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?

They are testing it on those who have anonymous sex without multiple partners without protection.
You know, sluts.

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

Why would Obama think white people started AIDS and here we are trying to find the cure for it?

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.

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

Hey, don't knock it until you've tried it.
Anal sex (in my case with a woman. YMMV.) is great!

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.