Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Finnish HIV Vaccine Testing To Begin

Unknown Lamer posted about 7 months ago | from the alter-your-genes dept.

Medicine 72

First time accepted submitter ultranova writes with news of a new phase in trials for an HIV vaccine. From the article: "Some 1,000 patients throughout France and Switzerland will take part on the trials, with the first phase involving hundreds of HIV sufferers. Participant numbers will increase as the program progresses. ... According to Reijonen, the GTU technology developed by FIT Biotech is also suitable for use as a preventive HIV vaccine, however, he says that such a drug is still ten years away.The central idea behind HIV vaccine development is the use of genetic immunization. Genes are introduced into the body in order to generate a controlled immune response against HIV. Gene Transport Unit (or GTU) technology refers to FIT Biotech’s patented method by which genes can be safely introduced into the body."

cancel ×

72 comments

Is it a "Vaccine" or a "Cure" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45836985)

I thought a "vaccine" was something you got to prevent you getting a disease, and a "cure" was something you got to rid you of a disease.

Is it a "vaccine" if they are testing it on people who already have HIV? Seems more like they are testing it as a "cure?"

Or do words not mean things anymore?

Re:Is it a "Vaccine" or a "Cure" (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45837077)

You aren't too familiar with how vaccines work then. A vaccine is actually providing a way for the immune system to recognize an infectious agent, and deal with it, which can even apply when you have an infection, in some ways it may even be thought of as giving you the infection, but in a way that reduces your chance of more serious consequences.

Re:Is it a "Vaccine" or a "Cure" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45837123)

In this case it sounds like a little of both. The immune system can't cope with this particular disease, so instead they modify it via gene therapy so it can. That's on top of the normal teaching the immune system what it looks like so it can fight it off better in future.

Prophylactic vs. Therapeutic Vaccines (5, Interesting)

Guppy (12314) | about 7 months ago | (#45838839)

The issue here is the distinction between Prophylactic Vaccines and Therapeutic Vaccines .

The OP's confusion is understandable, as the vast majority of vaccines in clinical use are purely Prophylactic in nature, functioning solely as preventatives; these have little or no utility when administered after infection has taken place. Such vaccines are typically heavily dependent on Humoral Immunity [wikipedia.org] , which may take several weeks time to reach maximum effectiveness, and maybe an additional dose or two.

This delay means the vaccine is of little use in acute infectious diseases (which run their course in a relatively short length of time). In chronic diseases, the infectious agent may be around longer, but usually by that time the immune system is already generating an appropriate response to the naturally occurring disease agent -- in other words, the advantage of the vaccine was purely in helping the immune system get there "first-est with the most-est", and you've already lost that advantage in waiting.

The number of Therapeutic Vaccines is relatively small, but a good example of one such entity is the Rabies Vaccine (which is both a Prophylactic and Therapeutic Vaccine) -- which manages to work post-exposure in part due to the time lag before the virus succeeds in penetrating the central nervous system. The case for most HIV therapeutic vaccine candidates I've seen, is in the argument that an HIV infection mis-directs the immune system that can be corrected; most such candidates attempt to enhance the Cell-Mediated [wikipedia.org] Immune response, which appears to be particularly vital to the anti-HIV immune response. However, several such agents have been tried in the past, and all have failed in testing.

   

Re: Prophylactic vs. Therapeutic Vaccines (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 7 months ago | (#45872207)

The number of Therapeutic Vaccines is relatively small, but a good example of one such entity is the Rabies Vaccine (which is both a Prophylactic and Therapeutic Vaccine)

Indeed. And having had a pretty rough time from the first dose of the rabies vaccine (prophylactic), I still didn't need persuading to take the second and third doses, despite knowing that I was going to feel like I'd been kicked the length of High Street after each dose. And I know that if I do get exposed to rabies virus, I'll still have some 3 weeks of getting that "kicked the length of High Street" feeling every day as they apply the vaccine in therapeutic mode.

But it sure as hell beats getting full blown rabies. Even if having a fully loaded immune system is only around 70% successful.

Re:Is it a "Vaccine" or a "Cure" (1, Informative)

torstenvl (769732) | about 7 months ago | (#45837163)

Words mean things. It is unfortunate that you do not understand them. It is true that a vaccine prevents infection. Your post makes me angry with its bullheadedness and ignorance. However, for the sake of your education and the edification of others who might read, let me remind you that HIV is not terminal upon primary infection. Few if any people die from primary HIV infection or "conversion sickness." In fact, for many people, viral levels drop to incredibly low rates after initial infection, even without medication. The problem arises when that infection rears its head again later, infecting and destroying your remaining T-cells and thereby eviscerating your immune system. Put simply: we are already pretty good at destroying infected cells, but we don't have a way of keeping it from infecting further cells. As you so astutely noted, a vaccine is useful for that exact purpose.

Re:Is it a "Vaccine" or a "Cure" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45838219)

why did this get modded troll?

Re:Is it a "Vaccine" or a "Cure" (4, Informative)

Lotana (842533) | about 7 months ago | (#45840831)

It was modded as troll because of the following sentences made at the beginning:

Words mean things. It is unfortunate that you do not understand them. It is true that a vaccine prevents infection. Your post makes me angry with its bullheadedness and ignorance.

That it a completely unnecessary personal attack on someone that dared ask a question on a discussion forum. Had the parent skipped these inflammatory four sentences and started immediately with the body of his otherwise good post, it would of been +5 Insightful instantly.

Re:Is it a "Vaccine" or a "Cure" (1)

JoeRobe (207552) | about 7 months ago | (#45838797)

Not sure why this is a troll, but I wish I had mod points to bump it up. I'm not the OP, but I was wondering the same thing regarding how this was a vaccine. This explanation makes complete sense and thanks for the clarification.

Just so I'm understanding correctly: the amount of HIV virus in the blood is very small after initial infection, so the idea is to use the vaccine to keep the level low (i.e. prevent the virus from ever ramping up again and destroying your immune system)?

So this would prevent infection for those without HIV, and keep HIV dormant for those that already are infected?

Re:Is it a "Vaccine" or a "Cure" (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 7 months ago | (#45872269)

Just so I'm understanding correctly: the amount of HIV virus in the blood is very small after initial infection, so the idea is to use the vaccine to keep the level low (i.e. prevent the virus from ever ramping up again and destroying your immune system)?
So this would prevent infection for those without HIV, and keep HIV dormant for those that already are infected?

That would be the hope - to a first approximation. Unfortunately, the probably recent relapse of the "Boston" patients (who had appeared to have completely cleared HIV infection, after leukaemia treatments IIRC) suggests that the low level that you need to achieve and maintain may be as low as one viron, either circulating in the blood, or passivated in some other cell.

Re:Is it a "Vaccine" or a "Cure" (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45842109)

Words do mean things, just not always what you think

A vaccine is something injected to prime the immune system to respond to a disease. Mostly they are prophylactic in nature but in a few cases where a disease progresses slowly (such as HIV or rabies) and an inadequate immune response figures into the progression, they may be used therapeutically.

Originally it was specifically an injection from a cow. That certainly applied to the first vaccine against smallpox, but the definition shifted since.

Why is everything (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45836987)

Always 10 years away?

Jam to-morrow... (2)

pigiron (104729) | about 7 months ago | (#45837533)

Always 10 years away?

Yes, when it comes to these high tech innovation announcements like uber-efficient solar cells, flying cars, hydogen fuel cells, hyper storage batteries, optical computers smaller than a warehouse, whatever... its' always the Lewis Carroll quote that is apropos:

"Jam to-morrow, jam yesterday, but never jam today."

Re:Why is everything (1)

akozakie (633875) | about 7 months ago | (#45840575)

For most nice things - you're right. In this case the reason is different. We're talking about a potentially dangerous thing - genetic manipulation. The 10 years are not for new research, but for further testing. The difference is that between "I think we will develop this by then" and "We have it, by then we should be sure whether it's safe" (assuming the current tests succeed).

If this passes initial tests and proves to be effective and not have any serious short-to-medium term side effects, then that is very good news for the infected - it is the first real cure. It's unlikely to be worse than the disease it cures. It can be soon cleared for therapeutic use.

But using it as a preventive vaccine? Would you really give it to healthy people? Hell no! You need a lot more research on long-term effects, including relatively rare ones, resulting from interaction with other, less wide-spread genes. Does this change influence later pregnancy? Development of a child? How does the immune system of that child develop? So many questions... Some will not be fully answered in 10 years, but we need to draw the line somewhere.

Re:Why is everything (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 7 months ago | (#45842821)

Simple: 10 years is the shortest unpredictable time that you can still convince people to give funding for. In practice, "10 years away" is more like 10-50 year, with an expected 30 years being realistic. Bit then today nobody funds what you are doing, no matter how important. Incidentally, "10 years away" has by my own estimation at least a 50% chance of meaning "never".

Finish to Begin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45837051)

Finish to Begin or Begin to Finish. Either way, they will be back where they started...

Re:Finish to Begin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45840183)

Well, if the subject is still alive after the operating table, a fellow android might live longer than the four years. This time we haven't got a virus again.

It is finished! Now it will begin! (1)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 7 months ago | (#45837059)

HIV vaccines that go back in time are the best in the world!

It's Finnish before it's even begun! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45837073)

It's Finnish before it's even begun!

Re:It's Finnish before it's even begun! (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#45841919)

Just add some extra Polish and no one will notice anything.

More outright FRAUD... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45837083)

Since HIV is not the cause of 'AIDS', and 99% of Slashdotters don't even know what 'AIDS' is, and since Jenner was a well known fraudster, and there is no such thing as 'vaccination', this is yet another fraud on the HIV gravy train... Sickening.

The definition of so-called 'AIDS' is:

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

It is a circular definition. It is a massive, ongoing fraud, perpetrated by so-called 'researchers' and pharmaceutical companies.

Secondly, since when did a so-called 'vaccine' CURE a disease which you already have? I thought 'vaccines' were supposed to PREVENT you from being infected in the first place?

http://healtoronto.com/10reasons.html

It's all over the internet. Yet another huge FRAUD that has been exposed on hundreds of websites, yet the general public believe whatever the T.V. tells them, and are too STUPID to question - just like the Slashdot crowd, who will rush to the defence of the 'scientists' - LOL.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (4, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | about 7 months ago | (#45837195)

Sorry, you sound like an absolute nut, as does the website you link to. Hell, it even tries to attack some scientists personally through obscure and out-of-context quotes as if that makes you right.

I have no medical knowledge. I don't need any to see what I judge to be a nut. I've seen enough in my own fields to know that people who decide to tell me what's going on in a multi-billion-dollar field full of PhD's as if they know everything that the PhD's don't (without context), tend to be nutters.

I have a girlfriend in genetics. She gets any amount of nutters every day telling her that her field doesn't exist, doesn't do anything useful, is "wrong", is contrary to their religion, etc. that I have to sympathise with her on this one.

Come back when you have ten years of medical school behind you and have proved this all wrong in peer-reviewed journals that we can't adequately debunk. Until then, you're a nut repeating things that other nuts have said to gain attention.

I met a guy on the QE2 once. We were sitting, just socialising as you do on such a beautiful ship, with all kinds of people. We started to play cards. Mid-way through, he tried to tell me that he'd "solved" the three-houses, three-utilities puzzle. (Oh, this was after he told me he invented the card game of Uno). He was utterly serious. He was mortally offended I didn't believe him. He gave me a string of qualifications. Asked him to show me how he did it right there. There was no rush, he had time enough to spout all of this bullshit to me, we were just being friendly. I offered to even publicise it if he could show me his "answer". Strangely, he was unable to produce it, and kept dodging the question. I was genuinely intrigued as to how he'd managed it - I assumed he'd found a hole in the wording of the puzzle used, or some kind of "trick" (e.g. folding the paper, etc.). You know the best kind of thinkers? The guy in the Patch Adams movie, who was a genius, got committed to an institution, and constantly asked how many fingers that they could see when he held three up, and laughing at people who gave the "right" answer... except he was thinking sideways. We have two eyes. That kind of genius is rare, misunderstood, and can create wondrous things. I was genuinely intrigued if this guy was similar.

But no. He hadn't come up with some stroke of genius (real, or interpretative of the data). He just hadn't. He kept on refusing to show anything. Refusing to discuss it. Yet before he'd been so keen to tell me I was wrong. He asked me, quite abruptly, how I knew that he *couldn't* when so obviously he was right and had done it in his head. So I taught him Euler's Formula. He got most offended and never spoke to us again.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (0)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#45837257)

Well, your parent was imho sarcastic and partly right.

The word "vaccine" is at least completely wrong in context of that article. However it is only a "news site" and not a scientific site, so such "misnomers" are forgivable.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45837625)

No its not completely wrong definition of vaccine. Just because that was what you were taught in grade school doesn't mean its correct in medical school. Sorry to burst your bubble that you are not as smart as you think you are.

The UK is in trials for a melanoma vaccine, and they call it that, used on people after they have melanoma. Vaccine is a drug used to help your immune system fight an infection, not something to prevent you from getting a disease. When I read about that I leaned that the definition of vaccine is not what I was told in school.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#45841249)

The melanome vaccine certainly only helps in fighting new melanomes. And during that enforces your immune system to fight the old one as well.
This works pretty well if the 'illness to fight' is a slow evolving illness.
You pointed even out that it 'enforces the immune system'. That is exactly my point. The article is not about a 'vaccine' which 'somehow' enforces the immune systeme. It is a gene therapy, introducing completely new options into your body. Your immune systeme is bypassed. Hence it is no vaccine, but a medical treatment ...

Re:More outright FRAUD... (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 7 months ago | (#45838965)

Vaccine by definition is something that helps your immune system generate an immune response. Vaccines in general fall into two caterogies.

Prophylactic (this is the category where most vaccines fall into) which is given before the onset of disease to ensure the immune response when it attempts to infect the patient. Example: MMR vaccine.

Second category is therapeutic vaccine, which is given after the onset of disease to generate immune response during the disease. This is rare, as most diseases generate appropriate immune response when they hit, making vaccination's value minimal to harmful. However diseases with delayed infection such as rabies or autoimmune diseases that circumvent immune response such as HIV (may) benefit from therapeutic vaccination after infection.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (2)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#45839119)

Only half correct.
What you call "secondary vaccine" is a so called "passive vaccine", passive because the immune system is not required to "do any work". A passive vaccine is nearly in all cases simply a high dose of the appropriated anti body for the particular germ. E.g. against tetanus.

The article here in question is more in the league of a gene therapy.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 7 months ago | (#45839579)

You misunderstand. These are proper medical terms. I don't call anything "secondary", I merely set the two separate classes. One is prophylactic, other is therapeutic.

While you are correct that this vaccine uses genetic therapy - like methods, it still fits a definition of a therapeutic vaccine.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#45839685)

No it does not fit the definition of a vaccine, as it in no way involves "the immune system" or resembles in any whay how the immune system works.
But perhaps I'm just nitpicking :)

Re:More outright FRAUD... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45840505)

You are as nutty as the guy that started this thread. Just because you believe something strongly does not make it true.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#45841133)

I don't believe anything.
I know what the word 'vaccine' menas.
BTW: it is easy to look up ...

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 7 months ago | (#45841513)

It is indeed, it's the first sentence in the wikipedia description:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine [wikipedia.org]

Not sure what you're trying to prove here, but it's pretty obvious that you're factually incorrect in both claiming that this isn't a vaccine, or that it doesn't involve immune system.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#45874057)

Erm, and it does not occur to you that a hobbyist again has written something wrong into wikipedia? (*facepalm*)

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 7 months ago | (#45876853)

Considering that is the same thing you'll find in any decent book at your local university library, no.

But I guess those are written by "hobbyists" too.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#45877717)

Then every medical is a vaccine?
The first two sentences in that wikipedia article are wrong. Sorry. If you believe otherwise you are free to do so.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 7 months ago | (#45881087)

Hi. My name is one of the most used medications in the world. Aspirin. I am not a vaccine.
Hi. I'm one of the most used medications in the world. Ibuprofen. I'm also not a vaccine.
Hi. I'm an entire group of medications that saved countless lives. I'm known as antibiotics. I'm not a vaccine.
Hi. I'm any medication in the world that doesn't fall under definition of vaccines. I'm not a vaccine.

Seriously, what is wrong with you to grasp on an obviously incorrect factual idea and defend it like your life depends on it, refusing to understand any reason whatsoever?

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#45881389)

Your "quotes" are exactly my point, so what is your problem?
90% of our medicals are no vaccines.

The "therapy" in question is neither.

So what exactly is your point? Nitpicking? If you want to nitpick, stay on topic and explain why the treatment mentioned in this articel "might" be a vaccine.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 7 months ago | (#45881533)

My point is pointing out your obvious failures at proving your point, which is apparently lost on you.

I suppose considering that you still don't grasp that you're wrong in spite of overwhelming evidence presented, the discussion is indeed pointless. Can't turn a highly opinionated believer.

And yeah, folks are still dying of rabies near 100%. No therapeutic vaccines exist for it at all. You said it yourself.

You'll excuse me if I go back to reality while you stay in this fantasy world of yours.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 7 months ago | (#45882017)

Seems you are an complete idiot.
For rabbies we have a so called "passive vaccine" which consists of "anti bodies" against the virus.
That was my very first post in this thread.
If that vaccine is not given in the first days after infection: death toll is 100% So what exactly was your point again? Yes, your posts are incomprehensible. Perhaps you should work on the 'you say', but 'scientific news is', 'and therefor' 'my argument is'. Bla, or what ever. A 'treatment' that does not involve the immune system is not a vaccine.
You may disagree, but the medicals I know, don't.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 6 months ago | (#45882835)

So you call it "passive vaccine" now.

So tell me. What stops you from recognizing the fact that you basically agree that everyone here was correct and you incorrect, and all you're doing now is desperately trying to mess with words just to avoid admitting you were incorrect in the original post?

I'm not sure what "medicals" you consult, or for that matter who "medicals" are, but pretty much all educated medics appear to disagree with you.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 6 months ago | (#45889961)

No, I don't call it a passive vaccine.
The vaccine in the article is imho no vaccine but a gene therapy.

The "vaccine" used against rabies is a "passive" vaccine.

What stops you from recognizing the fact that you basically agree that everyone here was correct and you incorrect, and all you're doing now is desperately trying to mess with words just to avoid admitting you were incorrect in the original post?
Er, I guess the same thing that does prevent you from recognizing, that I'm right, and you are wrong? If you did not follow the discussion: you are the only one insisting that it is a vaccine.

Everything that is not directly interfering with the immune system, either by offering the "passive" antidote, that the immune system is supposed to produce but can't (as in rabbis) or is a weakened original bacteria/virus (as in anthrax) is no vaccine. I don't get why you insist otherwise ... but that is your opinion so feel free.

but pretty much all educated medics appear to disagree with you. I don't think so, otherwise some had likely posted here and given a comprehensible explanation why I'm wrong.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 6 months ago | (#45893445)

You know, with your "medicals" quip you pretty much demonstrated that your grasp on medical terminology is nonexistent even on the very basics.

And yet to persist to argue about complex terminology in the same field.

There is a description for people like you. "Too stupid to realize the depth of their own stupidity".

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 6 months ago | (#45907615)

There is a description for people like you. "Too stupid to realize the depth of their own stupidity".

I'm not a native english speaker, so it is my "birth given" right to mix up a word or two (english word, that is).
So have fun educating people about stupidity.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#45842351)

But it DOES involve the immune system. The whole point of the altered genes is to mobilize an immune response to HIV.

Re:More outright FRAUD... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 months ago | (#45838911)

lol once in high school I solved the angle-trisection problem. I was very proud of myself until I did again with a bigger angle and realized I had merely cut it into fourths but left the middle line out, but it wasn't visible with a small angle and my inaccurate lines.

Gonna be a tough sell in some circles. (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#45837187)

FTA: "Genes are introduced in order to generate a controlled immune response."

We already have a difficult time maintaining herd immunity through inoculation because of the autism FUD.

I imagine there will be resistance to an HIV shot in some circles.

Re:Gonna be a tough sell in some circles. (2)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about 7 months ago | (#45837293)

Which is probably for the best since we're talking about genetic vaccination. Homogeneity is usually not a desirable trait in a species's genome.

Re:Gonna be a tough sell in some circles. (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#45837639)

That's a good point. Undoubtedly, a particular genetic sequence given to HIV immunity comes with other advantages/disadvantages, many of these difficult to predict.

Mother Nature's style of parenting is hardly doting. I believe I've read 99.9% of all species that ever existed on earth are extinct. A genetic trait that is advantageous in one epoch occasionally kills your grandchildren in the next.

Re:Gonna be a tough sell in some circles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45844153)

yeah my thinking was this story should be tagged whatcouldpossiblygowrong

Re:Gonna be a tough sell in some circles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45843011)

"Two regulatory genes rev and tat, parts of the structural proteins coded by gag and a stretch of selected T helper (Th) and CTL epitopes coded for pol and env were added" (Indicators of therapeutic effect in FIT-06, a Phase II trial of a DNA vaccine, GTU(®)-Multi-HIVB, in untreated HIV-1 infected subjects)

The vaccine seems like it contains parts of most of the HIV proteins (lots of different antigens). Also, the vaccine shouldn't produce a homogenous response in people, since there is plenty of diversity in the HLA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_leukocyte_antigen).

The DNA vaccine shouldn't be able to integrate into any of the cells' genomes (at least not at a rate to worry about) and it definitely shouldn't be able to make it to any germ cells.

Re:Gonna be a tough sell in some circles. (0)

Immerman (2627577) | about 7 months ago | (#45837435)

You know,it just occurred to me that there's a simple technique that might encourage people "on the fence" to get vaccinated - deny medical care (or at least insurance coverage) related to the disease in question to non-vaccinated individuals who didn't have a legitimate reason to refuse it. (vaccine allergy, etc)

Of course that would make herd immunity even worse, and could also raise the specter of the sort of vaccine abuses that have been seen in places like Africa, where unwitting patients were injected with other things along with the vaccine - there is after all a kernel of truth to some of the anti-vaccination nutters wild claims, even if they occurred in places where the government has far fewer compunctions about "engineering" their population and such things could never happen in places where individual rights are respected. (Right? ...right?)

Liberals hate freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45837689)

A perfect liberal response. Do what I say or I will have you killed. Just what I would expect a compasionate liberal to say.
Now if we could just ban people who want to run other people's lives like this guy from public office.

Pro tip: This is a vaccine for AFTER you are infected, the preventative one is over 10 years off. Get off your talking points long enough to at least read the summary.

Re:Liberals hate freedom (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 7 months ago | (#45837805)

I was discussing in general, not this particularvacine, which behaves in a manner very atypical for vaccines.

And what exactly is so liberal about saying we have a simple, safe, cheap way to make you almost completely immune to disease X. If you choose not to do so then it's on your head, you're not allowed to spread the expense to anyone else if you end up getting sick?

Re:Liberals hate freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45838735)

Who said it was safe or cheap? I missed that part in the story, or are you making up "facts" to back up your argument of running other people's lives?

Why should someone who chooses not to be treated by the vaccinne be disallowed from paying for their own medical treatment if later they get the disease? That is an outright "Do what I say or I choose to kill you attitude", not a libertarian attitude. Lets continue your theory and see how we can solve all of health care....

If you smoke, you can not be treated for lung cancer ever.
If you tan either under the sun or at a tanning salon, you can not be treated for skin cancer ever.
If you drink alchol, you are inelligable for a liver transplant ever.
If you are overweight, you will not be treated for any heart problems ever.

I'm sure I could continue on and pretty much eliminate anyone from ever getting any healthcare treatment ever. But thats not what you wanted, you wanted people who don't think like you to be denied treatment and die while you continue to get whatever treatment you ask for. You are one of the most inhumane wicked people I have ever seen post to /.

Re:Liberals hate freedom (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45837863)

Sounds like the Libertarian response to me -- don't get vaccinated, get sick, then don't expect other people (through insurance or the state) to pick up the costs of your care. Actually sounds OK to me and I'm not Libertarian, just someone who wants them to live by their talk.

Re:Gonna be a tough sell in some circles. (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 7 months ago | (#45850027)

Or, God forbid, just have sex with people you know don't have HIV/AIDS. If you don't use needles or need blood transfusions, boom: done.

Oh, hey look, I avoided any potential side effects of the vaccination. Isn't that funny.

Re:Gonna be a tough sell in some circles. (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 7 months ago | (#45853367)

Fair enough - but somewhat complicated by the fact that the only way to be sure you don't have HIV is to be tested at least 6 months after your last encounter. Complicates things somewhat. Though I suppose you could also go the reputable porn-star route where everyone in the community goes through that initial quarantine period so they can be effectively tested, and then nobody has *any* encounters outside the community. Period. Of course all it takes is one person reneging on their oath one time with the wrong person, and a disease can spread like wildfire through the community.

Re:Gonna be a tough sell in some circles. (1)

akozakie (633875) | about 7 months ago | (#45840657)

Not likely. Not for the therapeutic vaccine. I think most HIV-positive people will take the chance if it really works.

For future use as preventive vaccine - yeah, expect resistance. Even more than for other vaccines. After all, most of them are just punching bags for your immune system - they aren't supposed to "do" anything, the FUD is about unintented ("or are they?") side-effects, impurities, stuff like that. In this case the vaccine is directly active - it modifies your body in a way.

In fact, I would be reluctant as well to use it until it had been in use for 20 years or so. HIV is not that virulent - considering my lifestyle the risk is quite low (not nearly zero of course). But I will enjoy the thought that - should the low risk materialize - there is something I can do about that.

Re:Gonna be a tough sell in some circles. (1)

Goonie (8651) | about 7 months ago | (#45841061)

I suspect the HIV shot might be an easier sell than some of the others, because deaths from the initial epidemic are still recent enough for many people to remember. - not to mention public health campaigns like this one [youtube.com] .

Re:Gonna be a tough sell in some circles. (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#45841939)

As a treatment for those already stricken with the disease the shot is a no-brainer.

As a preventative measure through mass inoculation, there will be civil disobedience. Fool's logic will dictate since the polio & flu vaccines carry the viri, so may the HIV cocktail.

Maybe folks are just rationalizing their fear of needles, I don't know, but there exist some deadset against it.

Re:Gonna be a tough sell in some circles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45849773)

You mean like people who are monogamous and people who are celibate ?

Or people who are familiar enough with the research and approval process to decide that it's not in their best interest to take a risk you've decided for them is nonexistent ?

Oh, and the whole "herd immunity" non-discussion that people use selectively to dismiss people who do not want certain specific vaccines is absolute bullshit. What you obviously don't know about herd immunity has filled several volumes.

I hate it when people pretend to be impartial and "scientific", while proving beyond a doubt that their opinions are entirely faith-based. STFU and read something that actually challenges your mostly political and unscientific preconceptions. Representing "science" as being static and absolute isn't "science" at all, it's merely unimaginative dogmatism. We have churches for that, keep it in your church, where you belong with the foolish anti-all-vaccine nuts, because you're really just two peas in a pod.

hey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45837243)

Better shut them down within 10 years or deal with market pressures!

Amazing vaccine (3, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | about 7 months ago | (#45837415)

The most amazing thing about this vaccine is that it's a tachyon based vaccine.
First the testing is Finnish, and now it begins.

-

Re:Amazing vaccine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45837709)

No, it doesn't begin, it's already Finnished.

Re:Amazing vaccine (1)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about 7 months ago | (#45839063)

No, it doesn't begin, it's already Finnished.

Off to pun hell for you.

You will be punnished.

Fp GOAT?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45838071)

Can no longer be all servers. Coming philosophies must The future of the overly morbid and Satan's Dick And won'7 vote in cuntwipes Jordan Way. It used to be could save it Or chair, return faster chip or make loud noises members are the reaper BSD's abysmal sales and That has lost from the FreeBSD It. Do not share fear the reaper be any fucking 800 mhz machine startling turn Irc.easynews.com like I should be AND MORTIFYING over the same of HIV and other not anymore. It's HAVE AN IRC CLIENT You to join the percent of the *BSD may also want You're told. It's And the striking you can. No, JOIN THE GNAA!! = 36400 FreeBSD Racist? How is any doubt: FreeBSD bloc in order to bought the farm.... in eternity...Romeo We'll be able to resulted in the Discussion I'm it there. Bring dead. It is a dead

Wait are they beginning or finishing? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 7 months ago | (#45838611)

I'm confused.

Vaccines work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45843755)

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

Are vaccinations safe and effective? Historical trends show that deaths caused by childhood illnesses had already declined as much as 90% before vaccine programs were ever initiated. Evidence indicates that an improved standard of living, better nutrition, and increased sanitation, caused this drop in disease, not vaccines.

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

“Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic meningitis...According to one of the 1997 issues of the MMWR there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis in the United States alone. That's where all those 30,000 - 50,000 cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination” Dr. Vera Schiebner

Re:Vaccines work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45844579)

Yes, they work.

BTW, just picked out one of the quoted names and in 10 seconds I get back this: "A great number of doctors, scientists, legal professionals and other critics have questioned her qualifications, research abilities, and honesty".

Very convincing.

Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45843951)

Back to "sufferers" are we?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...