Prostitutes doing it for all

[A.Hidalgo]

The vaccine MAY hopefully be effective... but again, what about those who think they MAY have the vaccine (an free ticket) and actually just got the placebo... the whole placebo thing is the pervert ingredient... they want to see how vaccine does compared to the ones who act similarly but do not have a chance... in other words D I E and contaminate a bunch of others before.
What I am trying to say, is that unless they receive the vaccine/placebos unbeknownst to them (they wouldn't know they are part of that test), their attitude and behavior will change. In other words their risk taking predisposition may become higher... which will make those who have the placebo more likely to contract the virus then those who are not participating in the "study".
One question I have also not yet found a clear answer to is, assuming the vaccine works (for the individual with it)... dose it prevent passing the disease on to others?

... J-D.

For any scientific trial to be truly effective the application of a double blind test is the most accurate and unbiased method. The use of a placebo is a must.

I'm no scientist but if a vaccine were to cure the disease what is there to pass to others.

 

[Uzin]

- I think the girls who take part in such experiment are usually quite aware of HIV (and probably worried about it, that's why they come forward) and generally will be using more protected sex than your average puta, hence skewed results (as mentioned before the percentage differences between two groups must be significant, it will be too little to call, hence another waste of 3/4 years).

- Say they have a vaccine for HIV, do you give it to your 1yo baby, or is it at 5 to start or 10,15..... . It would be such a taboo most people will avoid it (my child is not gone need that ! ), hell Vatican will ban it to start with (a vaccine to promote promiscuity ! ). Why don't they look for a cure, isn't it much easier to test and develop than a vaccine !? (But a vaccine for the whole world population is far more lucrative than cure for a few million HIV+ !!!)

- The competition argument about drug companies and comparison with Microsoft doesn't hold. No other company has what MS has, so obviously they are all trying to beat it. Try another example, oil companies. They all have oil (now that is like drug companies, they all have drugs for HIV, expensive and profitable ones), but tell them to come up with an unlimited, cheap source of energy to replace oil ! None of them will put serious money into that (and don't be fooled by mickey mouse projects Shell and BP are setting up for renewable energy and so on - nice show). Bottom line is that independent government backed universities/academics should do the HIV research not drug companies.

 

[A.Hidalgo]

- I think the girls who take part in such experiment are usually quite aware of HIV (and probably worried about it, that's why they come forward) and generally will be using more protected sex than your average puta, hence skewed results (as mentioned before the percentage differences between two groups must be significant, it will be too little to call, hence another waste of 3/4 years).

- Say they have a vaccine for HIV, do you give it to your 1yo baby, or is it at 5 to start or 10,15..... . It would be such a taboo most people will avoid it (my child is not gone need that ! ), hell Vatican will ban it to start with (a vaccine to promote promiscuity ! ). Why don't they look for a cure, isn't it much easier to test and develop than a vaccine !? (But a vaccine for the whole world population is far more lucrative than cure for a few million HIV+ !!!)

- The competition argument about drug companies and comparison with Microsoft doesn't hold. No other company has what MS has, so obviously they are all trying to beat it. Try another example, oil companies. They all have oil (now that is like drug companies, they all have drugs for HIV, expensive and profitable ones), but tell them to come up with an unlimited, cheap source of energy to replace oil ! None of them will put serious money into that (and don't be fooled by mickey mouse projects Shell and BP are setting up for renewable energy and so on - nice show). Bottom line is that independent government backed universities/academics should do the HIV research not drug companies.

Vatican ban, are you joking. Many trials are funded by government agencies already: National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAD), US National Institutes Of Health (NIH), US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

I don't get it why it's so hard to follow the links previously given to get info on all of this and better educated ourselves.

 

[vince1956]

same problem with the indian,s ha ha

You're confused. I'm still wondering how guinea pigs put on condoms....what with those tiny little claws and all..

http://www.dominicantoday.com/app/article.aspx?id=20375

 

[J D Sauser]

In general a vaccine is not a cure, it's a prevention.

For any scientific trial to be truly effective the application of a double blind test is the most accurate and unbiased method. The use of a placebo is a must.

I'm no scientist but if a vaccine were to cure the disease what is there to pass to others.

a) The one with the real vaccine: As far as I understand, a vaccine is not a cure. It is intended to heighten ones defenses against developing the disease. As you may know, the HIV virus can sit dormant in a body without triggering the disease.
Is the vaccine going to help the body to "take care of the at first inoffensive appearing virus immediately?
Neither being a scientist, I question if the dormant virus could still be transmitted by somebody who caries it but may not be affected by it because of the vaccine (?). In other words, does the vaccine just prevent the outbreak of AIDS or kill the virus immediately upon infection?

b) The one(s) with the placebo: They have NO protection. The question remains, if their education will be clear enough so that they will not be fooled into believing that they are lucky and have protection ("I must be the one with the real vaccine, I have protection... yeeehaw"..., as I said before, you know how bright some of these working girls are), and ALL start acting like they can not be affected by HIV anymore.

It seems clear that, if there really was a vaccine, we'd eventually have to start trying it... and trying is just what it says...try if it works or not. Maybe we have to accept this in order to save lives in the future we have to accept to the fact that some lives may be put at risk or even...
But I am always especially suspicious when such "generous" testing offers are mainly concentrated in developing countries.

... J-D.

 

[Mirador]

....But I am always especially suspicious when such "generous" testing offers are mainly concentrated in developing countries. ... J-D.

Nothing healthier than a good dosis of suspicion... What about the new papiloma virus vaccine which the state of Texas (and another 18 states) has declared mandatory for all young female children, after the governor was 'lobbied' ($$$) by Merck (the patent holder), and which costs US$360 per patient? I'm sure our own DR health authorities were 'lobbied' to authorize these HIV vaccine trials.

 

[A.Hidalgo]

I started this thread earlier this year. Just to bring you up to speed on the latest on those HIV vaccine trials.......:disappoin

Based on a review of interim data, the DSMB concluded that the vaccine cannot be shown in this trial to prevent HIV infection or affect the course of the disease in those who become infected with HIV (the vaccine itself cannot cause HIV infection because it contains only synthetically produced snippets of viral material). Therefore, Merck and NIAID instructed all study sites to cease administering the investigational vaccine but continue scheduled follow-up visits with all volunteers until the data can be more thoroughly evaluated and a course of action is developed.

.....the search continues.

Statement: Immunizations Are Discontinued in Two HIV Vaccine Trials