Slashdot Mirror
HIV Vaccine Approval For Human Trials
An anonymous reader writes with news that researchers from the University of Western Ontario have been given approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to begin testing an HIV vaccine in humans. From the article:
"The vaccine is the first based on a genetically modified killed whole virus, [researchers said.] ... a clinical trial on 40 HIV-positive volunteers will begin next month. That phase will last a year, after which 600 HIV-negative volunteers will see how the vaccine impacts their immune systems. A final phase, which will take about three years, will involve about 6,000 HIV-negative volunteers."
Pretty sure this means that they know it works but want to see if it fucks anything else up?
I hope this vaccine is as effective as the smallpox and polio vaccines have been. The world would do well to be rid of this particularly crafty and deadly virus. It is also a whole lot easier to introduce vaccination programs into third world countries (which counts as medicinal treatment) which would otherwise have severe religious problems with contraceptives like condoms (which counts as interfering with "God's work").
- Toast
to get someone to let you inject them with an experimental vaccine for a deadly virus? Is there a clause in the contract for a lifetime supply of AZT should the vaccine's quality control be lacking and the test subject contracts HIV? I've always been curious how this stage of research is handled.
Who's the HIV negative subject going to get injected with a Vaccine that could possibly cause HIV? It technically is possible.
I agree, now people can go back to having sex with monkeys!
"Ok, so you either were injected with the actual vaccine or the placebo. Go have sex with this shady hooker to see if it worked!"
Alright, fine! I'll go back to lurking on Fark...
There is no sig...
Trial 1: One year.
Trial 2: Length unspecified, but probably one year.
Trial 3: Three years.
Add in about six months per trial for paperwork, awaiting new approval and so on... six and a half years.
This had better be good.
Interesting point to consider though. If the trials were conducted with reckless disregard for the safety of the test subjects, trials one and two could be eliminated. That saves three years, at the expense of perhaps killing a few of the volunteers in the remaining trial. If the vaccine makes it to practical use three years earlier though, that would be a lot more additional lives saved. Could more people be saved overall by considering testing volunteers semi-expendable in order to hasten medical advance?
You can even have another Toronto paper if you like.
Good to hear that this is going forward. Hopefully, this will lead to a brighter future for Africa.
I worry about the health of the participants, but, HIV isn't a death sentence anymore. I would volunteer for the trial, assuming that, in the worst case, they cover my medical expenses and anti-retrovirals to control it.
It would be worth it.
Let's hope this line of research dampens the damage being done by the pro-circumcision lobby's dubious attempt to present circumcision as a viable tool for preventing HIV.
Can we work on that next?
This isn't just positive news, its HIV positive.
Why does a Canadian University need approval from the U.S. FDA?
WALSTIB!
I guess the FDA has to make sure the drug is truly safe, after all. At least all those people who will contract and die of AIDS over the next four years will die safely.
Liberty in your lifetime
Why does this sound like a plot from a horror movie?
The Year: 2012
The month:Dec
The vaccine being tested does not work. It instead causes the virus to further mutate into an airborne variety
Result: Those fearing 2012 were correct. A Global pandemic....
The best guess for transmission from simians to humans was not via sex, but by eating of undercooked monkey meat. (perhaps even raw). Near as I can tell, those perpetuating the sex with monkeys jokes are racists wanting to malign Africans with beastiality claims.
Learn to love Alaska
The kind that knows what they're talking about.
I'd hate to meet your doctors.
Patient: Doctor, I think I have strep throat Doctor: Nope. Buttsex! Patient: Is there anything you can give you. Doctor: Nope, can't thwart god's will. He gave you that soar throat to punish you for all the Buttsex. Patient: But I'm not homosexual. Doctor: Yes you are. All diseases are caused by Buttsex. Anyone saying otherwise should have their medical license revoked.
And the residents of Habbo Hotel express cautious optimism over a future where the pool is no longer closed due to AIDS.
Yeah, I was making light of this fallacy.
I guess the joke was "too soon".
Or they're just making dumb jokes and you have chosen to project wholly invented motivations onto people you know nothing about. One of the two.
I'm confused, you deny that HIV exists, and that you think sex causes disease, and condoms don't prevent this sexually transmitted disease? I'm curious that you assert there is AIDS (even if only non-HIV AIDS) and that sexually transmitted disease can't be stopped with condoms. What mechanism of transmission is there for non-HIV-AIDS? Is it just that if you have "bad sex" that God strikes you down with a non-existent incurable disease?
If so, that would be a pretty strong case for proving God, so I'm surprised more people haven't latched on to the "God kills people for sex, and I have proof" bandwagon.
Learn to love Alaska
delivers the goods.
Seeing aids go from you are going to die, to testing a vaccine in 25 years is freaknig awesome.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Back in college I would frequently get paid to be a test subject for medical research (to test for, say, metabolizing rates of a blood pressure medicine, etc); it was a fantastic way to help pay for school, and my grandmother was proud to tell everyone that I was "helping out the medical research community". The WORST was a concurrent heroin trial, where all the subjects were easily identified as "those guys puking in the toilets all day long"...and yes they were compensated. That being said, I cannot imagine how much they'd have to pay me to examine my body's reaction to an HIV vaccine....!
wait till everyone realizes that once AIDS is "cured by prevention" they'll eventually have to deal with the millions that are infected with Lyme Disease who've been ignored, chastized, marginalized and left to suffer for so long. Sex with monkeys will seem downright religious.
1. If it's proven safe for 2 year olds and prevents them from acquiring HIV infection, why the hell not?
2. There are a whole lot of other ways to get infected besides sex.
3. Personal freedom without consequence to other people is a lie that unscrupulous politicians and for-profit demagogues tell to get what they want from the credulous.
(3b. Social engineering without consequence to personal freedom is also a lie that a different set of unscrupulous politicians and for-profit demagogues tell to get what they want from the credulous.)
WALSTIB!
Oh, you been to El Taco Loco on Augusta Blvd, too? IMHO, their goat's brain tacos are the best in town.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yes, mandatory vaccination is violation of individual liberty. But just imagine the benefits of completely eradicating HIV. For one, no one will have to be vaccinated against it ever again.
No, it's been more than 22.3 years. AIDS is finally funny.
So in the clinical trials, do some of the volunteers NOT get the actual vaccine? It seems like you have to validate its effectiveness against something... but giving people a placebo instead of an actual vaccine against a life-threatening disease seems sort of dodgy...
"Well, none of them got HIV, if that's what you're asking."
Now we can go back to eating raw monkey meat like god intended. Just don't forget that dipping sauce!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
obvious troll is obvious
Besides, how do you think the monkeys feel?
I'll bet they aren't thrilled either.
No brain, no pain.
Killed whole virus means whole virus if mistakes are made. I had a co-worker who spent several weeks in the hospital several decades ago that got shot with a still "hot" vaccine. Oops.
Attitudes like yours are the reason it took so long for us to get around to curing this disease in the first place.
Are you sure that it doesn't have more to do with the fact that it is incredibly difficult?
No more so than making assault illegal is a violation of your personal right to punch someone. Personal liberties stop where they infringe on the rights of others. Plus, noone is being held down at needle point, just being denied privileges that they can be replaced with private sources. When an individual forgoes a vaccine, they're increasing the chance that you and I will encounter and be infected with the disease (since vaccines aren't 100% effective and since prevention is a combination of reducing exposure and boosting immunity).
So do you think Big Condom is behind the lie?
1. Define proven safe for 2 year olds. Cough medicine was proven safe for 2 year olds. It wasn't until one mother refused to accept a diagnosis of SIDS that it was discovered that some children had not developed the ability to metabolise certain compounds.
In other words, we often know what is safe for most 2 year olds, but not all.
2. Yes, blood transfusions, and toddler drug parties. Just to name a few.
3. We're not asking for personal freedom without consequence. We're just asking that our toddlers be allowed to attend pre-school without being required to have STD vaccines.
There is a significant difference between a highly infections disease like TB or the Measles, versus a disease with very very limited transferrence.
For example, HepB, basically falls into two main infection categories. Older kids who may have begun being sexually active or IV drug users OR infants born to infected mothers.
Outside of that, infection rate is pretty much non-existent. Nor likely to be spread to other children. So negating a child's ability to attent pre-school over an STD vaccine seems to be consequence without personal freedom.
PS - I am not opposed to vaccinations. I believe them useful. But I do think that sometimes our policies and implementations leave a lot to be desired. We will give children 2-5 vaccines in a single Dr. visit. That's a lot of the worst diseases we know all at once, for a little undeveloped toddler immune system to cope with.
My children have received most all of their vaccines, we've just taken the time to spread them out with 1-2 vaccines every couple of months.
Having sex with animals exclusively means you'll never contract a human STD (unless you hotswap the animal with another human) and any zoonosis can happen without sex.
Fine, give the vaccinations. Maybe at 10 years of age. But requiring toddlers to have STD vaccines is kind of pushing it.
Currently, Hep B and now in some regions the HPV vaccines are mandated.
My argument is taking away the opportunity to educate your child is not a fair or morally justified policy. Not for non-infectious diseases.
***
"But just imagine the disadvantage of completely unknown long-term vaccine affect applied to the entire human race."
Imagine if 15 years later we discover every adult who receives the vaccine is fine. But every child has become sterile. Sucks to be the human race.
My point is not that this isn't a great thing. I think it is. And hopefully, we're not greedy bastards who make it way over-priced and prevent it from reaching those in Africa.
My point is this mandatory requirement, that says if you do not give you child a vaccine for a non-infectious disease, then your child cannot be educated.
We're not just talking public schools. But even private schools.
Our daughter has every vaccine but Hep B. Because we had not given her Hep B vaccinations, she was refused entry into a private pre-school. I can understand about measles, mumps and other highly communicable diseases. But I'm not too worried about STDs with 2 year olds.
No, it's been more than 22.3 years. AIDS is finally funny.
Are you positive its finally funny? Are you HIV positive its funny?
Eating monkey meat is code you insensitive clod.
Right, and that's why I accept mandatory vaccines for highly communicable diseases. If my child didn't have her measles vaccines she could pass it on to other children.
The same is not true for diseases that are not highly communicable such as STDs.
"Plus, noone is being held down at needle point, just being denied privileges that they can be replaced with private sources."
No Sir, this is where I get f***** g*d d**n annoyed. Everyone retorts this....but it gets applied to private schools. Which are pressured by the states to adhere to the state policies. And many of which, believe they have to adhere to the policies.
So NO, we don't have a private friggin alternative to turn to. Thanks to my daughter not getting her HebP vaccine (only one she doesn't have) she was denied entry into a private pre-school because of State law.
If I had a private alternative, I wouldn't speak up over it. So let's reverse this whole paradigm.
My child not receiving the HepB vaccine will in no way harm your child. (Unless they're having toddler sex.) But your policy of needlessly protecting your child is hurting my child's well-being.
Yes, if one decides they don't want a vaccine, the only option is to stay home and home-school. Can't even go to a private school. :-(
Why didn't you give her a Hepatitis B vaccine? Is there something risky about it?
The best guess for transmission from simians to humans was not via sex, but by eating of undercooked monkey meat. (perhaps even raw). Near as I can tell, those perpetuating the sex with monkeys jokes are racists wanting to malign Africans with beastiality claims.
At some point there will be a diseases that starts in Scotland or New Zealand that can be traced back to sheep....
Fine, give the vaccinations. Maybe at 10 years of age. But requiring toddlers to have STD vaccines is kind of pushing it.
It all depends on how long it takes the vaccine to produce the best immune response.
The whole stupid issue with the "Mandating HPV vaccine for 11 year olds" is because it takes years for the immune system to fully gear up against HPV after the vaccine, just in time for 15 or 16 year olds who are become sexually active.
And I encourage you to tell some poor 8 year old who was infected via blood transfusion that it was better that he didn't get the vaccine as a 2 year old...
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Imagine if 15 years later we discover every adult who receives the vaccine is fine. But every child has become sterile. Sucks to be the human race.
Imagine if 15 years later we discover every adult who receives the vaccine is fine. But every child has gained super-human intelligence. Awesome to be the human race.
I can play the "let's make shit up" game, too!
With the first link, the chain is forged.
The human immune system is fighting off pathogens it doesn't recognize all the time. The only difference between the "worst diseases we know" and any other virus is that the "worst diseases" simply have very undesirable effects. 2-5 of these "worst diseases" isn't really going to make a difference to the immune system from it's normal fighting routine.
You might just get it.
You presume too much about me with your statements.
I know about the trials and tribulations of the communities when HIV was found out and pointed out as being "god's punishment" by those whom are uncaring and hateful.
But such hate and ignorance doesnt mean I cant joke about the hate or ignorance.
If anything, it points out our history... much like blackface, hooded cloaks, and hitler of which you see many jokes making fun of these topics.
Just saying, why would FDA have anything to do with a Canadian trial?
1. Define proven safe for 2 year olds. Cough medicine was proven safe for 2 year olds. It wasn't until one mother refused to accept a diagnosis of SIDS that it was discovered that some children had not developed the ability to metabolise certain compounds.
In other words, we often know what is safe for most 2 year olds, but not all.
Point taken, but sometimes we have to go with what we know and change it when we learn more. Actually, that applies pretty much all the time. With that said, I'm not opposed to a prudent level of caution. Just opposed to failing to take action because somebody is afraid without evidence to back it up - which happens a lot. A compromise between acting on imperfect knowledge and analysis paralysis has to happen.
2. Yes, blood transfusions, and toddler drug parties. Just to name a few.
Just making sure - the "kids can't get HIV, they don't have sex" argument is common among people who don't realize there are other vectors. Having raised three children, I feel confident in stating that they will find ways to bleed on each other that adults never imagined.
3. We're not asking for personal freedom without consequence. We're just asking that our toddlers be allowed to attend pre-school without being required to have STD vaccines.
See above. HIV is NOT only a STD.
To elaborate and clarify, I am not suggesting that if the vaccine proves effective, we must immediately begin inoculating 2 year olds. However, eradicating the virus may be best achieved by mass vaccination at an early age, much as was done with other devastating diseases. I myself carry a small scar from my smallpox vaccination, which my children did not have to have, thanks to mass vaccination. Whether that's the course to follow for HIV I will leave to far more knowledgeable folks. I just won't complain if that's the course they pick.
All in all, you seem like a prudent parent. I just think it's a good idea to follow the advice of the experts in most cases. It's usually the safest bet. Never 100% safe, but life doesn't give us many 100% sure things.
And to bring this back to reality, I haven't heard anyone, anywhere suggesting mass vaccinating toddlers with HIV vaccines. IF the vaccine is effective, and IF it will give my (not so distant) future grandchildren a life free from even the outside chance of contracting that nasty virus, I would be first in line to take them to the doc for the shot.
WALSTIB!
There is always an element of risk with any vaccine. Needle contamination, bad nurse sticking the wrong spot, bad manufacturing batch, etc. (Thought there may or may not be some potential issues with HepB.)
The point is, where there is a legitimate risk of concern, it makes sense to me to give my daughter a vaccine.
When there is essentially zero risk cases for a toddler age 2-10 to contract the disease. It doesn't make sense to me to subject her to the procedure.
I am actually a skeptic of vaccine dangers. My wife who is a nurse was rather laughable at those silly to fear them. That was until she began researching them a bit more. Apparently, there's been a lot of question into the practices the FDA uses to determine deaths related to vaccines.
Individuals who have lost infants within 24-48 hours of subjecting them to vaccinations find their children are not counted in the statistics. Dismissed as SIDS (unknown diagnosis).
Also, while it is easy to determine effect and safety over a large group of children, it is very hard to make that determination individually and universally.
All the tests had shown children's cough medicine to be safe. ALL tests made this conclusion. To say otherwise was considered near lunacy.
However, the death of one child whose mother refused to accept a diagnosis of SIDS brought forth an unusual discovery - the child had toxic levels of one of the cough medicine chemicals resulting in a drug overdose. That almost got the mom arrested for drug overdose of her child. Until a further review of the toxicology report revealed that only one chemical was at overdose levels all the others were not.
That's when the doctors realized that the child's body had failed to metabolize one of the chemicals. They realized there was no neglect or overdose, rather an previously unknown risk had manifested. Had that one mom not persisted, her child would have just been one of many SIDS cases.
Hundreds of thousands of kids had taken cough medicine without harm. But will we ever know how many SIDS cases were tied to cough medicine? I don't think so.
Likewise, with vaccines, it is hard to know for sure that a death was in response to a vaccine. But I'd wager that anytime a young undeveloped immune system is forced to cope with a reaction to a virus or vaccine, that it takes a tremendous toll.
As a parent, I've watched the misery of my kids for that 1-2 day period after vaccinations. They're miserable, sore, cranky and in discomfort. So clearly there is a physical toll on their body. I am all for taking necessary risks. Just don't see why I should take unnecessary risks.
When my daughter is 10, with a much more developed immune system, I'd be much more likely to consider such STD related vaccines as HepB, HPV, and HIV.
I, for one, welcome our new pharmaceutical overlords.
You might want to do some extra research. I don't know what state you live in, but here in California, it is common for schools to tell parents that they cannot enroll their children in school if they are not vaccinated. Some are lying. Some just believe a lie told to them by someone else. You do have to sign a waiver stating that you understand you did not vaccinate your child, but it is not required, and they cannot legally deny you access to the public schools over vaccination. I would assume that private schools can, but I don't know.
I think we know as educated adults that serviced individual "morality" or "behavior" have no place in the decision to vaccinate. People, individuals, are fickle, unreliable, and unpredictable. Vaccines are large scale, population wide tools and it matters for /shit/ if you think your precious daughter is a chaste little angel. You inoculate as many people as you possibly can because un-vacinated individuals pose an exponential threat to your entire population, not just themselves.
We stick your rugrat full of needles not just because it's good for him, but because otherwise he/she's a vector that can infect others. The problem with vaccinations is that they're not 100% effective. You logistically can't inoculate 100% of your population, and they aren't a 100% guarantee of immunity. They do, however, work if you inoculate enough of your population because a given threat requires a certain amount of growth to be viable. Push it's growth below a certian threshold and it dies out. Inoculate a higher percentage of your population and it dies even faster.
Are you sure it wouldn't start in the middle east? Ex. Afghanistan
Have you ever watched a toddler after a vaccination. What a miserable creature they are. Trust me, the effects of one is pretty significant at times.
And many adults have been brought low by multiple diseases in combination. That's pretty well documented. In fact, that's EXACTLY how HIV kills.
HIV doesn't qualify as an immune system's "normal fighting routine."
How do I know your toddler isn't a biter? I can see why some parents would become quit angry with you if your child transmitted a preventable disease that way.
SO how do they do the final testing of the vaccine?
They are starting human trials, but does that mean that eventually they are going to give this vaccine to someone and then inject them with HIV and see what happens?
How much money do you pay patients to be injected with a deadly virus that you "think" that you have a vaccine for now.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Why is Phase I testing the vaccine on people that are HIV positive? A vaccine is a preventative measure it is not a cure so it won't have any effect on people that already have HIV. So why test it on them? Anyone?
"Point taken, but sometimes we have to go with what we know and change it when we learn more."
I agree. It's why I think vaccines for highly communicable diseases are acceptable requirements. And when they mandated, I had few objections. But it's starting to become "every vaccine" is mandated policy.
Establish two categories of vaccines:
1. Required due to high level of communicable risk.
2. Recommended, not required until age 10 when risk is higher.
I'd be fine with such a rational policy as above.
"I haven't heard anyone, anywhere suggesting mass vaccinating toddlers with HIV vaccines."
Nor I, but such does exist regarding HepB & HPV. And in a discussion a few months ago, I saw the question arise. "What if there was an HIV vaccine." If it passes, I'll wager you a silver piece that the issue will come up.
If it is effective, than I am all for it, once my children are a little older. Not two. Not needlessly when they're immune system is still in development. I take that risk with most virus' because there is an immediate danger of both infection and spread. That immediate danger is not posed in these cases.
"Having raised three children, I feel confident in stating that they will find ways to bleed on each other that adults never imagined."
Correct me if I am wrong. But that has repeatedly, and repeatedly been expressed as not being a vector. Same is true of saliva. They have repeatedly told us that such poses little to no risk.
You are right, HIV, is not only an STD. Not sure any disease is only an STD. But it is a disease that requires bodily fluid exchange. Versus one that is exchanged via air or bodily contact. There is a significantly different riskset with those two vectors. One is a high risk vector, the other extremely low, so as to be non-statistically significant within certain demographics.
"All in all, you seem like a prudent parent. I just think it's a good idea to follow the advice of the experts in most cases. It's usually the safest bet. Never 100% safe, but life doesn't give us many 100% sure things."
I agree. And in most cases I do. (Blast it OREO.....they tell me not to eat you, but I can't STOPPPP!!!) ;-)
***
FYI, I wasn't as big on this issue until this year. We had registered my 4 year old daughter for pre-school. She was so excited. My wife really needed a break time from being home with the kids all day. It was a private pre-school.
My daughter's vaccinations were current, she had everything but the HepB. We decided we wanted to wait on that. First day of school comes, and they refuse to allow my daughter to attend. There is no real risk of contagion. My daughter returned home disappointed, and my wife in tears. All our plans were pretty much shot down. And it was too late to enroll in any other pre-schools.
My daughter lost out on education (at a private school mind you), because she didn't receive one vaccination that is for a disease that is not a highly communicable disease.
That's when I realized something is rather wrong with the system. We're not talking a public school, get our free education only if you abide by our rules. But a private institution. That leaves no option but home-schooling.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Mother's refusal to accept SIDS diagnosis leads to discovery of metabolic issue with regards to cough medicines
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-10-17/health/cough.syrup.deaths_1_cold-medicines-cough-medicines-child-deaths?_s=PM:HEALTH
Just a list of pulled meds...
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/SelectedEnforcementActionsonUnapprovedDrugs/ucm245106.htm
At one time X-rays were used with pregnancies the way we use ultrasounds. It was claimed to be totally safe. Until it was later determined that unborn infants suffered greater risks from X-rays, including higher cancer rates.
***
Also, excuse me if I am a tad suspect whenever millions of $$$ are involved in an industry. And a government that has repeatedly made mistakes and hid them.
That said, I still believe that generally vaccines are safe, and that they are beneficially for society. But should not be required unless highly communicable.
the zombie apocalypse is upon us
Have you ever watched a toddler after a vaccination.
Ever seen a toddler with small pox?
Also Chiropractic. Don't forget Chiropractic.
weinersmith
I hope all of these participants are watched very carefully.
It would be pretty stupid if one of them contracted AIDS and then passed it on to someone, and then that someone passed it on to someone else , etc etc etc..
it isn't good to buy any kind of product from a company whose own government has a financial impact and incentive to approve such a product that could spawn future job security if either weren't held liable for any discovered complications.
Remember that these kinds of companies get WAIVERS from the government to dispense this tech without liability for what harm it causes. That's the opposite of a warrantee: that's a weapon.
The reason diseases spread is because people are uncloaked on a hostil planet of such infections that spread by contact to eachother. Goverment police manhandles everyone on the road but come to the jail and they put on gloves and cower at what secrets they reveal in their inquisition. People are worth more dead from such forced simulated moral decisions as vaccination, because money transfering hands involunarily through death is the game of Trust law that catalyzes society into it's effeminate downward spiral.
Diseases don't spread to islands because the boat is isolation enough, and the smartest people are already in motorcycle suits under helmets to hide their resperator bong to be ready to get some oxygen when they feel the resulting PH imbalance and cramping that results from a spreading infection.
I'm a scientist in mind, if not in profession, but really... come on and put some effort into it.
I click the link.
I see the hyperbole in the first few paragraphs. Start to ignore the rhetoric and go for the linked "facts". Hit a site, linked to prominently under the heading "Informative Websites" (alongside other prominent links such as "Mind Control 101", "State Use of Schizophrenia", "Human Race Being Nonconsensually Brain-Linked", "US Army Intelligence Officer: Gang Stalking Phenomenon is Precursor to Coming Holocaust", etc.).
Whoop, whoop, amber alert, plough on.
Anyway, the link I click is centre-page, top of the fold, with the name "AIDS Controversy" (and they don't capitalise AIDS properly half the time) on the domain biblebelievers.org.au
Whoop, whoop, red alert, plough on anyway.
Read the first name on the list. Apparently a Nobel prize-winning biochemist is top of the list. Look him up on Wikipedia. Read the first two paragraphs about him which contain the following:
"Since winning the Nobel Prize, Mullis has been criticized in The New York Times for promoting ideas in areas in which he has no expertise. He has promoted AIDS denialism, climate change denial and his belief in astrology."
Right up until the last line I was prepared to give the guy a chance, at least, but I don't believe he's been misquoted at all based on the links there.
I tried to get further down the list but either the people listed were non-notable, outside their field of expertise (a mathematician... really?), misquoted, not discoverable via some quick searches or just plain loopy. There probably are a couple of sensible people in there but even being ASSOCIATED with those organisations, websites, etc. and not clearly stating their personal position somewhere I can find it is pretty damning evidence that they just don't care who quotes them or what they are associated with.
I terminated my investigation there. Please note that I've seen people claim man didn't walk on the Moon and their "evidence" got several stages further than this just by the presentation (but obviously fall down on facts later on).
If you want to quote random crap at me, at least make sure it's *feasible* random crap, not linked to complete timewasters, attention-seekers and tinfoil-hat-nutters. Any form of argument, whether religious, scientific or otherwise, needs to be able to stand alongside who it cites and quotes with pride, and to be taken seriously when doing so. Otherwise, we will just file it in the bit-bucket within literally SECONDS of checking facts.
So how much does everyone think this is going to cost? The largest group of people that have HIV/AIDS live in Africa and are very very poor. Who gets first dibs on this? Obviously the wealthy, but what can be done for the extremely poor?
That's goats. Completely different.
Mother's refusal to accept SIDS diagnosis leads to discovery of metabolic issue with regards to cough medicines
So WHAT?
Seriously, do you realize how retarded that argument is? It's akin to the lunatic perpetual-motion-machine peddlers who always fall back on the "they laughed at the Wright Brothers" retort.
When you have hundreds of thousands of mothers who are in denial over the death of their child, one of them is bound to be right eventually. It doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. We're not going to go around investigating the ravings of every irate female just because statistics tells us that one will eventually turn out to be correct. That kind of thinking is wasteful and dangerous, and it's embarrassing to see it being pushed by supposed adults.
"So NO, we don't have a private friggin alternative to turn to. Thanks to my daughter not getting her HebP vaccine (only one she doesn't have) she was denied entry into a private pre-school because of State law."
Yeah, because pre-schoolers NEVER bleed. Okay, in US padded-wall schools maybe they don't, but hepatitis B can be transmitted by saliva too.
But hey, if there's a demand for schools that admit students who haven't had their shots, shouldn't some enterprising individual come along and start one? Isn't that how your vaunted private system is supposed to work? Anyway, you DO have an alternative. You mentioned it: home schooling. It seems very popular with parents who deny their kids vaccinations.
That said, I still believe that generally vaccines are safe, and that they are beneficially for society. But should not be required unless highly communicable.
When you say "only if highly communicable"; I think you are not looking at the big picture. And what about highly dangerous diseases that could become highly communicable through a small mutation? Viruses that are extremely dangerous and take lives.
Wouldn't it be better for the public good to have a world population highly resistant against these, so there are as few copies of these bugs floating around as possible, and therefore fewer deaths?
HIV falls under that category -- a virus that mutates with high frequency. Has types that can cross species. Has subtypes that can attack different cells. With a few mutations, the very real possibility exists of it adapting new transmission methods, such as airborn like flu.
It has not so far, but the possibility should not be discounted, could happen at any time, could already have happened. HIV with the high amount of it in the world (similar to flu), could be an airborn virus just as communicable as flu, on no time splat. By the time the news was out, it would be way too late to start working on production of enough vaccines to abate the inevitable carnage; and getting the vaccines compulsorily administered after that is such a slow thing that many lives would be lost due to the lack of foresight.
If much of the population is immunized against HIV, it may not thrive under the new transmission (and kill off the human population); the airborn variant might never take hold if the increased resistance caused by immunization to HIV results in failure to infect.
It is in the public interest to eliminate or reduce the amount of virus in the world before that could happen, through compulsory immunization, and having most of the population resistant, so HIV doesn't thrive anywhere, therefore can't mutate. It's unimportant that this doesn't help the 2 year old while they are a 2 year old; it helps the public health, because they will be resistant later in life, and the rate an abated virus can mutate is lower, with much fewer candidate hosts.
Africans still rape and dissect virgin living albino Africans on claims that such non-melanized African can cure AIDS or give good luck in business and fishing.
Africans still are known as enduring among fellow Africans where RAPE is a weapon by conquering troops that is unlimited to grown men as punnishment for dessertion and children and women to muster submittance and to babies as punnishment against existing family.
And here we see on Slashdot that supposes the probability of bestiality by Africans as being the intent to malign Africans more than they already admit theirselves to be? In al depravity, Germany and Rome was the center of much vile filth and yet published knowledge of this goes unrestricted yet when someone publishes anything on Africa that continues to this day thousands of years beyond it is all suddenly an eschewing of circumstance or racism?
OH PLEASE: Africans already have the reputation of being both cruel and cowardly, and if bestiality ever was part of their character then it would actually be positive because they would defend the animal they love more than their harrem of underrage girls.
FUCK YOU, OP.
Because it's a US trial. The vaccine was developed in Canada, but they're doing the trial in the US, presumably as people meeting the trial criteria (HIV negative people at high risk of infection) are easier to come by, if only due to having 10x as many people.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
At this point would be a tremendous boon to the human race.
Don't worry, there will be plenty of breeders left, more than enough.
I for one, would like to know what happens when God has bad sex.
From the headline and summary, you'd almost think this was the first-ever HIV vaccine approved for human trials, but that's far, far, far from the truth. Really the only story here is that it's the first Canadian-developed vaccine approved for human trials. http://www.hvtn.org/science/trials.html
Hep B. is communicable between children. Why? It's easily transferred through blood. Kids cut themselves/each other. A lot. They are curious, especially in preschool; they are especially liable to PLAY with blood. Children can be born with it. Give your kids the fucking vaccine. It's easy and cheap.
You know what I find disturbing is the fact that the government helped craft/fund the above supposed vaccine and yet private industry ends up with the patents.
What about something like this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41834106/ns/health-aids/t/gene-therapy-builds-hope-future-aids-cure/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/gene-editing-co/
I truly believe from the bottom of my heart and in the deepest reaches of my soul, that in order to solve the AIDS problem, we need to get rid of the faggots.
Perhaps its better to judge from case to case, instead of generalizations.
Sometimes a hard decision is necessary, a compromise has to be made.
But sometimes the price is just too horrible and unthinkable, indeed.
Cargill: [gets out five files] Well, I've narrowed your choices down to 5 unthinkable options. Each will cause untold misery and--
President: [points to the third file] I pick #3.
Cargill: You don't even wanna read them first?
President: I was elected to lead, not to read. #3!
I am opposed to HIV vaccine, because HIV infection is the result of a personal sins, i.e. fornication. Negro mount monkeys and then eat them, white men sleep with men like they should sleep with womenfolk, the japanese abuse the dignity of the female body in their pervert-oriented porn culture. "Emancipated" housewives invite husbands to their rear entrance when he complains of untight pussy. Teenage party girls openly offer their body for serial copulation after bilge drinking sprees and street women sell their bodies for drugs and thus HIV spreads.
Do not eat monkeys and apes, do not engage in animal sex, do not practice homosexuality and refrain from analsex or pornography. Do not copulate with prostitutes, do not abuse drugs and do not fornicate. Value marriage as a bond for life, raise your children to be God-fearing and wholesome and thus HIV/AIDS will be soon gone.
Thus spoke the Lord of Abraham, God jealous, who punishes the sins of fathers in their sons for up to the 7th generation!
Why does a Canadian organisation require any permission from the Government of the USA?
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
>At some point there will be a diseases that starts in Wales or New Zealand that can be traced back to sheep....
TFTFY
In Scotland the men are generally too drunk to chase sheep.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Yeah, being a "spoiled, self infatuated, irresponsible, whiny, obnoxious asshole." is AC's job.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Basically any decently powerful medication goes all batty on side effects because of the body's irritating habit of requiring some 5-70 interactions to get anything done. So it's only 3rd generation medicines etc that get the job done right because of 20 years of practice. My own minor hobby is studying stomach acid preventers. (Not cheap calcium rolaids etc, the other pills that are supposed to prevent your stomach from overproducing the acid in the first place.)
The first gen ones did work, but over-targeted related biochem targets, so they didn't play nice with a whole slew of important prescription meds. Only later by switching around the component molecule rings did the newer ones mostly behave.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I imagine the mood of the toddler after vaccination is more due to the discomfort of being pricked, and perhaps also the parent(s) being overly motherly towards the child (as if it just survived a fall off a building).
Does this mean we can have sex with monkeys again?
And gay men will become less fatalist?
Individuals who have lost infants within 24-48 hours of subjecting them to vaccinations find their children are not counted in the statistics. Dismissed as SIDS (unknown diagnosis).
Well, yes. There was actually one incident here in the UK where a 14 year old girl died after being given the cervical cancer vaccine. The newspapers kicked up a huge fuss about this. Turns out she had a previously-undiagnosed cancer that had been spreading throughout her body for months.
There's always going to be some kids that die soon after being vaccinated just by chance. What matters is whether more die than expected; it makes no sense to attribute deaths to vaccination just because by chance they happened at around the same time.
I'd imagine that companies making small condoms would have just as much to gain.
Seriously. I'd volunteer. I'm 51, not married, no dependents, HIV-negative. If the vaccine fails, so be it. If it works, many lives could be saved.
My brother died of AIDS in the early 90s. Most nurses were afraid to touch him. Health insurance wouldn't cover him. Politically, it was leprosy.
I'd volunteer because the sooner a cure/vaccine is found, the better it is for the world.
I'm sure this has been mentioned, but one presumes that there are two primary tests:
A) does the vaccine have side effects & what are they
B) does the vaccine work.
In order to answer B, doesn't this mean you have to find someone without HIV, administer the vaccine, and then expose them to HIV?
Being a volunteer ... for this ... damn. That takes nuts.
Your comment confuses me for the following reasons:
Ceviche *is* cooked. (The proteins are denatured with acid rather than heat.)
Venison is *not* monkey. (Not even moderately related as far as species go.)
Steak/Horse/Venison/etc Tartar (a raw chopped preparation) can be exceptionally tasty with no cooking whatsoever.
Baby, I always thrill the monkeys with my sweet love.
Currently hooked on AMP
I was looking through his past comments filled with paranoid conspiracy theories^Wfacts, and found it highly amusing that one was rated 5, Funny
He must be a genius, choosing /. as his medium to spread the word. It's too stupid to not be!