicion is a sign of ignorance? That has to be the stupidest thing I have heard all day.

Re:first post-HIV-cure realization

[Anonymous Coward]

If the vaccine is administered before contraction, the vaccine teaches the body to defend itself and the disease fails to gain traction and is destroyed by the immune system.
For recurring contractions, the vaccine will do little to help because the patient has latent stage infection. The virus is 'dormant' and waiting an opportunistic time to recur. In this case the vaccine does not help because the virus is hiding - often in neural cells.

Go Educate yourself

[Radtastic]

You are woefully uneducated. I suggest you use your google-fu on other ways HIV is transmitted.

Yes, sex with an infected partner. And sharing of needles, blood transfusions, and babies born from infected mothers, to name a few.

Free love baby! Groovy!

[RenHoek]

I wonder if a vaccine against AIDS will result in a sexual revolution as happened in the '60s with the advent of birth control pills.

And yes, I do know there's more then one STD out there, but that didn't stop them in the 60's either.

Re:Free love baby! Groovy!

[jellomizer]

Probably not.
Most people realized that people do want relationships more then just blind sex for most people.
AIDS didn't put a stop to it. It was on its way out before AIDS but AIDS did give the opponents extra reasons.

 

Re:Free love baby! Groovy!

[pixelpusher220]

I'm sure there will be some affect on behavior.

What I believe will *really* launch the next sexual bonanza is a simple 5 minute 'blood test on a chip' for the various STDs. Don't have to cure it, just know if the person you're going to humpty-hump with is likely clean.

And that really can't be that far off in the future me thinks. Testing for the existence of a disease is infinitely simpler than curing it.

Re:Free love baby! Groovy!

[pixelpusher220]

Most people realized that people do want relationships more then just blind sex

if by 'most people' you mean female yes. Most men still want random gratuitous sex as often as they can get it for the better part of their teens and 20s. It's genetic mostly but also nicely reinforced by societal stereotypes.

Re:Free love baby! Groovy!

[Altus]

HA HA HA!

good joke man.

Re:Free love baby! Groovy!

[Belial6]

False dichotomy.

Re:Free love baby! Groovy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you really have no clue about social matters.

Science 1000000001, god 0

[hyades1]

Looks like the big, homophobic Guy in the Sky takes another one in the 'nads from our friends in the medical research community.

I wonder what Pat Robinson's got to say about this. He's been remarkably quiet since all those tornadoes ripped through the Bible Belt, sucking up true believers like a vaccuum cleaner on meth.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[anagama]

Not just homophobic, crustaceaphobic as well.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no big homophobic guy in the sky. As we all know, god loves the gays.
(Although I'm not quite sure if that was from the Simpsons or Drawn Together.)

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

So medical breakthroughs are now a great big "fuck you" to organized religion.

I think someone needs to grow up.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[sdguero]

Nice. :)

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[hitmark]

i actually lol-ed...

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the record, I don't think Pat Robby knows ANYTHING about the, "Guy in the Sky."

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow got your bigot on today dont you...

If you said they same thing about say blacks or Jews you would be voted down to troll so fast...

You are a despicable person. 100 years ago you would just be making jokes about races instead of the creeds of people.

If you can not see this and think I am full of it? Your words speak volumes. You're venue of choice to speak your opinion, also shows the cowardice of it.

You sir are a racist. Bet you dont think so either do you.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[kevinNCSU]

Wow, you're giddy about fellow human beings dying because they have different culture and beliefs than you. Is this really the "enlightened" and "evolved" alternative to religion you wish to present?

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[font420]

Glad someone said it.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the nihilistic future... it's actually not that much different, but we certainly like to think higher of ourselves... despite continuing the same behaviors with 'new' and 'enlightened' reasons.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

'more evolved human beings'... don't be so quick to include yourself in that group, basement dweller.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, how about it's a parody of supposedly loving Christians who take joy in the fact people died in tsunamis, and wished it on the people of Dover Pennsylvania; or loving Christians who has no second thought about sending death threats.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Paladeen]

Get a sense of humour, fer God's sake. If He does exist, he must be the ultimate joker. I have a feeling he'd like our OP's tongue-in-cheek flippancy.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

- He's pointing out the inconsistency in Pat Robertson's messages:
1. God is killing teh gheys because they sin against him
2. God sends tornadoes through the Bible Belt because ...

- Assuming Hyades1 is from the USA, I'd say that Pat Robertson, Hyades1, Bible Belters and Gays share a similar culture and set of beliefs (except for some key differences). Pat Robertson is renowned for whipping up hatred against gays, feminists, academics, Scots and just about everyone, however, and blaming their "problems" on their sinful behaviour and God's punishment.

- Rather than presenting an alternative to religion, Hyades1 seems to be merely taking potshots at knobs like Pat Robertson et al with a "fuck off you religious fruitcakes, we're all on this planet together and it'd be just grand if we all worked through our problems together - helping each other, or at least not making things more difficult" POV.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe he's making a joke, fuckhead.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[im_thatoneguy]

So medical breakthroughs are now a great big "fuck you" to organized religion.

Yes. Because organized religion says that God is either unable or unwilling to cure us of diseases--and that Satan afflicts them upon the human race as the result of sin.

If we wipe out infectious diseases and cancers then we prove that your average med student is both more capable and caring than the divine.

Why worship a guy who will give you the finger when you get cancer and other ailments that a doctor can easily treat?

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's shoving it in the face of the asswipe who gloats at every misfortune suffered by someone who doesn't buy into his ghost-worshipping beliefs. The difference is that hyades1 isn't blaming the victims here. He didn't say it's the true believer's fault, just that they were sucked up.

Pat Robertson isn't terribly different from the Taliban - they're both extreme zealots who have bastardized their religions to benefit themselves. The only difference is money - if Pat wasn't making a ton of money from the things he says, he'd probably chop off hands as well.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

This rates up there with conservatard trolls that rail against any liberal being rich or spendthrift.

Here's the hierarchy:

1. I would personally shiv hitler.
2. If someone is actively responsible for hate and suffering, just not at a Godwin-invoking level, I indulge in schadenfreude without feeling a bit of guilt. (hint: this's where Pat Robertson and his followers live)
3. If someone's wrongheaded, I'll try to correct them. If there's hope, they move down the list. If there's not, they migrate toward Pat on my scale
4. Most of us.
5. Exceptionally good people. Flaws are expected and tolerated: Yeah, I know that Mother Theresa had flaws.
6. Freakishly good people and Unicorns.

I doubt GP is 'giddy', but it is ETHICAL to point out hypocrisy, and we're not trying to claim some magic-sky-daddy's mantle of goodness. We're plodding up the scale and this is a loud mockable counterpoint to when Pat Robertson SAID those hateful things. Everyon should **enjoy** those times where reality bit some zealot on the ass.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

He's simply remarking on the irony of "their" God targeting an area of the country filled with true believers. If Pat Robertson was right San Francisco would be toast and West Hollywood would look like the meteor crater in Arizona. Right wing Christians are kind of like a colony of ants worshiping "The Great Foot In The Sky". The Great Foot may destroy your enemies one day but it's just as likely to wipe out the faithful.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Pharmboy]

Thank you, if for no other reason than the link to make your own bogus church signs that I found on that page. Has already come in handy.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm... get it?

  No?

  You should. it's really great!

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you idiot. It's a way to point out the blatant hypocrisy of a bunch of religious nutjobs who, based on their "enlightened" and "evolved" religion, advocate that people should die because they don't go along with their idiocy, and even have the audacity to boast when they die or are subjected to any hardship.

If they can't take what they are dishing then they should just shut their mouths, because us "sinners" are more like their jesus than they ever were.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Are you actually familiar with Pat Robertson? hyades1 was clearly making a sly reference to the many times Pat has blamed disaster victims by saying that they brought it upon themselves for not being (sufficiently) Christian. He wasn't necessarilly being "giddy about fellow human beings dying," just noting Mr. Robertson's hypocrisy.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're giddy about fellow human beings dying because they have different culture and beliefs than you. Is this really the "enlightened" and "evolved" alternative to religion you wish to present?

I'd be willing to bet it's not giddy about people dying. He's giddy about watching a hypocrite attribute some disasters (like Katrina) to the evil sins of homosexuals, while others (like tornadoes in Alabama) are actual tragedies.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Religious people deserve to die. They've been behind every fucking war in the the history of humanity and they've also held back technological progress for centuries.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just DIFFERENT culture and beliefs, but WRONG culture and beliefs!

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not their beliefs.. it's their actions that make them intolerable.

No one cares what they believe, but when they try to retard the sciences, spout hatred about gays, and vote for war, to hell with them (literally).

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're giddy about fellow human beings dying because they have different culture and beliefs than you. Is this really the "enlightened" and "evolved" alternative to religion you wish to present?

Presumably you're referring to atheism as an "alternative" to religion. Atheism is not an alternative to religion; it is the wholesale rejection of religion.

Jimmy collected stamps. I, however, partook in the alternative... not collecting stamps.

Sounds silly, yes?

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, barely 5 comments were made before the first anti-religion troll somehow finds a way to put in an unrelated plug.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bible Belt? There's very few true believers. The founder of the Roman Catholic church Constantine was a sun worshipper. He made a so called conversion to christianity and then after through persectution and the inquistions of the roman catholic church most of the protestants converted to sunday worship to avoid persecution. Now we have the world in mass disobeying one of God's Ten Commandments under a bunch of false excuses as for why they worship on sunday. Such as being saved by grace through faith. Paul says "shall we continue to sin that grace may abound? God forbid." And false interpretations of other New Testament scriptures, and then claim see, this is why we keep sunday. But they are wrong.

“Sunday is a Catholic institution, and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles...From the beginning to the end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of the weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.” The Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August, 1900.

On 7 March 321, Constantine I decreed that Sunday (dies Solis) will be observed as the Roman day of rest [CJ3.12.2]: On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed...

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how many Christians have killed in the name of their religion, I'd say one guy spouting hate still doesn't tip the scale away from them.

That's always the first argument religious people make, as if their followers were never guilty of such a thing. In America we have Christians openly calling for the murder of rival political figures and celebrities. It goes both ways.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with your point -- as an athiest I feel somewhat obligated to mention that I've never heard anyone use "evolved" in that way, other than creationists. You give yourself away as one by assuming that evolution has a goal of superiority, or that one's goal should be to "evolve" more.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Hognoxious]

I wonder what Pat Robinson's got to say about this.

Same as me: "Shit, I'd have bought some Apple stock if I'd have known earlier!"

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[JonySuede]

Saying were is your god now, he is clearly existent as he has not helped you devote worshipper, is not the same as getting giddy.

And I would add that irrational beliefs should be mocked. They had the irrational belief that an anthropomorphic god would protect them, it clearly has not. Sure, theologians came with plenty of rational sounding explanations for this, but they do not hold if you do use n order predicate calculus on them.(Lawyers and politicians should be mock to for pretty much the same reason).

Someone might ask why use mockery, as mockery sounds mean and unenlightened ? You use mockery to fight irrational belief as by definition irrational believer cannot be argued with. However mockery works the emotive part of the brain were reason cannot reach.... That is why believers should be mocked and not argued with.

Someone else might also ask : why this instead of nothing? There must be a god since we exist. Any anthropomorphic god with a will of some-kind still can't answer the precedent question, it just add an indirection level and you end up with the following question: why god instead of nothing.

And I would like to conclude that I love it (even if someone mock me) when someone highlight an irrational belief that I hold as it enables me to be more rational.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[JonySuede]

s/were/where

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a farce: http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/about.php

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[anagama]

Obviously. That's what makes it funny.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

objoke: why not zoidberg?

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is this really the "enlightened" and "evolved" alternative to religion you wish to present?"

With the way things are going politically I think most of us wouldn't mind the stupid half of the religious people being wiped out.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, science is the enemy of religion. All religion. Not just Christianity. Although Christianity tends to fight it the most as science gradually erodes the stupid beliefs of Christianity.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're giddy about fellow human beings dying because they have different culture and beliefs than you.

The only person 'giddy' about the deaths of fellow human beings, in relation to both Katrina and the Haitian earthquake, is Robertson who is being mocked by the OP. I'm somewhat puzzled that this was not apparent to you.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was giddy about what stupid religious (in opposed to rational) conclusions Pat Robinson would make of this - not of the people dying of HIV or other natural disasters. I have no problem seeing the difference.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

The less there are of them, the better the world is. Full stop.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it just proves that you don't have to be religious to be an asshole.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

The hilarious thing is that the core premise of homeopathy (expose yourself to something non-deadly that prepares your body to fight something similar that could be deadly) is actually compatible with the practice of vaccination.

It's the ridiculous "more diluted equals stronger medicine" thing, and to a lesser extent that the remedies are choses by metaphorical similarity instead of chemical or biological relevance that makes the whole thing worthless.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be getting all intelligent in the middle of his, "stupidfest."

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like someone hates a group of hateful people so much, they've become two sides of the same coin. It's a shame when anyone dies, but only the crazy loons (religious or otherwise) enjoy it.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like you consider, in the context of God and all, that this life is the pinnacle. This is it, this is the main event and if it doesn't come out spectacular then it's all been a failure. I think you missed the part about the afterlife and how it lasts FOREVER, this life pales in comparison.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Read his post again. Nowhere does he say "Thank God all those bible-thumping mid-westerners are dying".

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[randyleepublic]

Whoosh city much?

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul also said that some people "esteemeth every day alike" and implied that as long as you were fully convinced of your opinion it really didn't matter what you believe with regards to this particular debate.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[hyades1]

Thanks for the honkin' big laugh I got out of that.

Re:Science 1000000001, god 0

[hyades1]

So speaks the doofus logged in as "Anonymous Coward". By the way, that loud roaring sound you heard was the point blasting its way over your head.

Gay Related Immune Defficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

So does this mean we will have a cure for this?

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/11/science/new-homosexual-disorder-worries-health-officials.html?pagewanted=all

Re:Gay Related Immune Defficiency

[betterunixthanunix]

The sad thing is the number of people who still believe that HIV/AIDS is a gay man's disease. While female-to-male transmission is less prevalent, it has never been unheard of, and as that very article points out Africa is one of the hardest hit regions of the entire world. It was only referred to as GRID early on because the spread began in homosexual communities in major cities.

Southpark Cure

[milbournosphere]

I guess they finally managed to cram the required shit-ton of money into a single syringe.

I was born

[Janvitos]

On 1983, the year the HIV was "discovered". I'm glad I might actually live to see it extinct.

Ohhh, I dunno about that... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always OUTLIERS, on any sampling curve statistically, or via linear optimizations, as in multivariate calculus or statistics solutions, lol...

Ah, anyhow/anyways: Between this article now today, & this a day or two back here -> http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/25/123230/aids-vaccine-breakthrough ?

Well - to think, that I might have seen AIDS knocked off in my lifetime, perhaps??

* I think it's awesome! AIDS seriously screwed up my "social life" & everyone's imo, because most folks I knew began to well... 'slow down' in their "meanderings", so to say, because of it. Is it a bad thing or good thing? Both probably, but it's just an observation from experience here.

APK

P.S.=> BOTTOM-LINE: My Hat's off to the medical world lately, this is something that's truly good news & so was the link I posted...

I hope either method works out to knock out this ironic bastard AIDS (the thing that creates life kills slowly & miserably, being that irony)...

... apk

Immunological response?

[Guppy]

HIV vaccine in which 90% of volunteers developed an immunological response against the virus.

This is an absolutely meaningless measure; seroconversion against HIV is easy to achieve, and typically worthless. The elicited antibodies end up being targeted to highly variable regions, and have little long-term neutralizing power.

Although a handful of unusual broadly neutralizing antibodies have been found among "elite controllers", it is extremely rare for typical individuals to generate them. There's been some speculation it might be possible to create an effective vaccine by directing the response away from decoy regions, and towards the handful of areas targeted by such elite antibodies. Thus far, nobody has managed such a feat, unfortunately.

Re:Immunological response?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guppy is right -- Phase I trials just test the safety and basic pharmacodynamics of the treatment (how much to dose to get a good response, etc.). There's absolutely nothing in this article to suggest that this vaccine is any better than the heap of failed vaccines that have come before it, which have failed for the reasons Guppy stated.

So yes, there is a new vaccine out there, people, but we won't actually know how promising it is until Phase III.

Re:Immunological response?

[Anonymous Coward]

can't wait for this to help mutate HIV into the supervirus that finally makes zombies!

Re:Immunological response?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the linked articled:

Blood tests during the 48th week revealed that 72.7% of the treated volunteers had developed these HIV fighting antibodies. However generating a long lasting response against future attacks truly renders the vaccine effective. This is achieved when the body maintains a basic memory level of T lymphocytes, which are generated after the first attack and can circulate the body for years. The T lymphocytes are responsible for stimulating the attacked cell's immune response, which can then identify and destroy the HIV virus. Blood tests during the 48th week revealed that the 85% of the patients maintained the memory T lymphocytes immune response.

Re:Immunological response?

[Guppy]

However generating a long lasting response against future attacks truly renders the vaccine effective.

A longer-lasting non-protective response is still non-protective. As someone who has previously participated in HIV vaccine research, I still see nothing in this vaccine to suggest it will overcome the very large obstacles that have caused so many previous ones to fail.

Re:Immunological response?

[Anonymous Coward]

My bad, I didn't read "renders" and I understood right the opposite :P

Re:Immunological response?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow I understood almost none of that - I'm assuming I should mod this up...

Re:Immunological response?

[kanto]

Wow I understood almost none of that - I'm assuming I should mod this up...

You must be new here

Re:Immunological response?

[Anonymous Coward]

HIV vaccine in which 90% of volunteers developed an immunological response against the virus.

This is an absolutely meaningless measure; seroconversion against HIV is easy to achieve, and typically worthless. The elicited antibodies end up being targeted to highly variable regions, and have little long-term neutralizing power.

Although a handful of unusual broadly neutralizing antibodies have been found among "elite controllers", it is extremely rare for typical individuals to generate them. There's been some speculation it might be possible to create an effective vaccine by directing the response away from decoy regions, and towards the handful of areas targeted by such elite antibodies. Thus far, nobody has managed such a feat, unfortunately.

Responses like these are the reason I look out for Slashdot commentary when scientific breakthroughs are announced.

Phase I Trial

[Anonymous Coward]

This was a Phase I trial; why are efficacy claims being given? Phase I trials are done to test for safety in humans, not to test for efficacy. From the NIH:
---
Phase I: Researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of people for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.

Phase II: The drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.

Phase III: The drug or treatment is given to large groups of people to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely.

Phase IV: Studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed to gather information on the drug's effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.

---

Someone call me when there are results from Phase III trails. Until then, this is really not news. (Only about 1 in 10 compounds makes it from Phase I to market...)

Re:Phase I Trial

[zebslash]

True, but this also depends on which class of medicine. There there are also some efficacy data collected with vaccines.

popU-LAytion conTROLL

[citylivin]

Why, are you a member of the world health organization?

Uncivilization!

Welcome to Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

HIV vaccine --- free sex and drugs! Yeah! ...AIDS orphans? Where? Huh? Africa?

Immune response immunity

[tpjunkie]

Just because an immune response in the form of circulating antibodies from B cells is seen does not mean infection and replication will not occur when a person is exposed to HIV; most people with HIV have high levels of HIV antibodies circulating in their blood, but the rate at which the virus mutates, as well as the fact that the epitopes the body naturally develops immune responses to are "hidden" by the way in which the viral capsular proteins are folded means that the antibodies do little if anything to halt infection. Furthermore, the CD4+ T cells which initiate a more effective immune response are one of the two types of cells the virus infects (the others being macrophages). At this point, the article gives no further details or useful specifics. If they had said they had generated a cytotoxic CD8+ cell response, or perhaps an immune response against one of the conserved regions of the gp120 or gp41 viral receptors, then I'd be interested. Till then, I am going to be quite skeptical about this until they have some efficacy data. (I am a medical student with an MS in biomedical science)

Re:Did they intentionally infect 10% of the people

[Jarik C-Bol]

you give them the vaccine, wait a while, draw blood, expose that blood to the disease, then watch under a scope and see what happens.

I think people forget this

[Sycraft-fu]

Vaccines against viruses work because they train the immune system to attack the virus. They introduce something that gets it going. Can be a dead virus, can be a live but weakened virus, but whatever the case it trips off the immune system which produces a tailor made response. The immune system can then use that to kill any future invasions from that virus.

This is the same thing that happens when someone gets sick. However in that case, the live (in so far as a virus is alive) and fully active so it overwhelms the body for awhile until the body can formulate the response and fight back. All the vaccine does is make that process easier and safer.

The flip side of that is if it is the sort of thing the immune system fights off, but then it comes back, well a vaccine won't work, at least not a vaccine in the classical sense. If the immune system can't develop an effective repeating method to kill the virus, then a vaccine won't help.

Really this shit is not a big medical conspiracy, it is just how things work. What's more, the more things we cure, the harder the things are that remain. We fixed the things that were easy to fix long ago. We are getting to the hard shit now.

Interesting HIV transmission rate stats

[GodfatherofSoul]

I was on a blog once where a guy posted that there's only about a 1/1000 chance of contracting it from an affected person. He then got flamed into dust. I looked up his numbers and it's actually true! During normal sexual intercourse, the rates are 1/1000 male (infected) to female and 1/2000 female (infected) to male. With rates that low, I don't even think "sexually transmitted" is the right word. You probably have to have an open wound, scratch, or open sore from another STD to transmit the virus.

Now, when you start getting kinkier (e.g. anal) the rates start going up. I can't recall the numbers for these, but I think they were around the percentile range (give or take a few factors of 2). I think because the skin in your nether regions is much thinner and porous. This is why the gay community has been so devastated by AIDS. Additionally, the rate of HIV in gay males is 1/5 with half that number not even being aware that they're infected :(

Re:Interesting HIV transmission rate stats

[geekoid]

It's 1/500, and the more it's studied the worse it gets. well, it's not getting worse, the number is just getting more accurate.

As an example, in 1988, they where saying 1 in 5 billion chance if you used a condom

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/22/us/researchers-list-odds-of-getting-aids-in-heterosexual-intercourse.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

while other STDs have anywhere from a 10% to 50% transmission rate, AIDS is still a sexual transmitted disease.
"You probably have to have an open wound, scratch, or open sore from another STD to transmit the virus."
Also, and even if it was true, sexual transmitted would be the correct term.

while 1/500 doesn't sound bad, bear in mind tit's 1/500 for one(1) encounter. Most sexual active people have more then one encounter. When I was sexual active, I would have 5-15 partners a month.

That was in the late 70's to about '84. In '84 I found out about AIDS and pretty much stopped being sexual active with anyone I hadn't dated and got to know. Seriously, STD went from 'It may be painful to cure you..but probably not' to 'You will die'.
Because it's important to this conversation, they where heterosexual encounters.

Re:Interesting HIV transmission rate stats

[GodfatherofSoul]

Thanks for that correction. "Per encounter" really does change the nature of the risk.

Re:Interesting HIV transmission rate stats

[im_thatoneguy]

Most sexual active people have more then one encounter. When I was sexual active, I would have 5-15 partners a month.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwNVE37BGVE

Science

[geekoid]

it delivers the goods... bitch.

For those playing the home game:
Science: million+
Alternative meds: 0

Re:Science

[Ocker3]

Only because Science keeps stealing players from the Alt team if they can pass the entrance tests. Some Alt meds don't really do much or are harmful, others simply haven't been tested yet, either because noone's taken the time, or noone can figure out how to make money selling them on a large scale. A lot of modern medications were folk remedies until someone ran some proper tests and realised that there actually Was something potent in that funny-tasting tea.

Re:Science

[bill_mcgonigle]

Science: million+
Alternative meds: 0

You forgot about all the people who have been praying for a cure!

(invoking Poe's Law now)

God 1,800,000, Science 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it would be (unfortunately) God 1,800,000, Science 0. 1.8 million have died from AIDS, and (as far as we know) science has yet to provably cure anyone of HIV or AIDS.

As far as Pat Robinson goes, I'm sure he's just waiting for you to be flattened by the homosexual steamroller that Jerry Falwell was nice enough to warn us about.

I do have to say, though, as someone with family in the 'Bible Belt', I wouldn't mind running a steamroller over you a few times for your casual disregard for their risk of death due to natural disaster, simply because of their proximity to people you hate. It'd be fun to watch. In the meantime, though, feel free to catch AIDS and die before this gets FDA approval.

Re: God 1,800,000, Science 0

[Lucractius]

Actually there was 1 case of a deliberate cure...

but well you have to get leukemia in order to be eligible... So i dont think you can really offer it to just anyone.

HOLD THE PHONE

[Anonymous Coward]

wait... The ethics... I thought it took years of study before human trials can be done.

90%

[Anonymous Coward]

..So are the other 10% kinda fucked?

Effects on HIV Testing

[Anonymous Coward]

If HIV vaccines are put into use, all those quick ELISA HIV antibody tests will be rendered useless. In the US, we already have that problem with TB tests, since the rest of the world vaccinates for it. Those who have been vaccinated usually are forced to get an X-ray to prove they are TB negative. Alternative HIV tests are much more expensive. Design a new test now... profit in 10 years.

Re:But will it able to cure

[Anonymous Coward]

this?

Homosexual idiot.

FTFY.

Phase 1 is about safety, not effectiveness

[fropenn]

How could a phase 1 trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial#Phase_I) show 90% effectiveness? Phase 1 trials are about the safety of the drug, not its effectiveness.

All that phase 1 trials attempt to show is that the drug is not deadly to healthy people and what dosages might be useful. The long-term effectiveness is still to be proven.

Re:Phase 1 is about safety, not effectiveness

[Guppy]

How could a phase 1 trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial#Phase_I) show 90% effectiveness? Phase 1 trials are about the safety of the drug, not its effectiveness.

They mean 90% vs. a "biomarker" -- a measurable physical change used as a benchmark. In this case, production of anti-HIV antibodies.

I am not expecting anything impressive from actual in-vivo protection; your typical humoral immune response to HIV (like the kind achieved by this vaccine) is not protective. This is an example of an over-hyped press release.

eugenics

[KingAlanI]

I'm inclined to see the point of implementing eugenics in a way that doesn't just amount to racist BS.

Re:eugenics

[tehcyder]

I'm inclined to see the point of implementing eugenics in a way that doesn't just amount to racist BS.

At what point do you say that everyone who is short sighted, genetically slightly obese, mentally or physically lazy, somewhere on the autistic spectrum, prone to mild depression, anti-social or just plain ugly should be sterilized?

Vaccines

[Anonymous Coward]

“Up to 90% of the total decline in the death rate of children between 1860-1965 because of whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and measles occurred before the introduction of immunisations and antibiotics.”
Dr. Archie Kalokerinos, M.D. PhD

Historical trends indicate vaccines have had little positive effect: Historical trends show that deaths caused by childhood illnesses had already declined as much as 98% before vaccine programs were ever initiated. Evidence indicates that an improved standard of living, better nutrition, and increased sanitation, caused this drop in disease, not vaccines

In 1954 the Americans pushed forward a polio campaign. What happened within the first year was that to their horror they found that particularily one type of the polio vaccine was causing polio. Because the vaccine is not a killed virus, your giving polio in a partly killed form. They got rid of that particular type of the vaccine. Then they realized that all the forms of the polio vaccine caused polio. So what they did is redefine it. They only called it polio if you still had paralysis after 60 days. Now in most cases polio paralysis resolves after a few days. So that's how the statistics of polio went down. By changing the definitions. Dr. David Ritchie

No breakthrough

[Anonymous Coward]

Best case scenario -- "AIDS is the new herpes." No thanks, I think I'll hold off on cancelling my registration to the AIDSWalk.

that depends

[justforgetme]

I think GP found 'a dumb' and is pushing it on his parent

Rendering the body immune to HIV?

[lord sibn]

What would that mean for this?
https://www.xkcd.com/938/

Can I just say

[fireylord]

whoosh? :)

well partially right

[fireylord]

Substitute 'Medicine' for 'Science' and you're in the main right, and why should it be any other way?

Then there's the controversy...

[bsquizzato]

Even if a vaccine ever ends up being approved for HIV, there's no doubt that there is going to be a whole wave of controversy around actually vaccinating people, as is the case with the HPV vaccine. Since so many parents think that vaccinating their kids for HPV is just giving them another "green light" to have sex when they're younger, I am sure the HIV vaccine would be met with that same response, if not an even greater one. It will be a huge hindrance to a great achievement.

Needles

[mr.mctibbs]

Good euphemism.

Volunteers...

[Anonymous Coward]

My hat is off to those who volunteered to be injected with HIV for science. Even if it was a non-replicating version of the thing...

90% of volunteers ....

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously?!?!?! so let me get this right... since this is a vaccine, you need the treatment before being infected. Therefore this study has gotten volunteers to take the vaccine and then be exposed to the virus? These volunteers must be desperate!!! I'd hate to be the 10% with the death sentence.

Public

[luisdom]

What? An underfunded public organisation has made this breakthrough before big pharmas?
These spanish boffins are very smart or big pharmas don't have much interest in a HIV vaccine...