Possible HIV Vaccine

[.little monster]

BANGKOK – For the first time, an experimental vaccine has prevented infection with the AIDS virus, a watershed event in the deadly epidemic and a surprising result. Recent failures led many scientists to think such a vaccine might never be possible.


The vaccine cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 percent in the world's largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand, researchers announced Thursday in Bangkok.


Even though the benefit is modest, "it's the first evidence that we could have a safe and effective preventive vaccine," Col. Jerome Kim said in a telephone interview. He helped lead the study for the U.S. Army, which sponsored it with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Full Story

Hmm..well this is very good.

 

[twocows]

I doubt it. As much as it would be a great thing, an HIV vaccine would be seemingly impossible to make to any degree of usefulness, and the results of that experiment agree with that. The HIV vaccine manifests differently in almost every person; it mutates very quickly, and very few people have the exact same virus. This makes creating a vaccine for HIV ridiculously hard. There's also a vaccine in phase 1 trials in Canada, I believe, but my hopes for it are not high.

I have heard about scientists that dealt with it the virus in different ways, though. Some of those are linked below.
https://science.slashdot.org/story/09/08/07/134220/Prehistoric-Gene-Reawakened-To-Battle-HIV
https://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/19/1646229
https://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/09/1558241
https://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/04/2152244

 

[.little monster]

I doubt it. As much as it would be a great thing, an HIV vaccine would be seemingly impossible to make to any degree of usefulness, and the results of that experiment agree with that. The HIV vaccine manifests differently in almost every person; it mutates very quickly, and very few people have the exact same virus. This makes creating a vaccine for HIV ridiculously hard. There's also a vaccine in phase 1 trials in Canada, I believe, but my hopes for it are not high.

I have heard about scientists that dealt with it the virus in different ways, though. Some of those are linked below.
https://science.slashdot.org/story/09/08/07/134220/Prehistoric-Gene-Reawakened-To-Battle-HIV
https://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/19/1646229
https://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/09/1558241
https://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/04/2152244

Not to be rude, but did you not read? There already is a vaccine that lowers the chances of contracting it by 31%, which is effective against all known strains of HIV.

31%

That's a huge amount of this so called 'helpfulness'.

In 2007, there were an estimated 33 million people who had AIDs. Let's say that the vaccine had existed long before that.

More that 10,230,000 wouldn't have gotten aids. That's a lot.

 

[♣Gawain♣]

That's a good thing, scienctists have now improved their worth of making new vaccines. Although they must be ready to synthesize new ones in case if the virus mutates and becomes immune to the current vaccine. Yeah, 31% is greater than any else I've read.

 

[twocows]

Not to be rude, but did you not read? There already is a vaccine that lowers the chances of contracting it by 31%, which is effective against all known strains of HIV.

31%

That's a huge amount of this so called 'helpfulness'.

In 2007, there were an estimated 33 million people who had AIDs. Let's say that the vaccine had existed long before that.

More that 10,230,000 wouldn't have gotten aids. That's a lot.

It came off as rude. :/

And 31% is relatively low, not to mention the fact that I have no idea how the experiment was conducted; it's possible that they discounted people that they couldn't get ahold of, which would significantly skew the results. Not to mention I didn't see anything about associated health risks with the vaccine itself. Most released vaccines are pretty safe, but that's because they've gone through rigorous testing; this one is new and might not be safe for human consumption. As the guy in the article said, this is not the end of the road, and we should look into ALL ways to lower the rates of this disease. Seeing the results replicated in another study would also be nice.

Additionally, a low effectiveness rate for a vaccine can have the SARS effect; the HIV virus might start mutating specifically so that it is resistant to the vaccine, which would be a significant setback.

 

[.little monster]

1. It came off as rude. :/

2. And 31% is relatively low, not to mention the fact that I have no idea how the experiment was conducted; 3. it's possible that they discounted people that they couldn't get ahold of, which would significantly skew the results. 4. Not to mention I didn't see anything about associated health risks with the vaccine itself. 5. Most released vaccines are pretty safe, but that's because they've gone through rigorous testing; this one is new and might not be safe for human consumption. As the guy in the article said, this is not the end of the road, and we should look into ALL ways to lower the rates of this disease. Seeing the results replicated in another study would also be nice.

6. Additionally, a low effectiveness rate for a vaccine can have the SARS effect; the HIV virus might start mutating specifically so that it is resistant to the vaccine, which would be a significant setback.

1. Sorry : 3
2. Not when you're saving 10,000,000+ lives.
3. They didn't.
4. Research.
5. That's why it's still being tested.
6. I would rather make a vaccine that will save tens of millions of lives and have it become useless in the future than not have it released at all. No matter what the vaccine is and how complicated it works, HIV will mutate and make it un-usable. It's a retro virus.

 

[♣Gawain♣]

6. I would rather make a vaccine that will save tens of millions of lives and have it become useless in the future than not have it released at all. No matter what the vaccine is and how complicated it works, HIV will mutate and make it un-usable. It's a retro virus.

That's the whole point of the WHO right now. The trouble is to contain the epidemic and in that specific place it'll be quarinted and vaccinated. And there, the spreading of the disease will be nullified. X3

 

[twocows]

1. Sorry : 3
2. Not when you're saving 10,000,000+ lives.
3. They didn't.
4. Research.
5. That's why it's still being tested.
6. I would rather make a vaccine that will save tens of millions of lives and have it become useless in the future than not have it released at all. No matter what the vaccine is and how complicated it works, HIV will mutate and make it un-usable. It's a retro virus.

You're assuming that everyone will take a vaccine. People don't understand how vaccines work; they think that taking the flu vaccine gives them the flu, so how do you think they'll see an HIV vaccine? Not to mention a lot of people still have the "it will never happen to me" mentality; they aren't going to foot the cost of that (especially in third world countries). If I read the article correctly, they're not going to actually distribute this version of the vaccine past the test group they used it on; it's more a proof-of-concept than anything. The fact that it got as high as 30% when many critics said an HIV vaccine was impossible shows that there might be some promise to the concept.

 

[.little monster]

You're assuming that everyone will take a vaccine. People don't understand how vaccines work; they think that taking the flu vaccine gives them the flu, so how do you think they'll see an HIV vaccine? Not to mention a lot of people still have the "it will never happen to me" mentality; they aren't going to foot the cost of that (especially in third world countries). If I read the article correctly, they're not going to actually distribute this version of the vaccine past the test group they used it on; it's more a proof-of-concept than anything. The fact that it got as high as 30% when many critics said an HIV vaccine was impossible shows that there might be some promise to the concept.

No, I am not. If you noticed earlier, I said "Let's say" which implies a hypothetical situation.

 

[twocows]

No, I am not. If you noticed earlier, I said "Let's say" which implies a hypothetical situation.

2. Not when you're hypothetically saving 10,000,000+ lives.

I've no problem with hypothetical situations, but I was responding to that sentence, which lacked the word "hypothetically" until I just added it in.

 

[.little monster]

I've no problem with hypothetical situations, but I was responding to that sentence, which lacked the word "hypothetically" until I just added it in.

I didn't say that sentence. I said, a post before my last post. :|

https://www.pokecommunity.com/posts/5149201/

 

[twocows]

I didn't say that sentence. I said, a post before my last post. :|

https://www.pokecommunity.com/posts/5149201/

If you're continuing the hypothetical, you should be clear about it.

Anyway, let's suppose that the vaccine has always existed, and that the prevention rate really is just over 30%. Is it free? No, it costs money. Is it safe? Yes, but there are a lot of people who (incorrectly) think otherwise. Just because a vaccine is available does not mean that everyone will take it; there are still many cases of influenza in the US, and the vaccine for that is not only widely available, it is also quite cheap. The flu vaccine, I imagine, would be a very good metaphor for the hypothetical situation you refer to, especially with the low success rate. And HIV is treatable (though not curable), so the hypothetical person might say "I'm not going to spend money on something potentially unsafe that may or may not prevent me from getting something I may or may not be exposed to". I would be surprised if such a vaccine prevented even 1 million HIV deaths.

That does not, however, mean that we should not research it more. I figure within a decade, they could get that number at least over 50%, maybe even over 70%; with widespread distribution, prices would fall, and perhaps people would realize that engaging in risky behavior has (gasp) risks, and that it might be prudent to try to minimize those risks. All this is so far is a step in the right direction; that's all I'm saying.

 

[.little monster]

If you're continuing the hypothetical, you should be clear about it.

Anyway, let's suppose that the vaccine has always existed, and that the prevention rate really is just over 30%. Is it free? No, it costs money. Is it safe? Yes, but there are a lot of people who (incorrectly) think otherwise. Just because a vaccine is available does not mean that everyone will take it; there are still many cases of influenza in the US, and the vaccine for that is not only widely available, it is also quite cheap. The flu vaccine, I imagine, would be a very good metaphor for the hypothetical situation you refer to, especially with the low success rate. And HIV is treatable (though not curable), so the hypothetical person might say "I'm not going to spend money on something potentially unsafe that may or may not prevent me from getting something I may or may not be exposed to". I would be surprised if such a vaccine prevented even 1 million HIV deaths.

That does not, however, mean that we should not research it more. I figure within a decade, they could get that number at least over 50%, maybe even over 70%; with widespread distribution, prices would fall, and perhaps people would realize that engaging in risky behavior has (gasp) risks, and that it might be prudent to try to minimize those risks. All this is so far is a step in the right direction; that's all I'm saying.

You're continuing this argument on the basis of me assuming that everyone would take it when I did not.

 

[twocows]

You're continuing this argument on the basis of me assuming that everyone would take it when I did not.

Then where did you get that large number from? Ten million is a lot of people.

 

[Angela]

I can't help but wonder.. When the research was made.. Did they infect 100% with the HIV virus and 69% got infected while 31% manged to fend it of.. Anyway 31% is a hughes progress from 0% so let's hope the scientists manages to make it 100%...

 

[.little monster]

I can't help but wonder.. When the research was made.. Did they infect 100% with the HIV virus and 69% got infected while 31% manged to fend it of.. Anyway 31% is a hughes progress from 0% so let's hope the scientists manages to make it 100%...

I would think they just took blood from the people, introduced the vaccine to the sample then the virus.

Then where did you get that large number from? Ten million is a lot of people.

Well, in the hypothetical situation, all 30,000,000 million of the infected people in 2007 took the vaccine before getting infected. (Even more indication of a hypothetical sistuation because it didn't exist before 2009.)

30,000,000 divided by 3 = ?

 

[Spinor]

No, I am not. If you noticed earlier, I said "Let's say" which implies a hypothetical situation.

Seriously kids. Stop fighting. Let Tatu be with his brilliant math and let twocows be with his skepticism.

And to be honest, an HIV vaccine makes me go "HECK YEAH SEAKING"

 

[Gunn]

31 percent is definitely a good jump start from all that HIV infected had were treatments.

But..

I do see a bad side to this only because of how HIV is spreaded...

 

[Zet]

31% lower chance of getting it? but there's still a 69% chance of getting it and I don't like the odds of not getting it because of 69%

 

[Patchy]

^I don't know if my mind took that out of proportion, but rofl. :P

It'd be great if this vaccine could work, or even get up to a higher percentage.