Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HIV Vaccine Safe Enough To Pass Phase 1 Human Trials

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the good-work-folks dept.

Medicine 141

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (4, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41902157)

Along with the anti-vaccine nutters?

Clearly using real HIV viruses must be very risky and dangerous

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (0)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 2 years ago | (#41902235)

With your ability for nuance, the debate is bound to go far!

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902417)

I dunno, I'm starting to think vaccines really do make people retarded.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903283)

And boy oh boy, did the faggots and heroin users ever rejoice! Reportedly Apple users were also excited. For some reason.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (2)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | about 2 years ago | (#41904679)

as troll and lacking in taste/etiquette as this comment is...i did laugh...

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902443)

Along with the anti-vaccine nutters?

Clearly using real HIV viruses must be very risky and dangerous

Is that your informed opinion or just baseless fear and nonsense? What makes it dangerous? ..and what makes you think you're smarter than the genetic engineers who are developing it? the Internet just sucks sometimes because stupidity spreads just as fast as logic.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (0, Flamebait)

Smallpond (221300) | about 2 years ago | (#41902529)

Along with the anti-vaccine nutters?

Clearly using real HIV viruses must be very risky and dangerous

Is that your informed opinion or just baseless fear and nonsense? What makes it dangerous? ..and what makes you think you're smarter than the genetic engineers who are developing it? the Internet just sucks sometimes because stupidity spreads just as fast as logic.

Wow, since AC knows that its safe, I wonder why they are even bothering doing safety trials on already infected people. Why not just jump directly to mass inoculations?

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903423)

Please learn to recognize sarcasm.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (-1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41902447)

Well, I'd rather mess with my body as little as possible when it comes to stuff like this. Vaccines aren't always a sure fire bet, and something like AIDS warrants extra circumspection. I'll wait for version 1.5 or 2.0, or 3.0, thanks. It's easier and safer abstaining to avoid the issue. This also mitigates the risk of unwanted kids as well as the unjust pressure feminist law has foisted on society in the context of relationships.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (0)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about 2 years ago | (#41902555)

Well, I'd rather mess with my body as little as possible when it comes to stuff like this. Vaccines aren't always a sure fire bet, and something like AIDS warrants extra circumspection. I'll wait for version 1.5 or 2.0, or 3.0, thanks.

See, this is why they're doing phase I trials on people who are already infected with HIV. You know, like it says in the summary?

This also mitigates the risk of unwanted kids as well as the unjust pressure feminist law has foisted on society in the context of relationships.

What the fuck are you talking about, and what the fuck does it have to do with the article? You know what? Never mind, I don't want to know.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (-1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41902591)

See, this is why they're doing phase I trials on people who are already infected with HIV. You know, like it says in the summary?

yeah like you read the article.. welcome to slashdot.

What the fuck are you talking about, and what the fuck does it have to do with the article? You know what? Never mind, I don't want to know.

obviously, I'm not the only one suffering from lack of reading comprehension skills tonight.

you need to know (-1, Offtopic)

r00t (33219) | about 2 years ago | (#41904525)

I'll just give you a personal example. My brother lost his job. As a result, he was unable to pay child support. This means he can't register his car or have a professional license. (think "home contractor" or "termite services" or "lock smith" or "welder", depending on the state) OK, so how exactly is he supposed to get a job? Was the intent to prevent him from ever recovering?

Furthermore, why does she get to decide anyway? I don't know if he wanted an abortion, but why wouldn't he get equal rights? The playing field is not remotely level here. Fairness demands that she accept full financial responsibility if she chooses to keep the child.

Unfairness in the courts is self-evident when you look at who tends to get custody and who tends to file for divorce. It's nearly all women. Men don't often file for divorce, even when they hate the lady, because men know they will lose and lose and lose. Women file because they know they will win.

If this problem hasn't already hit somebody you care about, consider yourself lucky... for now. Your blissful ignorance is unlikely to last a lifetime.

Re:you need to know (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41904913)

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!

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#41902681)

Those are some pretty hilarious excuses for why you can't get laid. I know it's hard for virgins to understand, but seriously, AIDs is worth it.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903303)

Those are some pretty hilarious excuses for why you can't get laid. I know it's hard for virgins to understand, but seriously, AIDs is worth it.

Depends on how desperate you are.

If you are not desperate you have options. You can afford to be with low risk people.

If you will fuck anything that moves and says yes - well you are engaging in risky behavior. And what, are you going to say you didn't know that? That slut you're banging that you met in a bar 3 hours ago well just how well do you know her anyway? You trust her to be honest and forthright? Why? Her or him if thats your thing I'm not here to judge but you get the point.

Funny thing about AIDS is that most ways you would risk contracting it involve shit you shouldn't be doing anyway for your own good for lots of non-disease related reasons. See that is a problem. It makes the "god hates fags" crowd feel vindicated. They don't deserve to be vindicated. Any real God hates nothing, obviously. Those people are douchebags. But it does make them feel justified in their little tiny minds.

the low-risk choice (4, Funny)

r00t (33219) | about 2 years ago | (#41904299)

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.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903235)

This also mitigates the risk of unwanted kids as well as the unjust pressure feminist law has foisted on society in the context of relationships.

"Waaaaaaaah I don't get to be a deadbeat dad!! Woe is me!!".

Yeah like anyone believes you'll ever gave the chance to father a child.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903325)

This also mitigates the risk of unwanted kids as well as the unjust pressure feminist law has foisted on society in the context of relationships.

"Waaaaaaaah I don't get to be a deadbeat dad!! Woe is me!!".

Yeah like anyone believes you'll ever gave the chance to father a child.

You dont go out much huh?

Every 350 pound fatass lardass blubbery fat white chick in America has at least one half black kid.

Im just sayin man. Some people will fuck anything. A quick fuck is just a sacrificed dignity away. Enough time passes without something desirable coming along and most ppl will cave.

It is dangerous. Very dangerous. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902575)

I hear it can cure you of HIV, but then makes you gay. You then get AIDS and die. It's deadly, bro.

Re:It is dangerous. Very dangerous. (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#41905727)

You mean that stuff cures HIV and on top of it I get a fashion sense and a higher mean income? Sign me up!

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902645)

You listen to what she says?

I just stare at her tits and try to ignore her skinny legs.

She was made for fucking and noth'in else.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902717)

Fuck Jenny McCarthy, maybe I'll get few more years of free sex before my middle age is over. The three decades of AIDS have been so dull.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902789)

Go ahead then, since you're no nutter, inoculate your children, tell us how it goes.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (3, Funny)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 years ago | (#41902821)

It all depends on how much you dilute it.

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 2 years ago | (#41903055)

Along with the anti-vaccine nutters?

Clearly using real HIV viruses must be very risky and dangerous

You go first. If you're still healthy in 20 years, maybe I'll try it.

LK

Re:What is Jenny McCarthy going to say? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41905777)

Firstly: there is no such thing as 'vaccination'.

http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html

That talk has NEVER been rebutted, and is hence true.

Secondly: HIV is not the cause of 'AIDS', and 90% of the people on Slashdot don't even know what 'AIDS' is.

Indicator disease + HIV = 'AIDS'
Indicator disease - HIV = Indicator disease.

The very definition of 'AIDS' is a circular argument.

Try reading this and get back to me:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/abnvp.htm

Most of you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, and just spout 'the party line' (i.e. whatever the T.V. has been telling you for the past twenty years) because it means you can avoid THINKING...

I wouldn't want first post on that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902159)

Don't want first post on the sign up list.

Does that mean (3, Funny)

starworks5 (139327) | about 2 years ago | (#41902163)

That I can tell women that I have the AIDS vaccine at the bar, and can give it to them through intra-muscular administration.

Re:Does that mean (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902195)

It still means Africa is going to be the last place to get the vaccine

Re:Does that mean (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902259)

"Oh, I'm last in line for the fantastic life-saving treatment, woe is me! Boo fucking hoo!"

Shut the fuck up. If they want the vaccine first, they can fucking pay for the research.

Re:Does that mean (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902333)

Empathy is overrated...

Re:Does that mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903319)

Apparently so is trying to not run your continent like a bunch of shitholes.

Re:Does that mean (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902329)

That's not the problem. Believe it or not, the problem is getting them to use it. My father has worked in Africa for more than 20 years now and there is a massive amount of distrust for this sort of thing among the native populations. Many average people even think this type of thing is a CIA plot to kill them off. With the things people have done to them over the centuries, I'm not terribly surprised, but there has been a lot of effort over the last few generations to fix that, and yet it still remains. It won't be easy to overcome.

Re:Does that mean (0)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | about 2 years ago | (#41902805)

We bring them crap such as war, drugs, weapons and Christianity, and they embrace it. We instead bring them the cure for HIV, and they reject it. WTF.

Re:Does that mean (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903251)

They're niggers... no surprise there.

Re:Does that mean (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#41903335)

Strictly speaking, they already had war, drugs, weapons, and Christianity......

Re:Does that mean (1)

tbird81 (946205) | about 2 years ago | (#41903953)

Yep. But we keep spending money on this waste of space.

We have to stop spending money on all the world's problems.

Re:Does that mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903331)

When the rest of us are immune, we won't much care that they want to be left alone to play with the virus. They can either learn and survive, or enjoy the "fun" as they currently are.

Re:Does that mean (3, Informative)

grinchier (1373305) | about 2 years ago | (#41903893)

I have lived in Africa my whole life and that CIA plot thing is old. It's now a "plot by multi-national pharmaceutical companies". At least, it was during Thabo Mbeki's tenure as South African president (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#In_South_Africa). AIDS awareness is alive and well here.

Re:Does that mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41904039)

That's not the problem. Believe it or not, the problem is getting them to use it. My father has worked in Africa for more than 20 years now and there is a massive amount of distrust for this sort of thing among the native populations. Many average people even think this type of thing is a CIA plot to kill them off...

Yes, it must be the CIA behind it all. I mean after all, without anyone's intervention, no one at all is dying, right? Right?

I guess I find little pity in trying to save the ignorant. Tends to weigh down the rest of the human race.

And it does not help when tehy are right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41905429)

I mean when you see we got bin laden thru such a vaccination program... That does not help cement the trust into doctors.

The government created HIV (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902171)

It is not found in mankind prior the last 100 years.

Re:The government created HIV (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902337)

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.

So... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902175)

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?

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41902339)

A very small percentage of the population makes them. One option for a vaccine is to try and hack that immunity into the rest of us.

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

slew (2918) | about 2 years ago | (#41902545)

As I understand it, humans will always produce antibodies to fight infections like HIV. Unfortunatly, the antibodies that humans normally produce in the attempt to neutralize and HIV infection don't appear to be very good at it. [caltech.edu] The short story is that somehow HIV evolved to avoid having many fewer binding locations so the most effective "Y" shaped antibodies cannot effectively attach bivalently (in two places). This bivalent attach is apparently the most common strategies used by our immune system.

Apparently some people can make more potent antibodies called bNAbs, but often HIV mutates to avoid these as well, but sometimes there are successes.

I'm unclear on why this new Canadian/Korean HIV vaccine would be any better at bootstrapping the immune system than the most recent failed attempts. The only novel part that I can tell about this, is that they are using "whole" (but genetically modified) HIV instead of putting HIV protein genes codings into more common viruses, but if HIV is as crafty as it seems to be, this may only be a simple shot-in-the-dark hope that somehow bootstrapping the immune system will allow the body to come up with a way to fight off HIV before it gets a chance to overwhelm the immune system. Color me skeptical as that was what the other vaccines attempted to do, but it's not clear that this will be a successful route.

Re:So... (4, Funny)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | about 2 years ago | (#41902823)

Well, look at it this way:

Worst case scenario, nothing happens. Good-case scenario, it cures aids. Best-case scenario, HIV mutates into something radically worst and gives us the zombie apocalypse we've been waiting for.

Re:So... (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#41905755)

At least it would be very easy to identify safe sex partners. If it moans and feels like a corpse... uh...

Damn, my last girlfriend... I think I should get checked.

Re:So... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903349)

the most effective "Y" shaped antibodies cannot effectively attach bivalently (in two places)

I knew what it meant. Anybody who didn't know could easily look it up in a few seconds, seeing how they're online and everything.

Dickhead.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41904731)

Awww, were your mommy and daddy impatient with you when you were a kid?

Re:So... (2)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 2 years ago | (#41905633)

A very interesting question.
Especially (from the /. summary) that this vaccin is claimed to cure HIV.
Vaccins usually empore your imune system to protect against starting infections. However they don't cure an infection that already has broken out.

subjects were already infected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902187)

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.

Re:subjects were already infected (5, Informative)

slew (2918) | about 2 years ago | (#41902301)

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.

That is all Phase I testing is: identify a safe dosage range and screening for side effects...
Phase II, they will be attempt to determine if it does anything useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial#Phases [wikipedia.org]

Re:subjects were already infected (4, Informative)

Rich0 (548339) | about 2 years ago | (#41902379)

Yup. Phase I results aren't generally considered newsworthy. Pharmaceutical companies have drugs get through phase I trials many times per year. Most turn out to not work, or to have subtle but serious side effects.

The kinds of problems that you can actually spot in Phase I trials are the kinds of problems that would wipe out entire cities if you actually put the pills on store shelves. We're not talking about "maybe causes a 10% increase in heart attack risk" dangerous - more like "causes half those who take it to turn purple and gasp for air" dangerous.

It is the logical first step in testing drugs on people, and it confirms that testing it on sick people isn't going to outright kill a bunch of them, and it helps you to understand how it is metabolized so that you can get the dosing about right when you start the "Real" tests.

Re:subjects were already infected (2)

nospam007 (722110) | about 2 years ago | (#41903699)

"Most turn out to not work, or to have subtle but serious side effects."

Sure but also sometimes (sildenafil citrate) the side effects are so unsubtle that the test objects are reluctant or flatly refuse to give back the rest of the drugs after trial.

Re:subjects were already infected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41905919)

But usually Phase I studies are done on healthy volunteers. Because you are testing safety, you don't choose a more vulnerable group (patients), but healthy people.
The other thing that strikes me as odd about this study is that it is not double-blinded, but observer-blinded.
I could find no reasons for those two deviations from normal practice in TFA.

Vaccinating People Already Infected? (1, Interesting)

sandysnowbeard (1297619) | about 2 years ago | (#41902199)

Why is a vaccine useful to (and being tested on) someone already infected?

Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902241)

Vaccines can still be effective on people recently exposed.

Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902249)

Because if the vaccine is still active in any way, it can't infect anyone further.

Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (0)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41902257)

We should go ask magic Johnson

Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (5, Insightful)

Carnildo (712617) | about 2 years ago | (#41902265)

Phase 1 trials are the "prove the vaccine doesn't give you AIDS" (or cause other medical problems) stage of things.

Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902513)

Did you know that It's actually possible to get DOUBLE HIV (super AIDS?). It's safe to assume, however, that the patients have been typed prior to trial entrance...

It's not a bug... (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | about 2 years ago | (#41902603)

It's a feature!

Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902275)

guessing:
Because HIV is the virus, not the disease. If you develop an immune response to the virus before it causes AIDS, then that's the prevention.

Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902297)

In the highly unlikely case that it goes Horribly Wrong, it won't give them HIV again.

Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (0)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about 2 years ago | (#41902569)

This.

Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (2)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | about 2 years ago | (#41902841)

Actually, each strain of the virus is unique, and if an infected individual gets infected again with a different strain, it can actually make it worse.

Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903483)

Actually, each strain of the virus is unique, and if an infected individual gets infected again with a different strain, it can actually make it worse.

Only somebody who repeatedly takes the cock up the ass, like a real champ, repeatedly, over and over again, harder baby harder, until the creampie dribbles out your asshole and the next lover steps up to your bent over pose ... only someone like you would know so many fine details of HIV and AIDS.

Kudos to you sir. Kudos. Yeah like the granola bar. In the ass of course.

Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41904739)

Wow, you've demonstrated a huge familiarity with it. Did your parents sexually abuse you when you were young? Or did you sexually abuse your siblings? Do you hate yourself?

It's not. (3, Informative)

mosb1000 (710161) | about 2 years ago | (#41902459)

They're testing whether or not it's safe, not whether it will be effective.

Re:Vaccinating People Already Infected? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902683)

I believe the medical definition of vaccine is different from the "normal" definition. The UK has been working on a vaccine for melanoma, a skin cancer, for a few years but only give it to patients already with the cancer. I think in this way it means making the immune system fight an "infection" that it normally would have trouble with. I'm making a guess at that because I know the only successful melanoma treatments all require getting the immue system to fight it when it normally wouldn't.

I would think this has nothing to do with how the flu vaccine works. It probably marks the HIV virus as something the immune system will kill instead of ignore like it normally does.

Calling BS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902237)

How exactly does one year of study validate the prevention of such a slowly progressing disease?

Re:Calling BS (4, Interesting)

lowlymarine (1172723) | about 2 years ago | (#41902289)

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.

Re:Calling BS (0)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 2 years ago | (#41902455)

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.

Details?!? (1)

wincel (2761161) | about 2 years ago | (#41902429)

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.

Re:Details?!? (1)

wincel (2761161) | about 2 years ago | (#41902475)

I suppose it is that. That is just the envelope protein delivered by another virus (Vesicular Stomatitis Virus). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19264597 [nih.gov] These mutate like crazy, so expressing a single one is not going to help much ever to generate a therapeutically active immune response. Having tons of antibody that don't work against the developing HIV mutant is of no use.

Re:Details?!? (1)

wincel (2761161) | about 2 years ago | (#41902489)

No surprise, the impact factor of the journal this system was published in is very low, just 3.36 . Good journals have at least 5-10, the top ones an impact factor of 20 and higher ... http://vir.sgmjournals.org/ [sgmjournals.org]

Re:Details?!? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902505)

"Killed virus" means the virus is damaged to the point that they cannot be replicated, but the immune system can still recognize and remember it.

Re:Details?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41905931)

The usual term is "inactivated virus". I guess it got "translated" into killed for the lay press.

my vaccine already works (0)

Ruede (824831) | about 2 years ago | (#41902649)

dont stick your penis in an unknown and untested wet hole.... or a used needle into your body. quite easy and cheap isnt it?

Re:my vaccine already works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902679)

I didn't know that also protected against crazy people and stabby muggers. The more you know!

Re:my vaccine already works (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902729)

Also don't be the child of someone with HIV, or the wife/husband of someone who gets around (esp in countries where the wife is not in a position to refuse the husband), or be in a country that isn't great with medical sterilisation.
Or don't contract it in a freak incident such as sharing a leg razor with sister, or the other numerous ways the infection has spread through no fault of the infected.

Re:my vaccine already works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41904899)

But to be fair, the freak accidents are a tiny tiny percentage of overall infections. You'd be better off statistically investing in a good motorcycle helmet and wearing it 24/7 than worrying about such cases. For the most part, GP is correct that avoiding dangerous sex/drug habits pretty much eliminates all practical risk. And yes, avoiding dangerous sex habits means not marrying the kind of douche who's involved in those habits for you. As for the "esp in countries..." bit, AIDS is the least of your problems in such a situation.

Re:my vaccine already works (4, Informative)

JanneM (7445) | about 2 years ago | (#41902759)

..or get raped by somebody that is infected .Or get a blood transfusion from somebody that turned out to be infected. Or cut yourself on something with blood from an infected person.

Re:my vaccine already works (4, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | about 2 years ago | (#41903743)

"Or get a blood transfusion from somebody that turned out to be infected. "

BTW, that's the reason we don't get any more Isaak Asimov novels.

Re:my vaccine already works (2)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | about 2 years ago | (#41902875)

Easy and cheap, and it works, but it's not a lot of fun. Unknown, untested wet holes are exactly the place you want to be.

Re:my vaccine already works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902929)

I've discovered a wonderful side effect of your "vaccine": it prevents the birth of idiots.

Too bad we didn't have this vaccine back our parents' day, eh?

Re:my vaccine already works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903081)

Gee. Mr No F*CKing FUN are we?

Or, stop buttfucking (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41902861)

This isn't rocket science people

Re:Or, stop buttfucking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41904767)

Your mom liked it.

2nd poluation explotion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903033)

Hmm, this will inevitably lead to a second population explosion in Africa.

HIV Does Not Cause "AIDS" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903061)

This whole subject is a complete hoax. HIV / AIDS are political -- not medical -- diseases targeted at getting "undesirable" segments of the population to ingest expensive and deadly chemicals marketed as pharmaceutical drugs.

For more information, visit http://tinyurl.com/am8v2w4

Hardly the first trial to get that far... (2)

DrCJM (827451) | about 2 years ago | (#41903153)

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 [nih.gov]

Yahoo! (1)

cyberzephyr (705742) | about 2 years ago | (#41903261)

I'm going to cheer for these folks.

It's been almost 20 years since i lost friends. :-(

With a little help from Bill (2)

CityZen (464761) | about 2 years ago | (#41903329)

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."

Re:With a little help from Bill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41904555)

For all the flak Bill Gates gets in the tech world, you have to admit he trying to do a lot of good with the windfall he got with Microsoft, malaria prevention/vaccination research is just one example.
 
I can't think of anything Steve Ballmer has done with his sums of cash. The same goes with Jobs, Ellison, and Bezos but I've never checked to see and leave it at that..

Re:With a little help from Bill (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 2 years ago | (#41905293)

Hopefully, these vaccines work more reliably than the other Microsoft products.

But now that I think of it, Microsoft is already quite an efficient protector against typical situations where you could get or give AIDS...

An anonymous Geeknet customer paid for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41903859)

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.

It's the University of Western Ontario (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 2 years ago | (#41903937)

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.

Six month trial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41906379)

Yeah, that ought to be enough. Let's rush it through before any long-term effects get noticed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?