In Iran, we don't have high risk demographics like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I do not know who has told you that we have it.

But if they cure AIDS, will we still have the big concerts with U2 performing?

Still no cure for cancer?

It would be great if the vaccine works, but honestly, who in their right mind would agree to be in the trial? Some portion of the people are going to get a placebo and then exposed to the virus not to mention the possibility that the vaccine may not work for everyone. You need your head examined if you volunteer for this as, even if it's no longer the automatic death sentance, you'd still face a life of popping huge numbers of pills and regular tests to see if the virus remains arrested.

jehovahs witness protection: But if they cure AIDS, will we still have the big concerts with U2 performing?

We can only hope not.

I'm a little confused... Is this a cure or a prevention? The article isn't all that clear on the subject.

jehovahs witness protection: But if they cure AIDS, will we still have the big concerts with U2 performing?

vaccines are not cures, they're benign infections.

How do you test an AIDS vaccine? I mean ok so you administer the vaccine, then expose the subject to AIDS? If they get it, then, um... ok sorry you're gonna die but thanks for participating!?

How did Canada manage that with their Socialist Healthcare? I thought you needed a robust American-style system to spark such innovation.

"But, we're not gay..."

spqr_ca: It would be great if the vaccine works, but honestly, who in their right mind would agree to be in the trial? Some portion of the people are going to get a placebo and then exposed to the virus not to mention the possibility that the vaccine may not work for everyone. You need your head examined if you volunteer for this as, even if it's no longer the automatic death sentance, you'd still face a life of popping huge numbers of pills and regular tests to see if the virus remains arrested.

I too read that and wondered how they ran their trial. It's entirely likely that the tests are being done in areas such as Aidsfrica where exposure to the virus is almost guaranteed.

I highly doubt anyone is being deliberately exposed to HIV for the trial, although my morbid side sort of wants to wink and nudge one of the researchers.

Which version of HIV?

Thisbymaster: Which version of HIV?

HIV 7, which is set to deprecate HIVista later this year.

Basij, it might help your case to spell Ahmadinejad's first name correctly in your profile.

How do you test an HIV vaccine?

Vaccines protect from new infections, right?

Do they inject them with the vaccine ... then poke them with a dirty needle and cross their fingers?

Daniefish: Basij, it might help your case to spell Ahmadinejad's first name correctly in your profile.

Mahmūd Ahmadinezhād disagrees.

Thisbymaster: Which version of HIV?

The stupid director's cut where Greedo shoots first.

Thisbymaster: Which version of HIV?

The instrumental version.

Mental_Knife: How do you test an AIDS vaccine? I mean ok so you administer the vaccine, then expose the subject to AIDS? If they get it, then, um... ok sorry you're gonna die but thanks for participating!?

That's what I came in to say, anyone know?

spqr_ca: It would be great if the vaccine works, but honestly, who in their right mind would agree to be in the trial? Some portion of the people are going to get a placebo and then exposed to the virus not to mention the possibility that the vaccine may not work for everyone. You need your head examined if you volunteer for this as, even if it's no longer the automatic death sentance, you'd still face a life of popping huge numbers of pills and regular tests to see if the virus remains arrested.

FTA: The toxicology tests are expected to include 40 to 50 HIV-positive volunteers in the U.S., and will be designed to test whether the vaccine is toxic in humans.

it looks like they are testing it on those already infected...

So it'll protect you from Canadian HIV?

Kang said he expects to get the go-ahead soon from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to begin human toxicology tests and two phases of clinical trials in the United States.



Off to Washington!

Dubwise: it looks like they are testing it on those already infected...

Which is why I found the article unclear. Typically a vaccine is for prevention, not cure. What would be the point of a vaccinating somebody against a disease that they already have?

spqr_ca: Dubwise: it looks like they are testing it on those already infected...

Which is why I found the article unclear. Typically a vaccine is for prevention, not cure. What would be the point of a vaccinating somebody against a disease that they already have?

well...that articla says they are testing the toxicology...not if it cures or prevents...but...it is REALLY not clear...

I've just had a fantastic idea to vaccinate against AIDS - don't go bareback buttsex with promiscuous strangers you meet at a gay bar. Either stick to a safe partner, or just be careful. Abstinence isn't necessary, common sense is. It's not called Anally Injected Death Sentence for nothing.

*article

//stupid fat fingers

Daniefish: Basij, it might help your case to spell Ahmadinejad's first name correctly in your profile.

Google should be one of your new friends.

Thisbymaster: Which version of HIV?

The unplugged version?

Someone with a greater knowledge of clinical trials can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe vaccine testing is essentially a statistical analysis.

You take a group of at-risk people based on demographics. Half get the vaccine, half don't. Based on previous studies, researchers would know that after n-years x-number of people should have contracted AIDS. If the group that received the vaccine has far fewer cases, then it works.

Obviously, that's a gross simplification. There would likely be more math.

spill_thrill: How did Canada manage that with their Socialist Healthcare? I thought you needed a robust American-style system to spark such innovation.

Oh, no no no, my friend;

The difference is that in Canada, if a successful vaccine becomes available, there will be a thirteen year waiting list to have it administered, and the wealthy people and their pets will get the vaccine first.

But thanks for stopping by.

Great. Now the AIDS deniers (pops) and the autism/anti-vaccine wingnuts will band together.

mister aj: I've just had a fantastic idea to vaccinate against AIDS - don't go bareback buttsex with promiscuous strangers you meet at a gay bar. Either stick to a safe partner, or just be careful. Abstinence isn't necessary, common sense is. It's not called Anally Injected Death Sentence for nothing.

The 80s are calling... Keep up with the times dude.

loabn: There would likely be more math.



was told there would be no math

Dubwise: spqr_ca: Dubwise: it looks like they are testing it on those already infected...

That's what I would do... there are lots of guys who've already got HIV who figure that since they already have it, they can toss out the condoms and just have unprotected sex with other HIV+ men. Then they get infected with other strains of HIV (and syphilis... and gonorrhea... and...). So maybe they can tell if the vaccine is working if they don't get infected by other HIV strains.

mister aj: I've just had a fantastic idea to vaccinate against AIDS - don't go bareback buttsex with promiscuous strangers you meet at a gay bar. Either stick to a safe partner, or just be careful. Abstinence isn't necessary, common sense is. It's not called Anally Injected Death Sentence for nothing.

Do you have a drug that induces common sense? No? Well, a vaccine it is then!

If only people could be content with sticking a remote up their ass instead of someone's penis, this vaccine would not be necessary.



/remote

loabn: Someone with a greater knowledge of clinical trials can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe vaccine testing is essentially a statistical analysis.

You take a group of at-risk people based on demographics. Half get the vaccine, half don't. Based on previous studies, researchers would know that after n-years x-number of people should have contracted AIDS. If the group that received the vaccine has far fewer cases, then it works.

Obviously, that's a gross simplification. There would likely be more math.

I believe you're correct. You enroll patients who are at some high risk (IV drug abusers, people who live in countries with high HIV rates, etc). They get placebo or vaccine. To be ethical, all patients would also receive the standard care of counseling/clean needles/condoms etc aimed at minimizing HIV risk. You then let the patients live their lives, following them (for a long time) to see if, despite the counseling/clean needles etc, they get HIV.

mister aj: I've just had a fantastic idea to vaccinate against AIDS - don't go bareback buttsex with promiscuous strangers you meet at a gay bar. Either stick to a safe partner, or just be careful. Abstinence isn't necessary, common sense is. It's not called Anally Injected Death Sentence for nothing.

Hi, welcome to the year 2009. We hope your trip from 1989 was pleasant, here is a sampling of our futuristic food and beverage, a nice refreshing Coke Zero. Now first off, I must inform you that your hairstyle is not acceptable any more unless you live in Oklahoma, so we'll need to get you to a hair salon right away.

threedingers: Great. Now the AIDS deniers (pops) and the autism/anti-vaccine wingnuts will band together.

Ah, Duesberg. You'd think if he were so sure that HIV was a harmless virus that he'd accept the challenge laid down years ago. One injection, or a small series, of tested clean human blood that has been spiked with a high viral load. Repeat injections until he's positive for HIV.

Wait. See if he develops AIDS. If he's so sure, why not?

Not that anyone asking was serious, but, for the lurkers don't you know.

You can run such a trial without a placebo control by simply giving a subset of an at risk population the vaccine and following them through time. There are plenty of variants of the archtypical clinical trial and lots of ethical guidelines to help. One difficulty with such a trial is to monitor the behavior of the group that gets the vaccine to be sure that it does not lead to more risky behavior, however, if a vaccine is significantly effective, there will not be a great difficulty in interpreting the results. A vaccine that provides anything less than a 50% protection over 5 years is really a failure.

Fark away.

Vaccines aren't intended to cure an infection you've already got, and some vaccines have a tiny chance of actually infecting you with the disease itself, like the Hep C vaccine. Doctors are required to get the Hep C vaccination because it's reasonably likely they may treat an E/R patient with Hep C, and this is worth the tiny risk of contracting the disease.

If you told me that you had an HIV vaccine that would 99.99% likely innoculate me and had a 1/10,000 chance of cursing me with a horrible wasting death, I would not take that bet, since I'm unlikely to catch the AIDS with my low-risk lifestyle (Mom's basement). Sub-Saharan Africans should be the test bed for this - some countries have a 1/4 chance that you will die of AIDS-related illness. Their belief in witchcraft and preference for using blood as a lubricant doesn't help.

lukelightning: So it'll protect you from Canadian HIV?

The one that kills you, the apologizes?

Daniefish: Basij, it might help your case to spell Ahmadinejad's first name correctly in your profile.

You mean because basij spelled Ahmadinnerjacket's name wrong it means that Ahmadingleberry isn't the oppressive thuggish puppet dictator of a ruling theocrat?

Bummer

syrynxx: Vaccines aren't intended to cure an infection you've already got, and some vaccines have a tiny chance of actually infecting you with the disease itself, like the Hep C vaccine. Doctors are required to get the Hep C vaccination because it's reasonably likely they may treat an E/R patient with Hep C, and this is worth the tiny risk of contracting the disease.

If you told me that you had an HIV vaccine that would 99.99% likely innoculate me and had a 1/10,000 chance of cursing me with a horrible wasting death, I would not take that bet, since I'm unlikely to catch the AIDS with my low-risk lifestyle (Mom's basement). Sub-Saharan Africans should be the test bed for this - some countries have a 1/4 chance that you will die of AIDS-related illness. Their belief in witchcraft and preference for using blood as a lubricant doesn't help.

I don't believe a hepatitis C vaccine exists. Physicians are required to get Hep B vaccine, although this is not a live virus.

Oral polio vaccine is the kind of vaccine you're talking about, I believe. It was a live virus with a small risk of actually causing polio. In the 50's, however, the risk of getting polio in society was sufficiently high that the small risk of the vaccine was worth it. Now that polio is (almost) eradicated, the risk/benefit changes. Now the vaccine is no longer a live virus.

They are first testing the vaccine on HIV+ volunteers to study toxicology, because as has been mentioned, there is always a chance a vaccine can cause infection. If the vaccine passes the first phase of trials, it will be then tested for efficacy as a vaccine, as described above, using high-risk subjects, some getting the vaccine and some getting a placebo.

Commenters above who think only gay men having unprotected anal sex are the only at-risk group for HIV infection better read something published after 1989; many other demographics are getting infected at a much higher rate: in the US it's African-American women who currently are getting infected at an alarming rate. Drug addicts and believe it or not, senior citizens are close behind.

I'd hate to be the poor FDA guys who had to sit through Kang's proposal talk. I saw him speak at the Canadian Genetics Society conference about ten years ago. He went 20 minutes over (on a 30 minute time slot) and I'm fairly sure he showed slides of every gel he's ever run in his entire life. The moderator literally had to chase him away from the podium: If she hadn't I'm sure he'd still be up there babbling on. I've been to a lot of scientific talks and this was by far the worst.

That being said, I hope the vaccine works.

It should be pretty obvious how the vaccines get tested. Babies are stolen from minorities, vaccinated, and then pumped full of the virus. A control group is not given the vaccine, and another experimental group is just punched in the face repeatedly, because who doesn't like punching little brown babies?

Seriously, it's not that difficult to figure out how the trials are probably conducted...

They give the vaccine to people who are engaging in really high-risk behaviors; people who, over a few years, are statistically almost certain to become infected. If enough of the people who are at high risk don't become infected, that means it's pretty likely the vaccine works, and almost certainly can move on to a different kind of trial.

But they also punch some babies.

Tyrosine: I'd hate to be the poor FDA guys who had to sit through Kang's proposal talk.

This. Kodos is a much better speaker.

lukelightning:

This. Kodos is a much better speaker.

Agreed.

Mental_Knife: How do you test an AIDS vaccine? I mean ok so you administer the vaccine, then expose the subject to AIDS? If they get it, then, um... ok sorry you're gonna die but thanks for participating!?

You also get a basket of cheese, wine and sausage as an apology.

lukelightning: Tyrosine: I'd hate to be the poor FDA guys who had to sit through Kang's proposal talk.

This. Kodos is a much better speaker.

AIDS for some, tiny American flags for others!

s_mcdonald: They are first testing the vaccine on HIV+ volunteers to study toxicology, because as has been mentioned, there is always a chance a vaccine can cause infection. If the vaccine passes the first phase of trials, it will be then tested for efficacy as a vaccine, as described above, using high-risk subjects, some getting the vaccine and some getting a placebo.

Commenters above who think only gay men having unprotected anal sex are the only at-risk group for HIV infection better read something published after 1989; many other demographics are getting infected at a much higher rate: in the US it's African-American women who currently are getting infected at an alarming rate. Drug addicts and believe it or not, senior citizens are close behind.

the down-low is low down.

/mmm. my demographic is missing, has anyone seen my demographic?

Tyrosine: I'd hate to be the poor FDA guys who had to sit through Kang's proposal talk. I saw him speak at the Canadian Genetics Society conference about ten years ago. He went 20 minutes over (on a 30 minute time slot) and I'm fairly sure he showed slides of every gel he's ever run in his entire life. The moderator literally had to chase him away from the podium: If she hadn't I'm sure he'd still be up there babbling on. I've been to a lot of scientific talks and this was by far the worst.

That being said, I hope the vaccine works.

If I ever have to sit through one of Kang's talks again I'll bring a board with a nail through it.

clinicaltrials.gov (new window)

# Phase I: Researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of people for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.

# Phase II: The drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.

# Phase III: The drug or treatment is given to large groups of people to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely.

# Phase IV: Studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed to gather information on the drug's effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.

To those that believe the vaccine may pose an infection risk...I have not heard of a vaccine for HIV that will ever use live or even whole virus particles because the risk of any infections is considered too dangerous.

The tox study is more to establish that there aren't severe unintended reactions such as liver failure, renal failure or some other event that cannot be anticipated.

I called Fred Phelps and he is extremely upset!

Fred told me that if a proper vaccine for AIDs is discovered god will disappear in a poof of logic and then Fred will immediately apologize for being societies largest pile of slag.

Mental_Knife: How do you test an AIDS vaccine? I mean ok so you administer the vaccine, then expose the subject to AIDS? If they get it, then, um... ok sorry you're gonna die but thanks for participating!?

this is why we test on mice first, and then on animal rights activists.

threedingers: Great. Now the AIDS deniers (pops) and the autism/anti-vaccine wingnuts will band together.

Had a seminar on those dudes Tuesday. Christine Maggiore was hot, too bad about the whole "Me and my daghter don't have AIDS!!! WHARRBBAGGRRBBBL we won't take any meds!" And then death. Duesberg is a cock too. And if I see Gary Null walking around my Manhattan, rock to his head!

Anyway, from my experince with VaxGen, invest about $300 dollars into this new AIDS Vaccine Pharma, then right before they release the study results, sell sell sell. I made $3,000 that way, and then when the study results were released and the vaccine tanked, the stock dropped like a whale falling through the sky.

If I remember correclty that one failed because they high risk people in Africa they gave it to thought they were protected from HIV and increased thier sexual encounters exponentially.

How long till the drug companies find this guy, cause him to go missing for some strange reason, and nullify all the research?

//yea yea tin foil hat I know

Mental_Knife: How do you test an AIDS vaccine? I mean ok so you administer the vaccine, then expose the subject to AIDS? If they get it, then, um... ok sorry you're gonna die but thanks for participating!?

Err, you recruit some people at high risk to take part, give half your new drug and half a placebo, and compare the rates of infection in the two groups months later after they have behaved as they normally do for that time.

Human trials never (to my knowledge) deliberately infect the test subjects, that is only done in initial animal trials - which is done after microscope/petridish style testing on human blood/cell samples generally to test the basic activity of the drug/treatment on the target virus/bacteria/whatever.

/not my area of expertise, so only giving my best idea of the broad path drug testing goes down.

Mental_Knife: How do you test an AIDS vaccine? I mean ok so you administer the vaccine, then expose the subject to AIDS? If they get it, then, um... ok sorry you're gonna die but thanks for participating!?

You can test some things in a test tube, and some things in animals. But you're right, eventually it will be given to people without the disease. What I expect to happen is it will be given to a high risk group and they'll have to wait and see, which can take years, and you may not be sure who was even exposed, and how often (for example, condom use is very effective when one person has AIDS and their partner does not).

Dick Gozinya: If only people could be content with sticking a remote up their ass instead of someone's penis, this vaccine would not be necessary.



/remote

Oh, what a great video that is!

RoxtarRyan: Dick Gozinya: If only people could be content with sticking a remote up their ass instead of someone's penis, this vaccine would not be necessary.
/remote

Oh, what a great video that is!

Would you like to know more? (new window)

iollow: Mental_Knife: How do you test an AIDS vaccine? I mean ok so you administer the vaccine, then expose the subject to AIDS? If they get it, then, um... ok sorry you're gonna die but thanks for participating!?

You can test some things in a test tube, and some things in animals. But you're right, eventually it will be given to people without the disease. What I expect to happen is it will be given to a high risk group and they'll have to wait and see, which can take years, and you may not be sure who was even exposed, and how often (for example, condom use is very effective when one person has AIDS and their partner does not).

If it is a vaccine then surely it won't be given to people with the disease already? Vaccines are to stop you getting it, not to cure it once you have it.

There's a vaccine trial that's being advertized in DC right now. I talked to the people at pride fest, and they said that they're testing a carrier. The vaccine has to be injected while inside something, I guess (like, it can't just be a solid chunk of HIV cells). So they've figured some compound that does it right. But they need to know how it reacts in people. So they're testing out injections of the carrier without the actual vaccine.

Anyone hear anything about this?

I just want to make something clear to all the people who say a vaccine only prevents and infection and isn't a cure or treatment.

In most cases you are right. What a vaccine really does is teach your immune system to attack an infectious agent. For most acute infections it is useless to give after exposure because your body has already learned to fight the disease it just takes it time to ramp up. In a long term disease where your body isn't fighting the infection like hiv then attaching part of the virus to another agent to teach your body how to attack HIV could serve as an effective treatment as well.

I'm assuming the fundies are going to be against this vaccine too.

xria: Err, you recruit some people at high risk to take part, give half your new drug and half a placebo, and compare the rates of infection in the two groups months later after they have behaved as they normally do for that time.

Is that really how it works? Seems like giving a high-risk group of people a placebo and telling them you've given them an experimental HIV vaccine would bring up some ethical problems.

Sgt. Pepper: xria: Err, you recruit some people at high risk to take part, give half your new drug and half a placebo, and compare the rates of infection in the two groups months later after they have behaved as they normally do for that time.

Is that really how it works? Seems like giving a high-risk group of people a placebo and telling them you've given them an experimental HIV vaccine would bring up some ethical problems.

I think you are right srg. In terminal disease trials there is often no placebo, people are compared to other treatments of the disease and general survival rates. Or for HIV probably compare to like populace infection rates.

bmongar: Sgt. Pepper: xria: Err, you recruit some people at high risk to take part, give half your new drug and half a placebo, and compare the rates of infection in the two groups months later after they have behaved as they normally do for that time.

Is that really how it works? Seems like giving a high-risk group of people a placebo and telling them you've given them an experimental HIV vaccine would bring up some ethical problems.

I think you are right srg. In terminal disease trials there is often no placebo, people are compared to other treatments of the disease and general survival rates. Or for HIV probably compare to like populace infection rates.

Wow, read the article again more closely and they did test others with a placebo. I do know for cancer treatments they don't test with a placebo, just against other treatments.

A promising trial in 2007 by pharmaceutical giant Merck and Co. was shut down after those receiving the vaccine contracted HIV at a higher rate than those who received the placebo.

what a bunch of bullshiat... First of all, hiv has never been isolated in a human body. hiv tests do not 'find' hiv, they find antibodies your body makes that doctors presumme are to fight hiv.

if you give someone a vaccine, your body will produce these antibodies... so essentially, whoever will take the vaccine will now test hiv+ on a test.

and please don't try and tell me about the viral load test. thats an even bigger scam than the hiv antibody tests.

FTA: An HIV/AIDS vaccine developed in Canada has passed safety tests in animals and the researchers are awaiting approval to begin human trials in the U.S.

1. Test in simulation
2. Test on animals
3. Test on Americans
4. Test on real humans

Mental_Knife: How do you test an AIDS vaccine? I mean ok so you administer the vaccine, then expose the subject to AIDS? If they get it, then, um... ok sorry you're gonna die but thanks for participating!?

More seriously, what they're going to do is give it to a small group of Americans just to see how many die. Then, if it's safe enough, they're going to get a statistically significant, non-exposed (possibly high-risk for expediency) sample size, give half the vaccine and half a placebo, and see how their infection rates compare. If it seems to work, they'll do another release with no placebo, to monkey with the dosages, point out dangerous drug combinations, etc. The rest is history.

mister aj: I've just had a fantastic idea to vaccinate against AIDS - don't go bareback buttsex with promiscuous strangers you meet at a gay bar. Either stick to a safe partner, or just be careful. Abstinence isn't necessary, common sense is. It's not called Anally Injected Death Sentence for nothing.

You just know this guy who recommends "not going bareback buttsex with promiscuous strangers" is the first defender of keeping that guy who tried it one time with a condom at seventeen out of the blood bank.

I am not a religious man, I am not a believer.

But if they can immunize people versus HIV and it actually works, I will kneel and pray for an hour straight thanking God, Jesus, and Muhammed for this blessing.

If not, then no change really.

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, author of "Saying No to Vaccines"

Dangers of Vaccines - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXVyRr2-O70

Dangers of Vaccines - Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWOq4Ka7yFA&feature=related

Dangers of Vaccines - Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcRDOR6DBPY&feature=related

Dangers of Vaccines - Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVe7nBmlBWk&feature=related

Cool. I'm off to the truckstops.

Jarhead_h: Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

I checked out her CV and noticed none of her publications were in peer reviewed journals. I don't know about you but I prefer to take the advice of researchers who publish in JAMA, Nature, Science, Genome, etc as opposed to the ones who publish in "Cleveland Magazine".

So when are people going to start farking in the street?

/RIP Bill Hicks

Jarhead_h: Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, author of "Saying No to Vaccines"

Dangers of Vaccines - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXVyRr2-O70

Because when you want credible information on vaccine safety, Youtubue is the definitely the place you should look.

T.rex: A promising trial in 2007 by pharmaceutical giant Merck and Co. was shut down after those receiving the vaccine contracted HIV at a higher rate than those who received the placebo.

what a bunch of bullshiat... First of all, hiv has never been isolated in a human body. hiv tests do not 'find' hiv, they find antibodies your body makes that doctors presumme are to fight hiv.

and please don't try and tell me about the viral load test. thats an even bigger scam than the hiv antibody tests.

0/10. I used to have a clinic full of HIV patients I treated based on principles which relied on these "scams." I can assure you that these are well-validated and understood tests.

if you give someone a vaccine, your body will produce these antibodies... so essentially, whoever will take the vaccine will now test hiv+ on a test.

This is actually true, and somewhat problematic.

My colleagues involved in vaccine trials generally recruited subjects from high-risk groups (e.g. commercial sex workers) and gave them all counseling, explained they were not protected, etc. Followed them over time to see whos eroconverted. Hard studies to do.

For information about the HIV Trials network, try
http://www.hvtn.org/ (new window)

Huskadoodle: vaccines are not cures, they're benign infections.

Actually, there are vaccines which are hoped to actually serve to boost the native response against active HIV infection, called therapeutic vaccines.

For preventive vaccines, check out
http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/HIVPreventionVaccines_FS_en.pdf (new window)

For therapeutic vaccines, see
http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/Therapeutic_HIV_Vaccines_FS_en.pdf (new window)

Vaccine freepers are, quite simply, morons who either do not understand medicine, statistics, history, or all three.

And for good measure, here's that pic of T.rex again:

fudgefactor7: I am not a religious man, I am not a believer.

But if they can immunize people versus HIV and it actually works, I will kneel and pray for an hour straight thanking God, Jesus, and Muhammed for this blessing.

If not, then no change really.

Why not thank the scientists who came up with it and maybe donate to their organizations instead of thanking entities you do not believe in?

RoxtarRyan: RoxtarRyan: Dick Gozinya: If only people could be content with sticking a remote up their ass instead of someone's penis, this vaccine would not be necessary.
/remote

Oh, what a great video that is!

Would you like to know more? (new window)

I think that's fake. I don't know for sure, but I've been that mad before, though never at my mother, but similarly for very little reason. He just moves like he's trying to look spazzy, not get his anger out. You punch things and break things, hitting himself in the head with the shoe was good, but he didn't really break anything. The audio sounds about right, but the movement just looks fake. And the fact his brother is able to come into his room right before hand, set up the camera, leave JUST in time, just seems to convenient. Plus he says "Did you see that?!" and laughs as if he had seen it, but he could not have seen it yet.

I know at least one famous "tantrum" video is fake, the german kid destroying his keyboard. It was actually made as a parody of what anti-video game types think about people who play violent video games. Instead people thought it was real and it was used as evidence how how video games fark you up. It sucks when you make fun of stupid people and they don't get it and instead take it as evidence that they are right.

jehovahs witness protection
But if they cure AIDS, will we still have the big concerts with U2 performing

Then they can get back to saving Africa from whatever.

AIDS is cruddy, but since we fingered out how to find it in donated fluids, it is really just a V.D.
It only gets passed onto kids because mommy was a rape victim, or more commonly, a complete waste of oxygen.

farkin_Gary: thir

I can go and get a vaccine at a clinic for about a forty minute wait, or I could get an appointment at a hospital.