Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

them.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 490 posts

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#51

Post by vmception »

Vrondi wrote: post #27
spamizbad wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason is that mRNA vaccines can be developed much faster than traditional vaccines. So the idea is you have a better chance of "outrunning" a strain.

Quoted post unavailable.

mRNA treatments likely will accelerate the trial process because their purview is so limited, compared to other molecule based treatments.

So more likely you’ll just get over a shorter release cycle and the longer one gets deprecated, relegated to certain style of treatment that mRNA based investment and research will run laps around anyway, further pushing people to evaluate and prioritize mRNA versions.

You can try to hold out for an arbitrary threshold of “long term” for your own comfort level. Its accurate that the state wont be helping you.

mRNA is like a file for a 3D printer, telling the body what to print for. Other styles of treatments were showing the body the payload. We will definitely learn how often we can get the body to do this, but I wouldn't call it an inferior beta status. Its just as good (or bad) as the longer process for different kinds of treatment. Same efficacy, which allows me personally to not focus on that.

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#52

Post by [deleted] »

Pooge wrote: post #37

From my understanding, the effectiveness of the vaccine is measured by monitoring - in the real world - how many vaccinated people of a group catches the virus compared with how many unvaccinated did: how would it work in this case? I guess it would just take a lot of years to come up with a good approximation.

[deleted]

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#53

Post by tacLog »

unnouinceput wrote: post #26

Quoted post unavailable.

It's important to remember that any community can spread it. Needle sharing among intravenous drug users comes to mind. However, you can't deny that HIV has struck a generational blow upon the LGBTQ+ community.

If this works it will be the end to an era of fear. Many will remember those that where lost and wish this only happened sooner. A new reason to celebrate is underselling the impact this will have.

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#54

Post by epgui »

Vrondi wrote: post #27
spamizbad wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason is that mRNA vaccines can be developed much faster than traditional vaccines. So the idea is you have a better chance of "outrunning" a strain.

Quoted post unavailable.

You're vastly overestimating the potential harms caused by vaccines.

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#56

Post by f6v »

spamizbad wrote: post #17
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #10

As I understand it, the reason an HIV vaccine has been so difficult to create is that HIV mutates so easily. I understand the basics behind how mRNA vaccines are generated, but I don't understand why this approach would be expected to have any more success in evading the high mutation potential of HIV than other vaccine types. After all, it was even a concern with new coronavirus variants that the original Moderna va…

One reason is that mRNA vaccines can be developed much faster than traditional vaccines. So the idea is you have a better chance of "outrunning" a strain.

I think slowly will come the realization that mRNA vaccines aren’t as fast to develop as people thought. Sputnik/AstraZeneca vaccines were released almost at the same time as Moderna/Pfizer. Yes, the latter were first commercial mRNA vaccines, but the technology is nevertheless rather mature. I watched a lecture by the people credited with creating mRNA vaccines and it turns out people have been working on the technology for decades.

Now, the thing is that you can’t just sequence a virus, do bioinformatics, synthesize mRNA and package it into a nano particle. I mean, you can, but chances are it’s going to fail like the CureVac vaccine. The mRNA that gets packaged needs to be modified (I believe with alternative bases) to achieve desired effect.

If mRNA vaccine was as magical as it was marketed, we wouldn’t be getting 3-4(and soon 5?) doses of the same vaccine with the emergence of new variants. Rather, there would be delta- and omicron-specific vaccine.

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#57

Post by siver_john »

f6v wrote: post #39
mlyle wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some known HIV "bnAbs", or broadly neutralizing antibodies. The thing is, these are not the antibodies most humans develop in response to HIV. Previous HIV vaccine attempts have only done a fair job at eliciting these broadly neutralizing responses. e.g. SAV001, a "whole killed" HIV vaccine, only produces broadly neutralizing antibodies in about a third of recipients (and less broadly neutralizing response in…

I’m not familiar with vaccine tech. Can’t you grow the peptide of interest and package it in a traditional vaccine?

Strictly speaking you can, and not knowing the exact reasons this approach is moved to human trials where others have not, I can only conjecture.

However, the mRNA vaccine may be more stable in a way that makes it easier to make or store or for entrance into the body. Not to mention purification steps may be easier. You don't need to make this in some exotic cell line which creates a protein soup you have to purify. It may be easier on the body (less likely to develop a severe immune reaction), or it may be better at generating a sufficient immune reaction because a lot of mRNA development has gone into finding molecules that are readily taken up by the immune system regardless of cargo.

These are a few reasons I can think I am sure I am missing some and there may be a stated answer out there that I have yet to search for.

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#59

Post by epgui »

ausudhz wrote: post #50
mlyle wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three things: - This isn't really the reason why mRNA is attractive here (see my other comment above). (Though, ability to iterate/try many protein combinations quickly in animal models was helpful). - Almost no drugs or treatments do we really know the long term picture of. Running studies in a way that lets you detect effects far later in life isn't practical. - When we're talking about treatments to prevent severe…

Not to mention the long term effects of COVID are known and way worst that what a vaccine can give you. Vaccine are building an immune response, they're not drugs that try to cope the symptoms (eg. Panadol) and they are the safest drugs out there. Is so interesting how people eat Panadol and many other drugs like candies (without reading the KNOWN side effects - which are also nasty), while they focus so much on thin…

Exactly this. I would rather take the "most unsafe" vaccine of the last 30 years than take an Advil. (I am a biochemist)

Re: Moderna’s HIV vaccine has officially begun human trials

#60

Post by tylerhou »

Vrondi wrote: post #27
spamizbad wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason is that mRNA vaccines can be developed much faster than traditional vaccines. So the idea is you have a better chance of "outrunning" a strain.

Quoted post unavailable.

Knowing long-term effects (1+ years) is not a precondition of approval for most vaccines. It just so happens that vaccines usually take a long time for approval, so we end up knowing long-term effects as a side effect.

This is because there generally isn't a known mechanism for vaccines to have long term effects. Not ruling out the possibility, but we understand how vaccines work pretty well. Also, most vaccines are subject to a cost/benefit analysis anyway (we don't give the rabies vaccine out to everyone) so the miniscule chance of having long term effects has to be weighed against the much more likely long term effects of the disease.

Post reply on HN