Slashdot Mirror
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."
Healthy relationships would kill HIV 100%, not 90.
Meanwhile, back in reality....
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.
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.
Good luck with abstinence being "used widely".
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
Abstinence will actually extinguish the whole human race from the face of the earth in only a few decades, if used widely.
I wish I had modpoints to mod you up. Indeed, fantasyland is just that...
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.
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.
Can I be the one who injects people with HIV (the virus that causes AIDS) to test out their immune response?
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
I can finally go back to sharing needles. I gotta save money, what with the economy in the gutter.
So, you're saying you can have sex with 100 vaccinated prostitutes and only get HIV once...
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?
Because HIV infected individuals have a large glowing neon sign attached to their foreheads saying "I HAVE HIV!"
Sigs are for the weak.
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.
Oh yeah, they never did cure Herpes, did they? :(
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.
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.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
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.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
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.
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.
It'll work fine if people teach it to their kids, grandkids, great grandkids and so on.
which is totally what she said
Yes. Oh and your mom will be home a little late tonight...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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.
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.
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.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
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.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
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.
He's not lying. Sex with his wife is great!
-- Using the preview button since 2005
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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?
Thanks for that correction. "Per encounter" really does change the nature of the risk.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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.
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.
Make sure her leash doesn't reach to the doorway and install a good security system, of course.
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.
Synerg1y wrote:
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.