Excellent news :cheers:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32997306/ns/health-aids/
QuoteFor first time, a vaccine helps prevent HIV
Risk of infection cut by 31 percent in Thai trial of 16,000 volunteers
updated 4:42 a.m. ET, Thurs., Sept . 24, 2009
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.
The institute's director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, warned that this is "not the end of the road," but said he was surprised and very pleased by the outcome.
"It gives me cautious optimism about the possibility of improving this result" and developing a more effective AIDS vaccine, Fauci said in a telephone interview. "This is something that we can do."
'Historic milestone'
Even a marginally helpful vaccine could have a big impact. Every day, 7,500 people worldwide are newly infected with HIV; 2 million died of AIDS in 2007, the U.N. agency UNAIDS estimates.
"Today marks an historic milestone," said Mitchell Warren, executive director of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, an international group that has worked toward developing a vaccine.
"It will take time and resources to fully analyze and understand the data, but there is little doubt that this finding will energize and redirect the AIDS vaccine field," he said in a statement.
The Thailand Ministry of Public Health conducted the study, which used strains of HIV common in Thailand. Whether such a vaccine would work against other strains in the U.S., Africa or elsewhere in the world is unknown, scientists stressed.
The study actually tested a two-vaccine combo in a "prime-boost" approach, where the first one primes the immune system to attack HIV and the second one strengthens the response.
They are ALVAC, from Sanofi Pasteur, the vaccine division of French drugmaker Sanofi-Aventis; and AIDSVAX, originally developed by VaxGen Inc. and now held by Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases, a nonprofit founded by some former VaxGen employees.
ALVAC uses canarypox, a bird virus altered so it can't cause human disease, to ferry synthetic versions of three HIV genes into the body. AIDSVAX contains a genetically engineered version of a protein on HIV's surface. The vaccines are not made from whole virus — dead or alive — and cannot cause HIV.
Neither vaccine in the study prevented HIV infection when tested individually in earlier trials, and dozens of scientists had called the new one futile when it began in 2003.
"I really didn't have high hopes at all that we would see a positive result," Fauci confessed.
Skeptics proved wrong
The results proved the skeptics wrong.
"The combination is stronger than each of the individual members," said the Army's Kim.
The study tested the combo in HIV-negative Thai men and women ages 18 to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four "priming" doses of ALVAC and two "boost" doses of AIDSVAX over six months. The others received dummy shots. No one knew who got what until the study ended.
All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines.
Participants were followed for three years after vaccination ended.
Results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group.
The vaccine had no effect on levels of HIV in the blood of those who did become infected. That had been another goal of the study — seeing whether the vaccine could limit damage to the immune system and help keep infected people from developing full-blown AIDS.
That result is "one of the most important and intriguing findings of this trial," Fauci said. It suggests that the signs scientists have been using to gauge whether a vaccine was actually giving protection may not be valid.
"It is conceivable that we haven't even identified yet" what really shows immunity, which is both "important and humbling" after decades of vaccine research, Fauci said.
Details of the $105 million study will be given at a vaccine conference in Paris in October.
Third big trial
This is the third big vaccine trial since 1983, when HIV was identified as the cause of AIDS. In 2007, Merck & Co. stopped a study of its experimental vaccine after seeing it did not prevent HIV infection. Later analysis suggested the vaccine might even raise the risk of infection in certain men. The vaccine itself did not cause infection.
In 2003, AIDSVAX flunked two large trials — the first late-stage tests of any AIDS vaccine at the time.
It is unclear whether vaccine makers will seek to license the two-vaccine combo in Thailand. Before the trial began, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said other studies would be needed before the vaccine could be considered for U.S. licensing.
Also unclear is whether Thai volunteers who received dummy shots will now be offered the vaccine. Researchers had said they would do so if the vaccine showed clear benefit — defined as reducing the risk of infection by at least 50 percent.
Those issues, plus how to proceed with future studies, will be discussed among the governments, study sponsors and companies involved in the trial, Kim said. Scientists want to know how long will protection last, whether booster shots will be needed, and whether the vaccine helps prevent infection in gay men and injection drug users, since it was tested mostly in heterosexuals in the Thai trial.
The study was done in Thailand because U.S. Army scientists did pivotal research in that country when the AIDS epidemic emerged there, isolating virus strains and providing genetic information on them to vaccine makers. The Thai government also strongly supported the idea of doing the study.
What will Neil taunt Marti about if not AIDS? :(
shouldn't this be labelled [ghey]
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 08:38:37 AM
shouldn't this be labelled [ghey]
Only if you don't care about Thai hookers.
Let's hope it doesn't go the way in public opinion the hugely effective cervical cancer jab has gone over here. "It's criminal giving these young teenage girls the jab as it'll just encourage them to have more/unprotected/underage sex" :rolleyes:
What will the CIA use to kill off black people now? :(
Quote from: Savonarola on September 24, 2009, 08:47:38 AM
What will the CIA use to kill off black people now? :(
Fried chicken. Taste the ungrilled side.
Quote from: Brazen on September 24, 2009, 08:46:53 AM
Let's hope it doesn't go the way in public opinion the hugely effective cervical cancer jab has gone over here. "It's criminal giving these young teenage girls the jab as it'll just encourage them to have more/unprotected/underage sex" :rolleyes:
Actually boys should get it too, for anal or throat cancer reasons. :contract:
I think I may have accidentally outed myself recently, when I pointed that out to a group of people discussing the anti-HPV vaccine. :unsure:
Quote from: Brazen on September 24, 2009, 08:46:53 AM
Let's hope it doesn't go the way in public opinion the hugely effective cervical cancer jab has gone over here. "It's criminal giving these young teenage girls the jab as it'll just encourage them to have more/unprotected/underage sex" :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
The army couldn't convince the CIA to give them the whole vaccine eh?
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2009, 08:37:21 AM
What will Neil taunt Marti about if not AIDS? :(
I think Marti provies him with plenty of material.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 08:38:37 AM
shouldn't this be labelled [ghey]
No because most HIV transmission is from IV drug users, straight morons not using protection, and monkey sex. (only one in ten of people in those categories are gay.)
How do they test this? They give 16,000 the vaccine then tell them to go fuck around and report back?
Sounds very....not the done thing.
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 12:23:57 PM
How do they test this? They give 16,000 the vaccine then tell them to go fuck around and report back?
Sounds very....not the done thing.
If you read the article, you'd find out.
QuoteThe study tested the combo in HIV-negative Thai men and women ages 18 to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four "priming" doses of ALVAC and two "boost" doses of AIDSVAX over six months. The others received dummy shots. No one knew who got what until the study ended.
All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines.
Participants were followed for three years after vaccination ended.
Results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group.
The vaccine had no effect on levels of HIV in the blood of those who did become infected. That had been another goal of the study — seeing whether the vaccine could limit damage to the immune system and help keep infected people from developing full-blown AIDS.
Figured they would use Thailand with its high proportion of perverts.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 24, 2009, 12:27:24 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 12:23:57 PM
How do they test this? They give 16,000 the vaccine then tell them to go fuck around and report back?
Sounds very....not the done thing.
If you read the article, you'd find out.
[q
Not exactly proof still, just correlation.
That really doesn't sound very effective.
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 12:29:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 24, 2009, 12:27:24 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 12:23:57 PM
How do they test this? They give 16,000 the vaccine then tell them to go fuck around and report back?
Sounds very....not the done thing.
If you read the article, you'd find out.
[q
Not exactly proof still, just correlation.
That's all you can do in medical research though.
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2009, 01:15:37 PM
That's all you can do in medical research though.
Semi-true.
True you can never know 100% but this is a very vague study. Over a period of years and living their normal life otherwise...
This has the potential to be disastrous to the gay community.
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 01:16:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2009, 01:15:37 PM
That's all you can do in medical research though.
Semi-true.
True you can never know 100% but this is a very vague study. Over a period of years and living their normal life otherwise...
The only other option is to deliberately infect people with HIV. No ethical researcher would do that.
31% difference is enough to be statistically significant, so it's important.
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2009, 01:17:38 PM
This has the potential to be disastrous to the gay community.
you mean it might survive? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2009, 01:26:28 PM
The only other option is to deliberately infect people with HIV. No ethical researcher would do that.
Yeah, that's where my how on earth do they do this comes from.
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2009, 01:15:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 12:29:30 PM
Not exactly proof still, just correlation.
That's all you can do in medical research though.
I don't think that's actually just correlation. Correlation is looking at a bunch of data and seeing a pattern in relationship between some variables. Acting in some way, and then seeing whether that action has statistically significant results, is actually a way to prove causation.
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2009, 01:26:28 PM
31% difference is enough to be statistically significant, so it's important.
No, not necessarily, I can easily think of a scenario where it isn't. However, any competent researcher would use an appropriate statistical test, and would make sure that the result is indeed statistically significant before claiming that it is.
Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2009, 02:00:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2009, 01:26:28 PM
31% difference is enough to be statistically significant, so it's important.
No, not necessarily, I can easily think of a scenario where it isn't. However, any competent researcher would use an appropriate statistical test, and would make sure that the result is indeed statistically significant before claiming that it is.
Yeah, I simplified my statement a lot.
Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2009, 02:00:21 PM
No, not necessarily, I can easily think of a scenario where it isn't. However, any competent researcher would use an appropriate statistical test, and would make sure that the result is indeed statistically significant before claiming that it is.
With a sample size of 16,000 virtually any difference is going to be statistically significant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2009, 02:22:55 PM
With a sample size of 16,000 virtually any difference is going to be statistically significant.
Not necessarily. The significance of this difference is actually pretty borderline. If it were 55 instead of 51 infected on the vaccine, the result wouldn't be significant on 95% confidence level.
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2009, 01:17:38 PM
This has the potential to be disastrous to the gay community.
It'll be like a throwback!
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2009, 03:17:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2009, 01:17:38 PM
This has the potential to be disastrous to the gay community.
It'll be like a throwback!
good god, don't bring back Studio 54
Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2009, 02:44:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 24, 2009, 02:22:55 PM
With a sample size of 16,000 virtually any difference is going to be statistically significant.
Not necessarily. The significance of this difference is actually pretty borderline. If it were 55 instead of 51 infected on the vaccine, the result wouldn't be significant on 95% confidence level.
Which has been pointed out by commentators over here in the UK. I won't be going "Yeah, the sixties are back" on the strength of this one.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 24, 2009, 05:53:52 PM
Which has been pointed out by commentators over here in the UK. I won't be going "Yeah, the sixties are back" on the strength of this one.
I am: smart. :smarty: I know I shouldn't be surprised, and yet I still continue to amaze myself. :)
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 03:44:43 PM
good god, don't bring back Studio 54
Our music selection will be better.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 24, 2009, 05:53:52 PM
Which has been pointed out by commentators over here in the UK. I won't be going "Yeah, the sixties are back" on the strength of this one.
I don't think any gays want the 60s. Generally we prefer the post-Stonewall era.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2009, 07:22:11 PM
I don't think any gays want the 60s. Generally we prefer the post-Stonewall era.
Your point?
I'm not gay; I just want to experience "free love", but was born too late for it... :(
Quote from: Agelastus on September 24, 2009, 07:26:41 PM
Your point?
I'm not gay; I just want to experience "free love", but was born too late for it... :(
That free love won't be coming back because gays (and I suppose to a lesser but still mentionable amount, blacks) aren't getting HIV.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 24, 2009, 07:26:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2009, 07:22:11 PM
I don't think any gays want the 60s. Generally we prefer the post-Stonewall era.
Your point?
I'm not gay; I just want to experience "free love", but was born too late for it... :(
The free love is still there, no one gives a shit about STDs.
Its just we are teh ugly.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2009, 12:28:12 PM
Figured they would use Thailand with its high proportion of perverts.
I know a guy that went to Thailand for vacation. He told me he was going to bang prostitutes every day. He was also really kinda creepy; I wouldn't be surprised to see him turn up on the Korean news someday.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 24, 2009, 07:26:41 PM
Your point?
I'm not gay; I just want to experience "free love", but was born too late for it... :(
You were born to late and to early.
"free love" is back and alive among teens.
Quote from: Strix on September 25, 2009, 08:14:48 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 24, 2009, 07:26:41 PM
Your point?
I'm not gay; I just want to experience "free love", but was born too late for it... :(
You were born to late and to early.
"free love" is back and alive among teens.
:cry:
Yeah, there is no correlation between free love (or lack thereof) and HIV, really.
For heteros in the West, HIV is still (rightly or wrongly) a bogeyman because in the absence of other vectors of infection, your vanilla vaginal sex is unlikely to lead to a grate rate of transmission (because while a chick can get it from the dude, the dude's chance of getting it from the chick is really small, so the dude would be unlikely to have it in the first place).
On the other hand, among gay men, there is still free love, people just use condoms more.
Quote from: Martinus on September 26, 2009, 03:13:37 AM
Yeah, there is no correlation between free love (or lack thereof) and HIV, really.
For heteros in the West, HIV is still (rightly or wrongly) a bogeyman because in the absence of other vectors of infection, your vanilla vaginal sex is unlikely to lead to a grate rate of transmission (because while a chick can get it from the dude, the dude's chance of getting it from the chick is really small, so the dude would be unlikely to have it in the first place).
On the other hand, among gay men, there is still free love, people just use condoms more.
According to reports, in the UK in 2007 55% of new HIV infections were due to
heterosexual contact. Admittedly the ratio of men to women infections by this method is about 2:3, so women are more vulnerable to this method of transmission as you say, but the number of men infected by regular sex does not appear to be minor.
Total diagnoses for that year was 7734 individuals.