31–40 of 103 posts
Many in the scientific community claim there is no evidence HIV is actually causing AIDS. Hence, even if this is a successful vaccine, there is no guarantee it will protect from AIDS.
[citation needed] First I've ever heard of anything like this.
My father is an infectious disease specialist who has spent the last 30 or so years working on HIV in research, patient treatment, and education. The following thought comes from my casual conversations with him, and probably does not represent his professional opinion. It certainly does not reflect his specific thoughts in regards to this trial, as we haven't yet discussed it. The progress in treating HIV since it f…
I'm confused by the statement that a vaccine would not be a game changer in terms of worldwide infection. Right now, the only way to reliably prevent HIV infection is through changing behavior , which is extremely difficult. But widespread use of a vaccine would just require a one-time injection, which is relatively easier. I'm further confused by your polio reference, because that sort of effort would only be possib…
If that were the case here it would make vaccination much harder, though still possible of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the point of a vaccine to prevent, not cure? EDIT: thanks guys, but I have enough upvotes. My comment didn't add much to HN. Wasn't actually trying to prove him wrong -- I thought I'd missed something and was asking for clarification.
That certainly is the common point, however (provided the patient is strong enough to survive the additional initial strain) shouldn't it also kickstart an immune response in patients who are already infected? And once that starts, shouldn't that likely help fight the infection? I don't know myself, I know next to nothing about medicine.
My father is an infectious disease specialist who has spent the last 30 or so years working on HIV in research, patient treatment, and education. The following thought comes from my casual conversations with him, and probably does not represent his professional opinion. It certainly does not reflect his specific thoughts in regards to this trial, as we haven't yet discussed it. The progress in treating HIV since it f…
Shouldn't this be more of a temporary problem? As soon as there is a vaccine its patents will expire at least 20 years afterwards. And then lots of much cheaper vaccines will flood the market.
Here's a relevant TED Talk about pandemics: http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_brilliant_wants_to_stop_pande...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused by the statement that a vaccine would not be a game changer in terms of worldwide infection. Right now, the only way to reliably prevent HIV infection is through changing behavior , which is extremely difficult. But widespread use of a vaccine would just require a one-time injection, which is relatively easier. I'm further confused by your polio reference, because that sort of effort would only be possib…
Not to be pedantic, but is it the case this would only be a single injection? I believe that some vaccines can need repeat/regular treatments over a (relatively short I think) period of time. If that were the case here it would make vaccination much harder, though still possible of course.
My father is an infectious disease specialist who has spent the last 30 or so years working on HIV in research, patient treatment, and education. The following thought comes from my casual conversations with him, and probably does not represent his professional opinion. It certainly does not reflect his specific thoughts in regards to this trial, as we haven't yet discussed it. The progress in treating HIV since it f…
Shouldn't this be more of a temporary problem? As soon as there is a vaccine its patents will expire at least 20 years afterwards. And then lots of much cheaper vaccines will flood the market.
I think his point is that much of the problem of preventing the spread of HIV has less to do with the science of killing the virus, and more to do with the difficulty of actually getting it in the hands of people who need it. There are already very cheap, readily-available ways of preventing HIV transmission (condom use comes to mind), but people aren't using those. The reasons are varied, but some cite misinformation, cultural misconceptions, government ineptitude, and so on. Even if there were a 99% effective HIV vaccine that were as cheap as water, it still wouldn't make it into the hands of every person in the developing world. Proof of that is the fact that we can't even get water to all of these people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the point of a vaccine to prevent, not cure? EDIT: thanks guys, but I have enough upvotes. My comment didn't add much to HN. Wasn't actually trying to prove him wrong -- I thought I'd missed something and was asking for clarification.
Ha, oops. I don't know how I managed to mix up vaccine and cure - my brain must be asleep. Thanks for pointing it out.
My father is an infectious disease specialist who has spent the last 30 or so years working on HIV in research, patient treatment, and education. The following thought comes from my casual conversations with him, and probably does not represent his professional opinion. It certainly does not reflect his specific thoughts in regards to this trial, as we haven't yet discussed it. The progress in treating HIV since it f…
I'm confused by the statement that a vaccine would not be a game changer in terms of worldwide infection. Right now, the only way to reliably prevent HIV infection is through changing behavior , which is extremely difficult. But widespread use of a vaccine would just require a one-time injection, which is relatively easier. I'm further confused by your polio reference, because that sort of effort would only be possib…
I should have been more specific - I meant that if we did develop a vaccine, then it makes following the [smallpox] example theoretically possible, but this is still extremely challenging due to the reasons given.
Although you and I might have the vaccine, not everyone has it - not by a long shot - because not everyone is born in a modern westernized hospital. These people are protected by virtue of an extreme mobilization to literally isolate every single instance of the virus. It (hopefully) only exists in the lab at this point.
Many in the scientific community claim there is no evidence HIV is actually causing AIDS. Hence, even if this is a successful vaccine, there is no guarantee it will protect from AIDS.
Before you say these things lightly, think about it for a few minutes.
"if this genetic cocktail passes Phase II and Phase III future clinic trials, and makes it into production, in the future HIV could be compared to herpes virus nowadays". As far as I know there is no herpes vaccine and herpes stays with you for life resulting in recurring problems. Doesn't quite sound like a very flattering comparison to an effective vaccine solution.