9 ms·
HIV vaccine trial starts at Oxford
- banach 5y agoThis is just such good news!
- globuous 5y agoHoe it works out! But I’m not sure I understand how it works, so 13 hiv negative people not considered at risk of HIV are getting injected, how will they know if the vaccine works ? Wouldn’t you rather take two groups of people exposed to HIV, vaccinate one and compare the rate of infection of both ? And also, I had no idea male circumcision contributed to reducing the infection rate during unprotected sex, how is that, is it because there’s less friction somehow and therefore less chances of blood exchanging between partners ?
- jagger27 5y agoThis is most likely a Phase I human trial which only establishes the safety of the drug (or vaccine), which is why it is such a small group. Phases II and III establish the efficacy.
- maayank 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV#Mechanism_of_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV#Mechanism...
- BitwiseFool 5y ago>"While the biological mechanism of action is not known". Keep this in mind, and anyone reading HN should know that circumcision is quite possibly the least effective way to reduce HIV transmission. Circumcision has always been peddled as some disease reducing measure. Don't accept that on face value and research the subject. Especially Non-American sources.
- maayank 5y ago> Keep this in mind, and anyone reading HN should know that circumcision is quite possibly the least effective way to reduce HIV transmission Not knowing why it works != it doesn’t work
- notRobot 5y agoYou're supposed to clean under the foreskin and regularly wash male genitalia, unlike vaginas - which are self-cleaning and should never be soaped or washed. Many men in less-developed places such as poorer countries in Africa aren't taught that. The studies that show STD rates being lowered with circumcision almost all take place in places like those, where along with poor genital hygiene, contraception (such as condoms) are used much less frequently and proper sex ed is almost never taught. The reality is that the rates of STD transmission aren't higher for uncircumcised penises as long as proper genital hygiene is maintained.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- willnz 5y agoBut why would human male genitalia be so different from other male animals in the regard? I'm pretty sure soapy water isn't part of the cleaning regime other animals have...
- admax88q 5y agoAre you sure it's different? Or do we just have a much lower tolerance for spreading disease than most animals.
- _Microft 5y agoProper care for animals increases their life expectancy a lot as well. The difference in life expectancy between (domestic) cats being cared for by humans and living in the wild is huge: 15-20 years vs. 1.5-4.2 years. German source, because English WP lacks this information - just use a translation tool of your choice: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauskatze#Lebenserwartung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauskatze#Lebenserwartung
- nomel 5y agoYet cats are self cleaning in both cases, with the SPCA saying that cats should not usually be bathed [1]. This longevity is most likely related to diet, and not being eaten by predators. [1] https://www.ccspca.com/blog-spca/education/bathing-a-cat/ https://www.ccspca.com/blog-spca/education/bathing-a-cat/
- normalasnorfolk 5y agoFrom what I've read, and heard from friends in Kenya (where circumcision is a prevalent tradition and the area has a high infection rate), is that circumcision reduces the infection rate because it hardens the skin of the penis - meaning less abrasions and cuts, meaning less blood mixing/contamination.
- chownie 5y agoThat and some studies have made the error of including recently circumcised men in their circumcised group, which drops their rate of infection drastically because they don't engage in sexual activity during the recovery period of their operation.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago>"because it hardens the skin of the penis" It's amazing that pro-circumcision doctors and studies conclude this simple fact has no impact on function or sensation at all.
- Traubenfuchs 5y agoThirteen adults? It‘s actually incredibly unlikely to get HIV, how does this study have any worth? Wouldn‘t it need thousands of participants?
- tootie 5y agoSafety test. They can also test for antibody response.
- markus92 5y agoPhase 1 trial, just to see if they are fine and if there’s any major safety signals or not.
- anitil 5y agoI can imagine the ethical approval for this would be difficult, because I think people would be more likely to engage in unsafe sex if they're in the trial. So participating could expose them to more risk than they would otherwise be exposed to. Do you know how they work around this?
- Ballas 5y agoI don't know the answer to your question, but the trials would still be double blind, right? Knowing that I might have been vaccinated would certainly not affect my decision process.
- e7dyxhwhe 5y agoParticipating wouldn't be what exposed them to higher risk in the situation you've outlined. This is the sort of strategic wordplay I'd expect from the social sciences.
- anitil 5y agoI think it's a legitimate, if small, concern. There's a possibility that people participating would be more likely to take a roll of the dice. Yes it's stupid, but people do stupid things all the time, particularly when it comes to sex. Obviously I'm all for the research, I'm just interested to hear if/how they handle it.
- roydivision 5y agoDumb question - what does ‘novel’ mean in relation to a vaccine? Is it just ‘new’? I don’t remember seeing the word used like that in other contexts.
- echelon 5y agoBiologists love to use the word "novel". It's littered throughout their literature. As an adjective, it's applied to new approaches, new discoveries, previously uncharacterized behaviors, etc. eg. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=novel+gene https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=novel+gene , https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=novel+approach https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=novel+approach , etc. When you think about it, publication is itself about presenting novel results. That's the goal, for better or worse.
- vngzs 5y agoNot just "new," but also interesting. An approach must be both new and interesting to be novel.
- verelo 5y agoI guess this applies but I keep seeing reference to the "novel coronavirus". It is new and interesting?! But i mean...feels like the point the parent is making is more correct than the virus is novel, biologists just love this word as it doesn't seem necessary here.
- dgudkov 5y agoA headline that would've been absolutely unthinkable 10 or 20 years ago. We live in the future.
- est31 5y agoNot really. HIV vaccine candidates as well as trials for them have existed for decades. One of the earlier ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDSVAX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDSVAX The issue is just that the trials have all failed. Since the earliest vaccines, a lot has been learned about HIV and its interactions with humans, which allows advanced approaches like this one, targeting parts of the virus that we know are highly conserved.
- uniqueid 5y agoI've been hearing about upcoming cures to horrible diseases two or three times a month for several decades and the number that pan out is a rounding error. The only noteworthy development I can think of over the past decade is a 'cure' for peanut allergies (and when I looked into it closer, it turns out it's not even a complete cure). There's apparently neither any incentive nor stomach for humanity to be realistic about how much progress we really make, which, though considerable, is not breathtaking.