It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trials of HIV vaccine that's 90% successful

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Spanish researchers have completed the first human trial of a new vaccine against HIV. It has been successful in 90% of the HIV-free volunteers during phase I testing. This vaccine brings great hope to eradicate this plague forever. The team lead by Dr Mariano Esteban, a researcher at the Spanish National Research Council's Biotechnology National Centre, has been working on this method since 1999. They are using an attenuated virus called the MVA-B, a variation of the Modified Ankara Vaccinia, which was previously used to eradicate smallpox. The Modified Ankara Vaccinia also forms the base of other vaccines. The B refers to the HIV-B, the most common HIV subtype in Europe. Dr Esteban's team inserted the HIV genes Gag, Pol, Nef and Env in MVA's genetic sequence. In 2008, they tried the resulting HIV nuke on mice and monkeys. It was a complete success.


Gizmodo

Interesting results. Apparently there are "no significant side-effects" which is obviously a good thing, it will be interesting to see where this development leads. Still, doesn't help those already affected, although apparently the next stage of trials will be used on the infected to see if it offers any benefit.




posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Very interesting indeed.... but it got me a little puzzled.

They say a 90% success rate on all human trials. Does that mean they gave a bunch of people the vaccine, then tried to infect them all with HIV? Would suck to be the 10% group if so.

The docs are like.... "well everyone, I've got some good news, and some bad news.... everyone who's name I called please line up on this side of the room." - "thank you for participating, your check will be in the mail"

(I'm sure there was a much more humane way to get these results, but my ignorance makes me wonder)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Interesting!

I got flamed recently for making a post mentioning an AIDS vaccine. I guess it was only a matter of time before something like this was created.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lighterside
Very interesting indeed.... but it got me a little puzzled.

They say a 90% success rate on all human trials. Does that mean they gave a bunch of people the vaccine, then tried to infect them all with HIV? Would suck to be the 10% group if so.

The docs are like.... "well everyone, I've got some good news, and some bad news.... everyone who's name I called please line up on this side of the room." - "thank you for participating, your check will be in the mail"

(I'm sure there was a much more humane way to get these results, but my ignorance makes me wonder)


I believe they take a blood sample and test the sample, not the actual person.

Would be sort of irresponsible to give folks HIV.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Lighterside
 




Does that mean they gave a bunch of people the vaccine, then tried to infect them all with HIV?
Um. Wouldn't it be more like the other way around. People who already had HIV were given the vaccine (which is also some type of virus).



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DJM8507
 


Yeah, that makes MUCH more sense, thank you for clearing up my ignorance!


reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I think I've proven I'm not medical expert, but I'm pretty sure that would be a 'cure' not a 'vaccine'.




edit on 29-9-2011 by Lighterside because: typoj c orrection



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lighterside
Very interesting indeed.... but it got me a little puzzled.

They say a 90% success rate on all human trials. Does that mean they gave a bunch of people the vaccine, then tried to infect them all with HIV? Would suck to be the 10% group if so.

The docs are like.... "well everyone, I've got some good news, and some bad news.... everyone who's name I called please line up on this side of the room." - "thank you for participating, your check will be in the mail"

(I'm sure there was a much more humane way to get these results, but my ignorance makes me wonder)


Usually the "call" goes out across Universities but in more cases than not most volunteers are within the Health Care Industry. Students would be the highest ratio of volunteers.

In this circumstance they would select through candidates and find the single most promiscuous of the applicants. Questions such as "percentage of the time do you engage in un-safe sex" (not necessarily in those words). Over a 2-4 year Trial, depending, there are 50 percent on placebo and 50 percent on the actual vaccine being tried. No one knows who is who throughout the Trial.

Typically a Trial begins with a physical, blood work, patient history and so forth. It may be several weeks but during those times all "encounters" are to be noted. Each visit those encounters are recorded and determined on the level of "risk" and possibly even include "direct exposure". The specifics are typically very intimate in nature as far as details but those admissions are not recorded per-say as much as the gauge or level placed by a trained physician/counselor who does the interviewing.

Chances are throughout the trial there are many instances of close calls. Participants know their history and behaviors and they usually have a desire to help others in the event something should happen. They run the risk without the Trial and so they can use this as a tool to either be more aware or to maybe even perhaps be one of the lucky ones who actually gets something that will save them for Life. Even nursing students run the risk of many kinds of exposures and HIV is one of them so it does not always mean that only "promiscuous" people are chosen for Clinical Trials.

The above statement is my assessment based on my own participation in a Clinical Trial in Galveston, TX, across from NASA. It was in a business park and very quiet and unassuming with no indication that anything was happening. I would go from Houston to Galveston once a month and get an injection and interviewed. I was in the Trial for 1 year but dropped out because I left my job and moved back home. It was for a vaccine under the Clinton Administration called Vaxgen, that is the only name I was given. It was suppose to be a Trial for an HIV Vaccine. The Trial was conducted across the Globe and there were 500 participating sights (as best as I can remember). I never found out if I was on the placebo or the actual vaccine, I could have done a follow-up if I had liked in Albuquerque but I chose not to based on life-changes. Yes I have been exposed to several live HIV virus's, I say it as if one would be different from another but in all actuality each strain carried by each individual has its own level of "potency" depending upon factors such as T-cell count and Medication saturation. I am HIV negative and I do not plan on ever "converting", so either I was graced or I was gifted, who knows!



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 





Interesting results. Apparently there are "no significant side-effects" which is obviously a good thing, it will be interesting to see where this development leads. Still, doesn't help those already affected, although apparently the next stage of trials will be used on the infected to see if it offers any benefit.


S+F, interesting article.

However i do have one disagreement. We won't know if it is a complete success until human trials begin, because the HIV virus has this uncanny abilitiy to mutate and fool your white blood cells which gives it time to replicate and mutate, and theres more than one form of HIV. No 2 people have the same form of HIV, everytime it infects a new person it's basecode changes.

Vaccination may help against one version of HIV provided these people were vaccinated, but there are billions of different variants now. This vaccine is going to be like trying to plug a bullet wound with chewing gum in terms of effectiveness. What we need is a cure that can eradicate the virus altogether and then render itself dormant, a retrovirus. Viruses in themselves alone are not "alive" they are just pieces of DNA that change the genetic coding in cells to replicate more of them. If you truly want to cure HIV/AIDS you need to attack the DNA sequence of the virus itself, change it to something that is harmless or that can benefit it's host instead of kill them.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Greensage
 





there are 50 percent on placebo and 50 percent on the actual vaccine being tried. No one knows who is who throughout the Trial.


Excellent! Lets give 50% of the people in the trial a placebo that does absolutely nothing and then infect them with HIV, and people wonder why these diseases spread.

Whoever gets the placebo gets the compensation of a 100 dollar check, and maybe some consolation shampoo and a case of HIV that will brand them for the rest of their unnaturally shortened lives until they die from the common cold or flu or have holes eaten into their lungs from some ugly form of pneumonia. Not to mention these people may decided because the system f*cked them, they might just go spread the disease even more. You can't stop promiscuous people from screwing, even with a disease like HIV/AIDS, which is exactly how this thing got spread in the first place.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


It would not be a valid trial if there were no placebo candidates to determine viability. The actions of the individual are of their own accord. Any encounters would be encounters that would take place with or without the Trial. The risk for HIV infection already exists if you make the decision to have sex with another consenting adult. The Trial is an opportunity to help when a risk is already present (in the circumstance of HIV).

If you are going to have sex with someone it is best to go ahead and assume that they are HIV+ from the start, then the behavior will reflect the rationale of "Safe Sex". Either or the gun is still loaded.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TurkeyTots
Interesting!

I got flamed recently for making a post mentioning an AIDS vaccine. I guess it was only a matter of time before something like this was created.


The post is about a HIV vaccine not an AIDS vaccine. You cant vaccinate against a condition , only a virus. In the same way that you cant vaccinate aginst sneezing but you can vaccinate against the flu.



edit on 1-10-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join