Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / September 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

An AIDS Vaccine at Last?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
ohlala - 01 Sep 2006 01:32 GMT
Friends, I've read an article in Time saying the AIDS Vaccine, Magica??

An AIDS Vaccine at Last?

By Jeffrey Kluger | Thursday, Aug. 31, 2006 | Permalink

No one denies the lifesaving power of the antiretroviral medications
that have done so much to control HIV in infected people over the last
decade. But nor does anyone think that they're the end of the story.
The real goal is-as it's always been-a vaccine, a true knockout
blow that would at last send AIDS the way of polio and smallpox. A new
study in Sweden suggests that that much-sought-after day may have just
gotten a little closer.

Researchers at the Karolinska Institute and the Swedish Institute for
Infectious Diseases Control have completed a first round of tests of a
new AIDS vaccine in healthy human volunteers and are thrilled with the
results. The vaccine is made from selected bits of the genetic code of
HIV, more than enough to make it unmistakably recognizable to the body,
but far less than an entire killed or weakened virus, which could, in
theory, cause the disease it's supposed to prevent. A fourth dose, made
of another bit of HIV DNA piggybacking on a cowpox virus, was added as
a booster. This aggressive approach yielded impressive results: Fully
90% of the subjects developed an immune response to the virus, meaning
antibodies were produced which, if they rose to the right levels, could
protect the body from a live virus should it ever come along.

What it means: The news is stirring enthusiasm for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the preparation produced a more robust immune response
than any similar vaccine ever had before. What's more, the variety of
DNA types used in the manufacturing process might protect against a
range of the strains of HIV at large in Africa and the West. Since the
virus is so lethally versatile-mutating easily from person to person
or even within a single person-a vaccine that casts so wide a net is
essential.

The next step is another trial-set to commence in the fall-on a
larger population in Tanzania, where the AIDS problem is decidedly more
pressing than it is in Sweden. The researchers will use the opportunity
not only to test the vaccine, but to train local doctors in how to
perform the necessary follow-up studies, in order to speed the research
process and, perhaps, the eventual development of a final vaccine. In
the quarter-century war against AIDS, this is by no means a final
victory, but it is a very welcome win.
Alex - 01 Sep 2006 17:52 GMT
No reference to the article? Where was it published?

Alex

> Friends, I've read an article in Time saying the AIDS Vaccine, Magica??
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> the quarter-century war against AIDS, this is by no means a final
> victory, but it is a very welcome win.
js - 02 Sep 2006 19:03 GMT
> Friends, I've read an article in Time saying the AIDS Vaccine, Magica??
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> that have done so much to control HIV in infected people over the last
> decade.

Says who ?

Lots of people deny. I do too.
GMCarter - 02 Sep 2006 23:45 GMT
>Lots of people deny. I do too.

That's why we call you a "denialist" dipsie dear.
DavidT - 04 Sep 2006 10:18 GMT
> Lots of people deny. I do too.

Thats why you are labelled a denialist.
DavidT - 04 Sep 2006 10:20 GMT
I see that George got there first....
GMCarter - 04 Sep 2006 12:36 GMT
>I see that George got there first....

But you were much more polite! ;)
Sean McHugh - 04 Sep 2006 14:58 GMT
> >I see that George got there first....
>
> But you were much more polite! ;)

Who isn't?

Best regards,

Sean McHugh

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

monty1945@lycos.com - 06 Sep 2006 00:41 GMT
It's a shame that one cannot bet on the failure of this "vaccine,"
because if I could, I would bet all of my assets on it.  However,
because there is never any accountability, such a bet is not possible.
When have you ever heard of a group of researchers say something like,
"we are confident that this will be accomplished within two years, and
if it is not, we will urge those who provided the funding to give it to
other researchers who have alternative hypotheses" ?  A vaccine was
promised by the late 1980s, and since then, whenever funding needs to
be renewed, there is some sort of "report" about a "possible cure" in
the "near future."  You are being played like proverbial fiddles here.
These "scientists" are totally "on the wrong track."  If you want to
understand "disease," go to my site and read the essays, which contain
numerous citations from the professional literature (especially
molecular-level experiments) as well as actual quotations from the "top
virus hunters" and other such individuals.  In any case, anyone who
believes that "modern medicine" is going to "cure" any "disease"
(especially considering claims that all kinds of things are reaching
"epidemic" proportions these days) has much more to worry about than
the "wiley retrovirus."
J W - 03 Sep 2006 08:10 GMT
> This aggressive approach yielded impressive results: Fully
> 90% of the subjects developed an immune response to the virus, meaning
> antibodies were produced which, if they rose to the right levels, could
> protect the body from a live virus should it ever come along.

Ah, there's the rub - initial positive immune responses do not a
successful vaccine make.  From what I know, the VaxGen vaccine (the
first put through a Phase III clinical trial) generated pretty good
initial immune responses among vaccinees, but had absolutely no impact
on time to ART initiation or progression to AIDS.

That's not to say that this isn't exciting work, however; it looks
promising, but it's still early.

-J
J W - 03 Sep 2006 08:12 GMT
> This aggressive approach yielded impressive results: Fully
> 90% of the subjects developed an immune response to the virus, meaning
> antibodies were produced which, if they rose to the right levels, could
> protect the body from a live virus should it ever come along.

Ah, there's the rub - initial positive immune responses do not a
successful vaccine make.  From what I know, the VaxGen vaccine (the
first put through a Phase III clinical trial) generated pretty good
initial immune responses among vaccinees, but had absolutely no impact
on time to ART initiation or progression to AIDS.

That's not to say that this isn't exciting work, however; it looks
promising, but it's still early.

-J
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.