Slashdot Mirror
HIV Vaccine Safe Enough To Pass Phase 1 Human Trials
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from Western University in Canada:
"The first human applied clinical study (SAV CT 01) using a genetically modified killed whole-virus vaccine (SAV001-H) to evaluate its safety and tolerability was initiated in March 2012. This study is a randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled study of killed whole HIV-1 vaccine (SAV001-H) following intramuscular (IM) administration. Infected men and women, 18-50 years of age, have been enrolled in this study and randomized into two treatment groups to administer killed whole HIV-1 vaccine (SAV001-H) or placebo. Sumagen announced today the patient enrollment has progressed smoothly and there have been no adverse effects observed including local reactions, signs/symptoms and laboratory toxicities after SAV001-H injection in all enrolled patients to date. With these interim results, the SAV001-H has proven safety and tolerability in humans and given Sumagen confidence for the next clinical trials to prove its immunogenicity and efficacy evaluation."
Along with the anti-vaccine nutters?
Clearly using real HIV viruses must be very risky and dangerous
Don't want first post on the sign up list.
That I can tell women that I have the AIDS vaccine at the bar, and can give it to them through intra-muscular administration.
The test for HIV tests for antibodies... So the human body already makes antibodies against HIV... So how are the antibodies for this vaccine different? *These* work? How?
I find it interesting that all the subjects were already HIV positive. It looks like this study only shows that it is ok to inject into a human, not that it does anything useful.
Why is a vaccine useful to (and being tested on) someone already infected?
It doesn't, but then again that isn't what this stage of testing was about. But hey, I get it - reading to the end of the first sentence of the summary is a lot of work. A busy man like you can't be bothered to invest that much time before rushing off to enlighten us with your genius commentary.
It is not found in mankind prior the last 100 years.
In many ways you are misguidedly correct. If the governments of Europe did not initiate their heavy colonisation of Africa during the late 19th century, it is unlikely that AIDS would have ever spread outside of the remote areas of Africa where it orginated and would not likely be the pandemic problem that it is today.
Has anyone found any details on the genetic modification. Because ... HIV is not alive, a virus is only a blueprint for itself, which the cell starts to copy. And this copying process than leads to side effects depending on what the virus information contains - the symptoms.
So a "whole virus" that is "killed" is plain nonsense.
And as there are only extremely rare cases where there are therapeutically relevant anti-HIV antibodies ever (usually the restriction is T cell based or CCR5 mutations) ... a vaccine that is supposed to induce antibodies with a full virus makes no sense whatsoever.
If you knew how clinical trials worked you'd understand what a phase I trial is and isn't, but apparently you'd rather just call BS and remain ignorant.
They're testing whether or not it's safe, not whether it will be effective.
It's a feature!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
dont stick your penis in an unknown and untested wet hole.... or a used needle into your body. quite easy and cheap isnt it?
Hmm, this will inevitably lead to a second population explosion in Africa.
There are *lots* of HIV vaccines in development, many reaching phase I and others going further. There's even one recent phase III showing some evidence of a preventative effect.
For a review check: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22710904
I'm going to cheer for these folks.
It's been almost 20 years since i lost friends. :-(
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
From Sumagen's website:
"Sumagen’s HIV/AIDS vaccine is also supported for its R&D cost from the HIV/AIDS vaccine development fund, jointly launched by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the government of Canada."
This is what it should say, "not an anonymous reader writes". Another one of those paid pharma stories and
this is not even the target segment, the world knows Slashdot Geeks don't get laid ever. Anyhow most of Geeknet's
business is to place paid for articles on sites they own such as slashdot and this is what happened
As far as the 'vaccine' itself is concerned, be my guest let them shoot you up with this crap I will not give you a
cent when I see you begging at the traffic light because of all the neurological damage it dealt you.
There is no (Canadian) Western University. It's the University of Western Ontario, sometimes called "Western" for short, but never Western University. It's also only western if you're from southern Ontario since its actually located in the south east corner of the province.
If you will fuck anything that moves and says yes - well you are engaging in risky behavior.
Definitely. The low-risk choice is to find something that says no, then make it stop moving.
Your mom liked it.
I know I shouldn't (and for all I know the US child support system is totally screwed) but dude, those are his kids, kids cost money and effort to raise, and he needs to provide 50% of both. If he loses his job, then surely these things get re-assessed (I know they do in my country). His kids welfare matters, not his, and if they've been raised by their mother so far, then obviously a judge is going to have her continue to provide that care.
Sorry, but men's choice point over kids is at choosing to have sex, women get a little bit longer than that - but then they have a lot more invested in it. Plenty of women are maimed or die having babies, but I suspect a vanishingly small number of men risk their lives when having sex!
I mean when you see we got bin laden thru such a vaccination program... That does not help cement the trust into doctors.
You mean that stuff cures HIV and on top of it I get a fashion sense and a higher mean income? Sign me up!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yeah, that ought to be enough. Let's rush it through before any long-term effects get noticed.
Sorry, but no. If a woman becomes pregnant and wants to keeps the child while the man wants an abortion then that child should be the sole responsibility of the woman. She chose to have sex too, she chose not to use any kind of birth control too and ultimately she decided that she wanted to keep the child.
No more of this inequality. This bullshit were a woman can basically trap a man for his money or his life by forcing him to have her child with her.
Yes, but the down side is that it also comes with a strong attraction towards other people who also have fashion sense and a higher mean income.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Oh, and which government do you think had the ability to engineer a lentivirus 100 years ago? Because I'd like them to provide my healthcare...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Search Dr Sebi on youtube, he had been curing cancer for more than a decade just by herbs.
Spending money on things like this is a waste. HIV is a harmless virus that has existed in humans at least 100 years before AIDS started killing us off in the 80s. AIDS drugs actually do more to cause AIDS than HIV which does nothing especially since your body developes antibodies as soon as you're infected making it dormant at the worst.
I know I shouldn't (and for all I know the US child support system is totally screwed) but dude, those are his kids, kids cost money and effort to raise, and he needs to provide 50% of both. If he loses his job, then surely these things get re-assessed (I know they do in my country). His kids welfare matters, not his, and if they've been raised by their mother so far, then obviously a judge is going to have her continue to provide that care.
Sorry, but men's choice point over kids is at choosing to have sex, women get a little bit longer than that - but then they have a lot more invested in it. Plenty of women are maimed or die having babies, but I suspect a vanishingly small number of men risk their lives when having sex!
Things typically don't get reassessed.
You have to fight long and hard to prove that you're not earning $X and thus you should have to only pay $Y.
But the court will say you're willfully underemployed and throw you in jail for violating an order to get a better job.
While in jail your fines continue to rack up and you'lre fucked forever.
It's always hilarious when people say women bear all the responsibility of having children when they are the ones with all the choices to drop their responsibility. Men are the ones with zero choice in the matter, even when raped, and men are the ones who are forced into slavery for children they cannot afford. If a woman has a child she cannot afford, she can abort it, kill it and claim postpartum, drop it off at a fire station, give it up for adoption, or keep it and live off the state and whatever man she can get on the hook as the presumptive father (it doesn't have to be the actual father).
If men had the ability to waive all rights to, and thus responsibility for, a child once they're formally informed of its existence, then there would be a LOT fewer unwanted children in the world. But the courts don't want that, they want to siphon off $$$ from support payments.
You want to get rid of HIV and other disease, then you'll have to wait for National Health Care since your inusrance isn't going to pay for it.
I don't think they understand what a vaccine is?
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
A small price to pay. I mean, what's the problem? At least he won't get pregnant, and I can keep my high mean income!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, in all seriousness, my gay friends tell me that the biggest down side is more or less the opposite of what I said: there's a significant chance that anyone that they're attracted to won't even be interested in people the same gender as them, let alone them specifically. If you think that gay people make up around 5% of the population, there's a one in twenty chance that someone they find attractive will also be gay. And if they are, the probability of them being gay, single, and attracted to you is even lower. At least for heterosexuals start with a nineteen in twenty chance before adding in the other factors...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News