HIV Cure?...

[2bias 3]

An experimental HIV vaccine has for the first time cut the risk of infection, researchers say.

 

The vaccine - a combination of two earlier experimental vaccines - was given to 16,000 people in Thailand, in the largest ever such vaccine trial.

 

Researchers found that it reduced by nearly a third the risk of contracting HIV, the virus that leads to Aids.

 

It has been hailed as a significant, scientific breakthrough, but a global vaccine is still some way off.

 

The study was carried out by the US army and the Thai government over seven years on volunteers - all HIV-negative men and women aged between 18 and 30 - in some of Thailand's most badly-affected regions.

 

 

FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME

 

 

More from Today programme

The vaccine was a combination of two older vaccines that on their own had not cut infection rates.

 

Half of the volunteers were given the vaccine, while the other half were given a placebo - and all were given counselling on HIV/Aids prevention.

 

Participants were tested for HIV infection every six months for three years.

 

The results found that the chances of catching HIV were 31.2% less for those who had taken the vaccine - with 74 people who did not get the vaccine infected and 51 of the vaccinated group infected.

 

'Encouraging'

 

"This result is tantalisingly encouraging. The numbers are small and the difference may have been due to chance, but this finding is the first positive news in the Aids vaccine field for a decade," said Dr Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet medical journal.

 

"We should be cautious, but hopeful. The discovery needs urgent replication and investigation."

 

Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases said: "For the first time, an investigational HIV vaccine has demonstrated some ability to prevent HIV infection among vaccinated individuals.

 

"Additional research is needed to better understand how this vaccine regimen reduced the risk of HIV infection, but this is certainly an encouraging advance for the HIV vaccine field."

 

The findings were hailed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids (UN/Aids).

 

They said while the results were "characterised as modestly protective... [they] have instilled new hope in the HIV vaccine research field".

 

Some 33 million people around the world have HIV.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone else see this on the news this morning. Very interesting and encouraging stuff.

Edited September 24, 2009 by 2bias

[The Fish 11080]

Why was the US Army involved? Purely for logistical reasons?

 

Hopefully this will be a step towards stemming the spread of a crippling disease. I wonder though, how much has the fear of contracting AIDS done to scare those most at risk, from having unprotected sex? and if this vaccination was to develop into a viable immunisation treatment, would that then give license to those people to once again launch into ill-considered sex?

[Cid_MCDP 0]

Why was the US Army involved? Purely for logistical reasons?

 

Hopefully this will be a step towards stemming the spread of a crippling disease. I wonder though, how much has the fear of contracting AIDS done to scare those most at risk, from having unprotected sex? and if this vaccination was to develop into a viable immunisation treatment, would that then give license to those people to once again launch into ill-considered sex?

 

Because the CIA invented it to begin with?

[The Fish 11080]

Why does Parky have two accounts?

[NJS 4446]

I'd want 33% to increase to 100% before I'd try it.

 

Note also they were all given safe sex advice as well - the danger in a vaccine or cure for HIV is that people will see it as a licence to go bareback again.

[Kitman 2207]

Presumably a vaccine isn't a cure?

[NJS 4446]

Presumably a vaccine isn't a cure?

 

No but perceptually a vaccine which worked as well as the Polio or Smallpox ones would feel the same as a cure to people.

[Gemmill 47146]

Seems to me that if you took 16,000 people, split them into two, and gave them both the placebo (or both the vaccine) that you might well have ended up with similar results. I mean it was hardly a staggering difference and could simply be put down to chance.

[maggiespaws 0]

Seems to me that if you took 16,000 people, split them into two, and gave them both the placebo (or both the vaccine) that you might well have ended up with similar results. I mean it was hardly a staggering difference and could simply be put down to chance.

 

 

Yeah, I thought that. THe figures were so close, that it could have gone either way. After all, they weren't all exposed to exactly the same environment, some will have been in environments where contracting the disease was more probable.

 

On top of that, how many will have taken the risk of catching the disease because they were 'on the vaccine'?

[ChezGiven 0]

Seems to me that if you took 16,000 people, split them into two, and gave them both the placebo (or both the vaccine) that you might well have ended up with similar results. I mean it was hardly a staggering difference and could simply be put down to chance.

 

Randomisation of trial participants and careful selection criteria means you account for this.

 

The result will be significant at the 5% level, meaning that there is a greater than 95% chance that the difference is due to the allocation of active substance rather than placebo. The level of significance determines the probability that the result is down to chance.

[ChezGiven 0]

Seems to me that if you took 16,000 people, split them into two, and gave them both the placebo (or both the vaccine) that you might well have ended up with similar results. I mean it was hardly a staggering difference and could simply be put down to chance.

 

 

Yeah, I thought that. THe figures were so close, that it could have gone either way. After all, they weren't all exposed to exactly the same environment, some will have been in environments where contracting the disease was more probable.

 

On top of that, how many will have taken the risk of catching the disease because they were 'on the vaccine'?

 

Trial participants are 'blind' to which treatment they are getting.

[Renton 22449]

Seems to me that if you took 16,000 people, split them into two, and gave them both the placebo (or both the vaccine) that you might well have ended up with similar results. I mean it was hardly a staggering difference and could simply be put down to chance.

 

 

Yeah, I thought that. THe figures were so close, that it could have gone either way. After all, they weren't all exposed to exactly the same environment, some will have been in environments where contracting the disease was more probable.

 

On top of that, how many will have taken the risk of catching the disease because they were 'on the vaccine'?

 

Haven't read the details but I'm assuming this was a randomized controlled trial, meaning both groups were equal in every way other than the intervention (placebo or control), and both groups were blinded so their subsequent behaviour would be expected to be the same. 16,000 is a large number for this type of trial and would easily prove the statistical significance of a difference between the two interventions when it is as large as 30%.

 

Mind, 30% efficacy is SHIT by normal vaccine standards, I'm skeptical they will ever achieve the 95% efficacy rating that is required to control this disease.

[2bias 3]

The way i see it it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully sooner rather than later more of these vaccines/cures will be made and we can start to see the decline of diseases such as cancer. fingers crossed.

[maggiespaws 0]

Seems to me that if you took 16,000 people, split them into two, and gave them both the placebo (or both the vaccine) that you might well have ended up with similar results. I mean it was hardly a staggering difference and could simply be put down to chance.

 

 

Yeah, I thought that. THe figures were so close, that it could have gone either way. After all, they weren't all exposed to exactly the same environment, some will have been in environments where contracting the disease was more probable.

 

On top of that, how many will have taken the risk of catching the disease because they were 'on the vaccine'?

 

Trial participants are 'blind' to which treatment they are getting.

 

Good point - didn't think of that.

[The Fish 11080]

Once we've cured cancer and AIDs I've no doubt a virus will have evolved that makes them look like a bad case of the sniffles.

[ChezGiven 0]

Once we've cured cancer and AIDs I've no doubt a virus will have evolved that makes them look like a bad case of the sniffles.

 

Might be a bit longer before we cure cancer. This is a very simplified map of the process you are trying to control by sticking a pill into someone's mouth.

 

[The Fish 11080]

pffft, piece of piss that man.

 

 

You should try deciding what you're going to make for lunch a whole 13 hours earlier! Now that is pressure.

[NJS 4446]

I don't know what Chez and Renton's take on this is but I've always suspected the limiting factor in the fight against cancer or indeed AIDS is finance - I remember arguing that the £25bn the government wanted to spend on Trident at the time would just about do the trick for cancer.

 

Bollocks or not?

[The Fish 11080]

It's more profitable to make AIDs and Cancer manageable than to cure it. But I'd wager that doesn't affect the search for a cure

[Guest alex]

I don't know what Chez and Renton's take on this is but I've always suspected the limiting factor in the fight against cancer or indeed AIDS is finance - I remember arguing that the £25bn the government wanted to spend on Trident at the time would just about do the trick for cancer.

 

Bollocks or not?

Bollocks at a guess. Could you imagine the financial rewards for the company that came up with a universal cancer cure?

[ChezGiven 0]

I don't know what Chez and Renton's take on this is but I've always suspected the limiting factor in the fight against cancer or indeed AIDS is finance - I remember arguing that the £25bn the government wanted to spend on Trident at the time would just about do the trick for cancer.

 

Bollocks or not?

Bollocks at a guess. Could you imagine the financial rewards for the company that came up with a universal cancer cure?

 

That episode of South Park where they get AIDS explained it best.

 

Everything changed about 5 years ago. Now huge amounts of money is being pumped into cancer research and the cure may come in the next few decades. The figure could be as high as $100bn a year now but i'd have to check.

 

The idea that docs/researchers have is that if you bring a new treatment along every year or two that adds 6-12 months of survival (which has been happening for the last few years) then after 10-20 years of these advances, it wont be the cancer that kills you since you will fight that long enough for something else to kill you. This is essentially a cure.

 

The issue is in the fact that cancers seem to re-appear months after the tumour sites are clear. In last July's (2008) Journal of Clinical Oncology they devoted a whole issue to the role of stem cells in cancer. If you remove the tumour but the cancer returns, then the cause of the cancer must be in the stem cells.

 

On the basis of the time between when it was understood what role specific cell processes played and when the treatments were seen in clinical practice, i would give it at least 20/30 years before stem cells are targeted by drugs. Even then, it might not be a cure.

[NJS 4446]

Obviously only as interested reader/human, I never assumed there would be a "cure all" for cancer - I assumed the accumulation of all of the different stratagies for all the different types would eventually be "almost certain" to cover everything.

 

I think its also the case that pissers where non-old people get cancers aside, its probably true that our species are "supposed" to succumb to some form of death pretty much before modern medicine now allows.

[Renton 22449]

I don't know what Chez and Renton's take on this is but I've always suspected the limiting factor in the fight against cancer or indeed AIDS is finance - I remember arguing that the £25bn the government wanted to spend on Trident at the time would just about do the trick for cancer.

 

Bollocks or not?

Bollocks at a guess. Could you imagine the financial rewards for the company that came up with a universal cancer cure?

 

That episode of South Park where they get AIDS explained it best.

 

Everything changed about 5 years ago. Now huge amounts of money is being pumped into cancer research and the cure may come in the next few decades. The figure could be as high as $100bn a year now but i'd have to check.

 

The idea that docs/researchers have is that if you bring a new treatment along every year or two that adds 6-12 months of survival (which has been happening for the last few years) then after 10-20 years of these advances, it wont be the cancer that kills you since you will fight that long enough for something else to kill you. This is essentially a cure.

 

The issue is in the fact that cancers seem to re-appear months after the tumour sites are clear. In last July's (2008) Journal of Clinical Oncology they devoted a whole issue to the role of stem cells in cancer. If you remove the tumour but the cancer returns, then the cause of the cancer must be in the stem cells.

 

On the basis of the time between when it was understood what role specific cell processes played and when the treatments were seen in clinical practice, i would give it at least 20/30 years before stem cells are targeted by drugs. Even then, it might not be a cure.

 

Interesting. I spent 8 years doing cancer research but that was 8 years ago now, during which time of course one hell of a lot can change. Surely not all cancers, or even most, are caused by faulty stem cells though? I can understand it from the point of view of haematological malignancy, but for the solid tumours (e.g. the carcinomas, which kill most people), I thought the cancers usually started further down the cellular differentiation chain, at the front line so to speak. It was assumed when I studied that cancer that relapsed after months or even years was down to metastases that survived the surgery/chemo/radiotherapy. And of course, because a relapsed cell is resistant to treatment, it's untreatable, so it tends to kill you. Like I said though I'm out of date regarding all this.

 

As far as throwing money at cancer rearch, I think it's time rather than money that will be the limiting factor. Seems to me that it could be a classic case of diminishing returns (lesson one on my HE course this week ).

 

NJS, we are programmed to die so that evolution can take it's course but cancer is not necessarily a part of that process. Ironically though, I believe unlocking the genetic cure for cancer will have an interesting side effect - immortality. This has fuck all to do with nanobots etc like in the other article, it's straight forward genetic manipulation, possibly through drug delivery. I'd give it 30 years, but that's a guess.

[ChezGiven 0]

I don't know what Chez and Renton's take on this is but I've always suspected the limiting factor in the fight against cancer or indeed AIDS is finance - I remember arguing that the £25bn the government wanted to spend on Trident at the time would just about do the trick for cancer.

 

Bollocks or not?

Bollocks at a guess. Could you imagine the financial rewards for the company that came up with a universal cancer cure?

 

That episode of South Park where they get AIDS explained it best.

 

Everything changed about 5 years ago. Now huge amounts of money is being pumped into cancer research and the cure may come in the next few decades. The figure could be as high as $100bn a year now but i'd have to check.

 

The idea that docs/researchers have is that if you bring a new treatment along every year or two that adds 6-12 months of survival (which has been happening for the last few years) then after 10-20 years of these advances, it wont be the cancer that kills you since you will fight that long enough for something else to kill you. This is essentially a cure.

 

The issue is in the fact that cancers seem to re-appear months after the tumour sites are clear. In last July's (2008) Journal of Clinical Oncology they devoted a whole issue to the role of stem cells in cancer. If you remove the tumour but the cancer returns, then the cause of the cancer must be in the stem cells.

 

On the basis of the time between when it was understood what role specific cell processes played and when the treatments were seen in clinical practice, i would give it at least 20/30 years before stem cells are targeted by drugs. Even then, it might not be a cure.

 

Interesting. I spent 8 years doing cancer research but that was 8 years ago now, during which time of course one hell of a lot can change. Surely not all cancers, or even most, are caused by faulty stem cells though? I can understand it from the point of view of haematological malignancy, but for the solid tumours (e.g. the carcinomas, which kill most people), I thought the cancers usually started further down the cellular differentiation chain, at the front line so to speak. It was assumed when I studied that cancer that relapsed after months or even years was down to metastases that survived the surgery/chemo/radiotherapy. And of course, because a relapsed cell is resistant to treatment, it's untreatable, so it tends to kill you. Like I said though I'm out of date regarding all this.

 

As far as throwing money at cancer rearch, I think it's time rather than money that will be the limiting factor. Seems to me that it could be a classic case of diminishing returns (lesson one on my HE course this week ).

 

NJS, we are programmed to die so that evolution can take it's course but cancer is not necessarily a part of that process. Ironically though, I believe unlocking the genetic cure for cancer will have an interesting side effect - immortality. This has fuck all to do with nanobots etc like in the other article, it's straight forward genetic manipulation, possibly through drug delivery. I'd give it 30 years, but that's a guess.

 

If you want to look it up, it was the July edition of JCO last year. The theory has been around for a while ( http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/con.../interview/688/ ) but i'm not a cellular biologist so cant really get into the details. Its all about genetic mutation in organ cells, so since the DNA sequence is laid out in the stem cell, then thats where the cancer must come from. Things have moved on in the last few years but i've only been studying it for 2 so am no expert in any sense of the word.

 

You still up for a beer pre / post QPR match btw?

[NJS 4446]

Renton you seem to be both over and under-estimating the proportion of deaths due to cancer. What I was getting at is that a fair proportion (not sure of exact figures) of deaths are down to cancer of some form. Some will probably be due to "modern" life but I still think its a "natural" killer of all animal life that to some extent we weren't supposed to conquer from an evolutionary pov. I also think cancer is now getting more people who have just survived to a decent age and aren't that unhealthy - my Mam died of lung cancer but my view was that as she was 82 it wasn't the absolute tragedy it would have been if she had been 42 (not diminishing the personal loss of course).

 

However there are atill many other killers out there which would still be around if the magic cancer pill was found. Obviously you and Chez no more than I do but I don't see how "fixing" DNA so it never allowed cells to become cancerous wouldn't help in the defence of viruses or bacteria so "immortality" to me would have to involve some use of a super-efficient immune system (probably via nanobots) to be possible.