90% successful aids vaccine.

[demoman_chaos]

Um, doesn't every disease that doesn't fully go away technically have a 100% kill rate? Like Alzheimers? 100% of the people who have it eventually die so that statistic can apply to a lot of things.

Also, with proper nutrition your body can fight off HIV quite well. Cancer and HIV are both only issues when your immune system cannot keep it in check (everyone has cancer cells, but most of the time your immune system keeps them from getting out of hand).

 

[renegade7]

This is not a cure for AIDS, it prevents HIV, the infection that causes it. It won't help you if you are ALREADY infected. Still, this is great news, it means that the virus will one day be eradicated.

I think that's the definition of a Vaccine

I know, but I've heard about this from some other sources, and they're touting it as an "AIDS cure" which is not correct.

 

[pffh]

Do you know how much it costs to research a new drug? Around 1 billion dollars and that's not factoring in how much is spent on research into drugs that failed just the single one that succeeded.

And? What's your point?

I know more profit can be made from cures for rich people, I just wish that disease-research companies weren't motivated solely by profit (and you know, actually wanted to help people). Unfortunately, that's just not how our society works, and that saddens me.

My point is that it's ridiculously expensive to research new drugs and the only way to be able to keep doing that is by researching drugs that turn a profit and then hope that the breakthroughs eventually trickle down. I can tell you right now with absolute certainty that not a single pharmacologist, chemist or biologist working in drug research is in it for the money but until we live in a post scarcity environment this is how it must be.

Or you know governments could start funding drug research with tax money. We need to get money from somewhere and right now this is the only way.

 

[DEAD34345]

And? What's your point?

I know more profit can be made from cures for rich people, I just wish that disease-research companies weren't motivated solely by profit (and you know, actually wanted to help people). Unfortunately, that's just not how our society works, and that saddens me.

My point is that it's ridiculously expensive to research new drugs and the only way to be able to keep doing that is by researching drugs that turn a profit and then hope that the breakthroughs eventually trickle down. I can tell you right now with absolute certainty that not a single pharmacologist, chemist or biologist working in drug research is in it for the money but until we live in a post scarcity environment this is how it must be.

Or you know governments could start funding drug research with tax money. We need to get money from somewhere and right now this is the only way.

Well, first of all, this part simply isn't true: "I can tell you right now with absolute certainty that not a single pharmacologist, chemist or biologist working in drug research is in it for the money".

Other than that though, I agree, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting. It's a messed up world where this kind of crap takes place (and I'm not laying the blame on any particular people either, it just sickens me is all).

[sub]SCREW YOU CAPTCHA[/sub]

 

[burningdragoon]

Cool beans and all, but 30 people is less than 1% the size of a test group you need, among other things, before it would be reliable to call the result the HIV vaccine

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

"Despite the success, Dr Esteban is cautious:

[T]he treatment has only been tested on 30 volunteers and, while [the vaccine] provokes a powerful response in most of the cases, it's still to soon if the resulting defense would be effective against an actual [HIV] infection.

The team will now start another phase I trial, injecting the vaccine in HIV-infected people. The objective of this trial is to test the therapeutical effect of the vaccine in these patients."

Read the source before making your conclusions.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Cool beans and all, but 30 people is less than 1% the size of a test group you need, among other things, before it would be reliable to call the result the HIV vaccine

How many people would volunteer to get injected with HIV, even if promised that it was only a vaccine? Especially with how many times the Flu vaccine ended up giving people the flu.

Anywho- Is this a good thing? Honest question. Yes, yes, 'People dying is horrible. Boohoohoo.'

Look at the big picture, though. We keep 'fixing' what isn't broken. The more possible causes of death that are removed, the longer people live. The more resources they take. Objectively speaking, if they do develop a cure for something that kills millions of people, the results aren't going to be pretty. It also means that less jobs will be available since the people holding those jobs will hold them longer. ('Cause, yanno, global economy isn't doing so great. Unemployment rates are getting up into double digits...fun stuff.)

 

[YawningAngel]

Title is misleading, antibodies =/= a vaccine.

 

[Erana]

Look at the big picture, though. We keep 'fixing' what isn't broken. The more possible causes of death that are removed, the longer people live. The more resources they take. Objectively speaking, if they do develop a cure for something that kills millions of people, the results aren't going to be pretty. It also means that less jobs will be available since the people holding those jobs will hold them longer. ('Cause, yanno, global economy isn't doing so great. Unemployment rates are getting up into double digits...fun stuff.)

No.
Nope.

Maybe you can bring up this callous argument when suffering from HIV/AIDS isn't a worse death than starvation.

 

[teisjm]

On a serious note, amazing if true, and regardless, props to the people trying to, and hopefully succeding in, curing fatal ilnesses.

On a less serious note, when reading this:
"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."
It imediately made me think it sounded like they applied the vacine, then infected the test subjects with HIV to see if it was effective, sucks to be amongst the 10% where it didn't work.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Look at the big picture, though. We keep 'fixing' what isn't broken. The more possible causes of death that are removed, the longer people live. The more resources they take. Objectively speaking, if they do develop a cure for something that kills millions of people, the results aren't going to be pretty. It also means that less jobs will be available since the people holding those jobs will hold them longer. ('Cause, yanno, global economy isn't doing so great. Unemployment rates are getting up into double digits...fun stuff.)

No.
Nope.

Maybe you can bring up this callous argument when suffering from HIV/AIDS isn't a worse death than starvation.

Allow me to repeat: Death is a part of life. If you don't sacrifice part, then everyone will be worse off for it in the future.

Attempting to 'fix' dying is, honestly, the most irresponsible and selfish act that a human is capable of. Well...maybe not the most. It's about tied with destroying the environment for personal gain.

 

[cryogeist]

Title is misleading.

There's a difference between AIDS and HIV.

yes but HIV leads to AIDS (if i am correct)
either way this is awesome news...though i hate to be the downer but there's still that 10% chance it wont work

 

[hipster666]

From what I read on the vaccine it's a great protective agent for those who DON'T have it and only a heavy weapon in the arsenal for those who currently live with HIV. One of the responders is correct, this does not target the African HIV which counts for most of the global infection numbers. Sad though it may be, drug companies make money in the West and will only send it to Africa once they've made back their money and in this case tailored the vaccine to the many prevalent variants in Africa. Given it takes millions to perform the research in the first place they have a right to some financial compensation for time, money and effort put in, but quite how much money they cream off it is a bit sickening at times.

Also, it has still to be tested in long term trials. Most common issue with HIV vaccines to date has been that HIV is incredibly adaptable. Many vaccines have targetted a key protein and been very effective until the virus mutates, which HIV does anyway as part of its life cycle! Current drug regimes have actually turned it from a death sentence into a manageable disease in many cases, albeit a very expensive one and there are some murmerings about long term drug regimes possibly eradicating stores of HIV in the body as the wee bugger tends to hide when it's under attack and the hope is that through a rigorous drug regime, carefully managed over years, it might be possible to reduce the numbers down to a level the body can clear naturally. Well, that's the hope.

This new vaccine is SO effective because it attacks multiple proteins at once and is kind of like sending in the navy, air force and marines all at once, but there is no knowing if it will stick or if the virus will mutate around the vaccine-generated T-cells and spread once more. A good step forward but I'm saving the firework and party hats until more testing is done.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Good to know, though I doubt drug companies will care about the poor people over in Africa, though... sigh

 

[Agayek]

That's all well and good, but I'll be honest. HIV kinda needs to continue.

The human population is exploding at a rate that will (relatively soon) reach the breaking point. We simply won't have enough resources available for everyone in another 5-8 generations. We need some form of population control, and since we've out-evolved our natural predators and essentially domesticated the world, the only possibility is disease. It's not pretty and it's not nice, but the fact is if we want to avoid rampant starvation and all around shittiness, there needs to be checks in place to keep our population stable within the environment.

It's either let AIDS kill people now, or let starvation kill their children's children.

 

[crepesack]

Pretty small sample size, but still promising.

Hm, the subtype dominant in rich countries (Europe and America) is the one being cured, while the subtype which is by far the most common (that would be subtype C), but mainly affects poor people (read: Africa) is left untouched.

[sub] >>>>>SARCASM ALERT>>>>>[/sub]How unexpected.[sub]<<<<<SARCASM ALERT<<<<<[/sub]​

Anyway, I am of course very glad this cure is being made, but how about we get more money being spent on the subtype that's more than twice as common next time?

Who says they didn't? Maybe the type B was the one that worked.

Maybe, and I really hope so, but I also really doubt it. The big companies that do disease research always focus on the diseases they can make the most money off. As much as I would like it to be so, I hardly think it's a coincidence that the one subtype this cure is for just happens to be the one that affects rich countries, especially when there is such a massive divide in the presence of the subtypes between poor and rich countries.

Also I'm sorry if I sounded really negative, I really am happy that the cure is being made, it's just that the extremely capitalist disease-research industry (if that's even what it would be called) always pisses me off.

Who else would pay for it? Not poor people...I don't want them to die. If there was some way to get this to the rest of the world sure it'd be great. But being realistic it's going to vaccinate those who can afford it an when it's cheap enough to produced en masse then it will be used in poor nations.

That said I doubt this drug will see the light of day. Pharma companies are making so much money off of drug cocktails right now they would never let this thing pass clincal trials or would hold on to the patent for a decade so everyone forgets about it.

 

[Radelaide]

Title is misleading.

There's a difference between AIDS and HIV.

Cure HIV and you don't get AIDS since the AIDS virus is the progression of HIV.

That's all well and good, but I'll be honest. HIV kinda needs to continue.

The human population is exploding at a rate that will (relatively soon) reach the breaking point. We simply won't have enough resources available for everyone in another 5-8 generations. We need some form of population control, and since we've out-evolved our natural predators and essentially domesticated the world, the only possibility is disease. It's not pretty and it's not nice, but the fact is if we want to avoid rampant starvation and all around shittiness, there needs to be checks in place to keep our population stable within the environment.

It's either let AIDS kill people now, or let starvation kill their children's children.

Since HIV and AIDS doesn't have a pretty fast kill rate, wouldn't something like the flu be a better killer?

 

[Agayek]

Since HIV and AIDS doesn't have a pretty fast kill rate, wouldn't something like the flu be a better killer?

Sure, but the flu is already (mostly) controlled. It's far more prevalent and easier to spread than AIDS is, but it's not that dangerous unless you're feeble, very young or in a third world country.

Honestly, the ideal form of population control would be to have a punch-up on the same scale as WWII every 3-4 generations. Fortunately (or not as the case may be), that is rather unlikely to happen since the advent of the Nuclear Age.

 

[remulean]

That's all well and good, but I'll be honest. HIV kinda needs to continue.

The human population is exploding at a rate that will (relatively soon) reach the breaking point. We simply won't have enough resources available for everyone in another 5-8 generations. We need some form of population control, and since we've out-evolved our natural predators and essentially domesticated the world, the only possibility is disease. It's not pretty and it's not nice, but the fact is if we want to avoid rampant starvation and all around shittiness, there needs to be checks in place to keep our population stable within the environment.

It's either let AIDS kill people now, or let starvation kill their children's children.

that is a disgusting position to take, and one without merit.
the human population will stabilize around 9 - 12 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population), and if used correctly earth can support that, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Resources).
what really makes this a ridicoulus position to make is that it betrays the inherent racism of saying that you "need" hiv" when it's mostly centered on africa. if a disease was raging in the western world, would you like an asian to say to himself, "well we best not find a cure for this, those people consume way too much and we have a population problem anyway.
this vaccine(if it works) is to be applauded and defended against the religious nutjobs who will attempt to illegalise it.

 

[crepesack]

Title is misleading.

There's a difference between AIDS and HIV.

Cure HIV and you don't get AIDS since the AIDS virus is the progression of HIV.

That's all well and good, but I'll be honest. HIV kinda needs to continue.

The human population is exploding at a rate that will (relatively soon) reach the breaking point. We simply won't have enough resources available for everyone in another 5-8 generations. We need some form of population control, and since we've out-evolved our natural predators and essentially domesticated the world, the only possibility is disease. It's not pretty and it's not nice, but the fact is if we want to avoid rampant starvation and all around shittiness, there needs to be checks in place to keep our population stable within the environment.

It's either let AIDS kill people now, or let starvation kill their children's children.

Since HIV and AIDS doesn't have a pretty fast kill rate, wouldn't something like the flu be a better killer?

AIDS are the symptoms of HIV..not a stage. There are several disorders that can cause AIDS. Even allergies are considered a human immunodeficiency.