What is Digg?57 Comments
- Civil44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Great news now if we can all stay clean till then...
- AeonTorpor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@Xenstier
wtf are you on? Start a new thread. I'm tired of ppl abusing the threaded comment system to get their damn comment closest to the top, just ***** cut it out. /rant - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Wow, brave people to willingly get injected with HIV."
Way to not know how vaccines work. - InvisionUK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9No-one would willingly subject themselves to being injected with *active* HIV. It's obviously been deactivated, as they do with all vaccines.
Basically, they just include some of the bare components of HIV so your system knows what to look for. It's like the difference between a fully functioning car, and a car without an engine. - djdole, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Peta will probably stop it from being exported; saying that the death of one unfertilized chicken egg used to create the vaccine isn't worth the millions of possible human lives saved.
- gp120, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Actually they do not use whole virus at all but instead parts of it generated in cell lines. There is never any whole virus in the process but instead DNA coding for one or more proteins of the virus are transfected into a cell line that then makes the protein which is purified and used in the vaccine. I am currently in such a trial and there is no chance of getting HIV because they do not use an actuall virus.
- PBoiIceBerg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Get this to Africa ASAP.
- Outdoor83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6otherland: I'm assuming you're not just trolling. If so, stop reading this.
I'll buy your argument for Americans. However, from what I've heard, people in Africa don't understand how to prevent AIDS. It has something to do with sex, but what? I don't think many of them know. Also, if we can give it to children who contracted HIV from his or her mother, then that's an innocent person saved (who, obviously, didn't have a "lifestyle choice").
"Hopeless societies" is a pretty harsh way to look at people who don't have the wealth you and I do (you have access to a computer, so that's definitely wealth). Do you think there's something fundamentally biologically different between Africans and you/I which prevents them from making "moral" decisions? If not, then as fellow human beings, we have an obligation to assist them to use our resources to give them a better life. First step in that is keeping them alive. Next step is keeping them healthy. We can do most of those first two with a vaccine. We'll work on the rest once we accomplish the first two.
I hope this gives you something of a worldly view instead of the wealthy-centric one you seem to hold. - adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6frem001
Apparently, the people who modded you down never read this story:
"South African ex-Deputy President Jacob Zuma said he showered after sex with an HIV-positive woman, thinking this would reduce his risk of being infected."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4879822.stm - Irishcreamyo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5To calm some fears, this is not made by the CDC (though I dont think their reputation is that bad), HIV is an RNA virus, so injecting with DNA (encoding only a few proteins) is not that risky. I think they're actually more worried about using the vaccinia virus (I believe a smallpox vaccine attenuated in chicken eggs) in the later boost.
- djdole, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4gah! AeonTorpor & CingleMolt, you beat me to it.
@Xenstier
Actually I'd say don't post a comment if you can't use proper English.
(Or better yet, if you're going to make yourself look like a moron when attempting to do so).
But really, Xenstier...Holy crap! What were you smoking when you typed that?!
You do know that Fat-Finger syndrome is curable, and you don't need a vaccine. (So a fear of needles is no excuse.) Just calm down, type slower (or get a bigger keyboard). - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8They could make a mistake though. In the 50s, when they were administering the Salk vaccine for polio, a few "batches" were't completely weakened strains. What they used to do was to heat the polio virus until it was dead- sometimes they messed up. A few hundred people (out of millions), got polio from it.
Word to the wise- don't be a part of these experiments. Wait a few years. - CingleMolt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5How about not posting a comment if you can't use the "Check Spelling" button or explain your point without IM shorthand...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Wow, brave people to willingly get injected with HIV.
- kyriakos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@chicken101 techically a virus is not alive.
- lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Kyriakos: That's actually debatable, since viruses reproduce (in other cells) and further their existence. At what point does something become alive?
chicken101: Well, somebody has to do it. Just thank these people for taking a risk.
toad3k: They can always check their immune system's cells. - chiller2002, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@otherhand
HIV research is a waste of time? You speak of innocent lives, what about the babies born with HIV from irresponsible mothers? Sure, screw the mom, her life isn't really worth it in your humble opinion, but that baby did nothing to deserve its fate--unless you think Original Sin is enough to warrant HIV. What about the 12-, 13-, 14-year-old *virgins* that are being raped in Africa because the men there are told that sleeping with a virgin will cure them? Is it their fault that they were raped? What about people that *do* use protection, but the condom broke? As for HIV infections in "moral" countries of the Middle East, I'm not sure you are really aware of any statistics. And I would not consider any country that makes a woman a man's property "morally strong". The MENA (Middle East & North Africa) region has been facing rising HIV infections: 67,000 new infections, 57,000 deaths, half million total infections. Sudan is the worst, with 66% of woman unaware that condoms exist. (BBC report) So education there is working?
Also, sodomy is not the only means of transmission, so it appears to me that you are targeting a *particular* demographic. I'm not really sure what you mean by "innocent" people, because I wasn't aware that sex is a crime. Sure, promiscuity and unprotected sex is irresponsible, but I wouldn't say it should be a life sentence. People who don't wear seatbelts take a risk, but I would never say they *deserve* to be thrown through their windshield, and therefore we shouldn't have airbags as a second line-of-defense. I mean, syphilis has a cure, but we should stop making treatment available because those persons are irresponsible. Let them suffer from cardiovascular, spinal, cervical, and countless other problems that result from prolonged syphilis exposure.
Yes, money is going to be made by pharmaceutical companies. What you don’t understand is that most government money is spent on treatments, not finding a cure. So, if we find a cure, then we won’t have to spend the billions of dollars a year to send drugs that cost thousands of dollars per year per person. So, in your humble opinion, yes, let them suffer for their mistakes. I, on the otherhand, will be “morally strong” in saying that we should help all human life, regardless of who they are or what they did. If you want to take the religious route, even Jesus helped prostitutes. Otherwise, how about some basic human compassion. - NumbCore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2100% Agreed. The have tons that have been testing. Like I was on video bomb the other day and found this...
http://videobomb.com/posts/show/1931
Apparently that company has some kind of medication. - chiller2002, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ chicken101
Considering there are less than 50 people getting the vaccine, I imagine that they will be extra careful about making sure the strain isn't the active HIV. Plus, we have advanced quite a bit since the 50's. In addition, it was my understanding that the Salk vaccine inferior because although it protected the vaccinated person, that person could still be a carrier. So people in the same family that hadn't completed the vaccination would be infected before they were fully inoculated. It was Sabin's vaccine that was still alive-but-weakened, and his is accredited with eradicating the Polio virus. Also, the method of producing this vaccine is drastically different than the one used in the 50's. They use HIV DNA fragments (never a weakened or dead strain) to help the body build immunity. - kaniz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4HIV is an epidemic which affects far more people than homosexuals and people leading promiscuous life styles.
a. In South Africa, where contraceptives are not as common place, HIV is a HUGE issue. Lack of education on safer sex, rape, lack of availability of condoms, etc leads to HIV being a big problem there, and one that affects far more than homosexuals and IV drug users.
b. HIV is not just a ‘homosexual’ disease anymore, and it is more than a lifestyle choice. I know someone who is HIV+, heterosexual, was never promiscuous, and got it in a ‘monogamous’ relationship. Sadly, their partner decided to run off and cheat on them and bought something back to bed. Innocent victim of HIV – and I am sure that there are MANY more people out there who have gotten it in similar ways.
c. This is very important for people who work as paramedics/etc – their job of saving lives puts them in direct risk of contacting HIV from people. If they show up at a bloody car-crash scene – yes, there are steps they can take to help minimize the risk of getting HIV, but it is still a possibility. This also applies for doctors/etc where they are put in direct contact with other peoples bodily fluids
d. Nothing is 100% safe – even if practicing safer sex, accidents do happen
e. There are some sick people out there who will purposefully try and infect other people with HIV. They will lie about using a condom, take it off mid intercourse, etc – again, innocent victims.
f. What about relationships where one person is HIV+ and the other person is HIV-? Should peoples ‘love’ for another be limited by the diseases that the other person has? What if you met someone that you 100% were head over heels in love with – wanted to spend the rest of your life with them, were your soul mate, your ‘one in a million’ – would you cut this person off because they were HIV+? Vaccinations could make relationships like this much safer. I know a gay couple that have been together for years, one of them is HIV+, the other is HIV-, the neg one gets tested a few times a year, and so far – continues to remain HIV-, a vaccination could help make this relationship far less risky for them.
I could go on, and on, and on, but there are dozens of reasons why HIV research is important. Saying it shouldn’t be bothered with simply because ‘it’s a lifestyle choice’ is an ignorant thing to say. - dahat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@chicken101
And a mistake could still be made even after it goes into production, not to mention the overall risks associated with any kind of vaccine, or have you forgotten about the possibility of death from say the smallpox vaccine?
Like any such thing one needs to weigh the cost of becoming ill from the actual disease vs from the vaccine and choose which is a more acceptable risk.
I'd wager that your chances of becoming infected by HIV is far more from the actual than it is from the vaccine. At least in the lab there are more safety procedures in place other than your partner telling you they are clean or just not being able to find a clean needle when splitting the drugs you just scored. - shinigami2057, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No they won't. They should only have to receive inactivated virus or portions of the virus to see if they get a good enough secondary immune response. No one would willingly subject themselves to infection by HIV in a lab.
- gp120, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@toad3K
They test the vaccine by drawing blood and looking for the generation of both an antiboidy response and for specific CD8+ T cells that will attack HIV infected cells. It is all tested in the laboratory in a dish. - geekchic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3AIDS is not a disease though - it is a definition of a state that a person ends up in after prolonged exposure to HIV. It's a bit like saying "being bald" is a disease, when is it just a definition for a person with no hair on their head. If this is a vaccine against HIV, then it should prevent a person contracting HIV. If it prevents HIV distroying the human immune system to the degree that a person picks up sufficient other illnesses to be classed as an AIDS sufferer - then it is doing the same job as the existing HIV medication, just in a different and very interesting way.
- kublerross, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2sorry but this is a vaccine, use pre or post exposure doesnt change the method of action.
Vaccine - any preparation intended for active immunological prophylaxis; e.g., preparations of killed microbes of virulent strains or living microbes of attenuated (variant or mutant) strains, or microbial, fungal, plant, protozoal, or metazoan derivatives or products.
Prophylaxis - prevention of disease or of a process that can lead to disease.
This vaccine causes your immune system to actively prepare to respond to the HIV virus so that it will be able to prevent AIDS (the disease) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Or don't get it to Africa, and let them all die while we immunize rich white people.
I'm just saying. It's probably what will happen. - toad3k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Ok, so the vaccine itself is not dangerous, but how do they expect to test whether it is working or not? Vaccinate 500 people and follow them testing for infections? Or inject them with HIV? They have to test it somehow.
- shawnz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I once saw a neat analogy to the way vaccines work for those that don't understand completely. Viruses are balls, and on the outside there are different patterns and shapes. Our body only sees the 'outside' of viruses, and that's how it knows how to fight them. However, the meat and potatoes are on the inside, which has all the virus needs to do damage. A vaccine is just a virus that's been hollowed out. Your body sees it the same, but it does nothing to your system.
- Negyxo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Which is fine! As long as everyone gets the vaccine is dosent matter if you have HIV or not.
- generator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Been almost 2 years since this was posted, any updates on the vaccine?
http://www.HIV-Testing.org - GET TESTED!
http://www.HIVforum.com - AIDS FORUMS
http://www.AIDSchat.org - HIV CHAT SUPPORT :) - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A Vaccine is fine. But, what about a cure? Are we just going to write off those who are already sick?
- MrColdheart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1just imagine.. the vaccine has part of the HIV virus in it..
that makes me wonder do I want to take it.. considering 1 out of 10,000 people get the flu from taking the flu vaccine!! - GiggleStick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We've had to do that before, many times. Sometimes, it's the best you can do. I don't think a single virus has been cured, the best we've ever been able to do it get the immune system to do it, with vaccines, usually only if applied before infection. We're not as powerful as we might like to think.
- geekchic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3A paragraph in that article refers to the "vaccine" preventing a HIV+ person developing AIDS. That is not a vaccine in the classic sense - but just another medication for HIV+ people to take to control the HIV infection. Interesting and useful, but not a vaccine.
- NumbCore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Another day, another cure. News sites are always promising a new vaccine or cure, but nothing is actually available to the public yet. Once something is actually out there, that people can use, then I will digg.
- BrunoTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I propose that this article's title be changed to:
"Top 10 Media-Buzz Science Topics" - Eddible, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2In all fairness though, despite anything else, it's still a step in the right direction. And @ frem001 - what the HELL is wrong with you? People dying of diseases such as this is not something to joke about, idiot.
- BrunoTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry! I commented to the wrong article... yikes
- GojiraDeMonstah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2phlogiston theory, anyone?
http://www.virusmyth.org - Irishcreamyo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I still stand by the statement that it is not made by the CDC. It appears to be made by GeoVax. I've actually attended a lecture of hers and seen one of her postdocs give a talk. It seems to me that they have come up with the idea for the vaccine and have done most of the in vitro and animal testing on site at Yerkes. I imagine that the NIH/CDC are involved for human trials and to add some credibility (as well as to possibly keep the vaccine out of the hands of big pharma). Anyone know how much of a role the CDC has in the development of this?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@dfick, so were the others.
This story will fall off the face of the planet after today and you'll never hear another word of it again, I promise. - phoenixp3k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I read there as been many trials before. Let's not jump on our horses yet. I'd advise everyone to remain cautious and wait until that vaccine is administered at kindergarden.
- esaks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I thought they was some vaccine or cure developed in japan last year in which they were conducting testing.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050706-05305900-bc-japan-newdrug.xml - IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The Emory program for research in microbiology is under the auspices of the CDC.
People should NOT digg comments unless they know the truth.
"In January of 2003, the Emory/NIAID/CDC HIV/AIDS vaccine entered clinical trials in humans through the HIV Vaccine Trials Network." from this link on the researcher's webpage
http://www.vaccines.emory.edu/scientists/robinson.shtml - NumbCore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Why yell at him? Just give him a -1 digg.
- IQ70, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4It's being made by the CDC. It will all depend on a lot of politics between the African nations, the UN and the US.
Hope humanity survives itself. - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4People are crazy. Getting willingly injected with HIV. Now of course, it is fragments of the DNA, but when they create the vaccine there could be a bad batch. Same thing with the Salk (or maybe it was Saben) vaccines- a few hundred people got polio from it.
No way in hell would I take this- atleast for now. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3whats freaky is that they will have to get real HIV to test it later
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Again I have to say:
Frankly any HIV research just seems like a waste of time IMO.
AIDs is not a disease as much as it is a lifestyle choice. If you don't want AIDS, don't have unprotected sex and don't commit sodomy. I dont't understand why I'm suppose to be subsidizing solutions for irresponsible people. It's not like AIDS isn't a well known consequence of immoral actions.
I would much rather divert all the funding for AIDs research into cures that innocent people get. Think cancer, Alzheimers, non-embryonic stem cell research etc. You know, treatments that would benefit everybody equally, not just certain communities.
In cultures with strong morals againt reckless sex like the middle east nobody has AIDs except for a handful of IV drug users. So we can see that education is nearly 100% effective in preventing AIDs. It is the best cure and it's a lot cheaper too.
That's what places like Africa and India need, education. If we vaccinate them against AIDs it won't teach them anything. They will just continue their unhealthy lifestyles and evnetually a new STD will eventually emerge and we'll be right back at square one. And against finding a cure will be our burden.
The companies only look for an AIDS cure because there is so much money to be made in a cure or treatment.
As usual western tax payers would end up paying through the UN for every third world citizen to get vaccinated. What a great guaranteed source of income for the pharmaceuticals. - frem001, on 10/12/2007, -14/+11don't send it to south africa, apparently the government has found a cure to HIV: Take a shower and eat healthy food.
silly rabbits. -
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is