HIV Vaccination on the horizon?

[Rayne]

I saw this article today from RT, and I thought I'd share it with everyone. I think it's good to note that scientists are working on an approach to ending the virus entirely, but I do wonder what kind of attention this article would bring here. You have a combination of those living with HIV, I believe a few with AIDS, a fair amount of chasers, those who are indifferent, and pretty much all of the ones in between on this forum, so I wonder what the take is on a personal level. Will it change your view of the bug, the people, or bareback sex in general? Any particular reason?

I honestly don't expect this vaccine to be 100% effective, and available, by 2016 (as estimated), but I also cannot deny the fact that our technological advancements have been growing too fast for the public to really comprehend in their daily life. I think this could be easily obtainable by 2020, but that's a very uneducated guess.

What is everyone else's take on this?

Free, hi-tech HIV vaccine coming soon

[bearbandit]

If I had a pound for every "this one's really going to work - we know what we're doing now" article I've read over the past thirty odd years, I'd be writing this from a villa I own in Gran Canaria instead of a rented house in South Wales.

[wood]

If I had a pound for every "this one's really going to work - we know what we're doing now" article I've read over the past thirty odd years, I'd be writing this from a villa I own in Gran Canaria instead of a rented house in South Wales.

Pretty much. Billions of dollars have been spent on HIV research over the past 30 years, and we are still at the treatment phase. I would *love* to see a vaccine, but I don't know how realistic it is. Also from what I can gather about what they are trying to do, They are trying to recreate the natural immunity that a small group has. I get that, however even those people are not immune from HIV, it is just MUCH harder for them to acquire it. A real vaccine is 99-100% effective in preventing infection, even with large amounts of exposure.

The best that we have seen so far is roughly 60% effective, and its effectiveness declines quickly with time, so after a year its useless.

In the May 2012 issue of The Lancet Infectious Diseases, MHRP researchersreported that vaccine efficacy seemed to peak early—cumulative vaccine efficacy was estimated to be 60.5% (95% CI 22–80)—through the 12 months after initial vaccination, after which it declined quickly. This early, high protective immune response suggests an additional boost or other augmentation of immune response would improve efficacy.

http://www.hivresearch.org/research.php?ServiceID=13

Dont get me wrong I welcome all efforts to end the epidemic and hope at some point we really see something come to fruition. IMO I think that will happen within 10 years. With gene therapy and the continued research into how HIV functions on a cellular level I think that there is a real shot at a cure or vaccine, but its still going to take time, and I have severe doubts it can come from a group with crowd sourced funding, even if they are at top schools. The trials alone for vaccines take years and millions of dollars.

Also, before anyone bring up the "big pharma will never do it" argument, thats false. Big pharma makes (relatively) little off HIV medication, and what they do make is usually at inflated costs from US programs. With the US, and the rest of the world demanding cheaper and more socialized medicine, the writing is on the wall that extreme drug costs relative to other nations will not last forever. HIV is one of those things that Big pharma would LOVE to rid the world of. Yes there would be a short term profit loss, but they could refocus research on more profitable drugs, and there would also be the amazing publicity that they all somehow had a hand in ending AIDS.

[BiAggieGuy]

Sooner or later someone is going to figure out a vaccine and/or cure for the virus, but it could be tomorrow or 20 years from now. When it comes, watch it be something so obvious and simple that everyone overlooked it.

[Rayne]

If I had a pound for every "this one's really going to work - we know what we're doing now" article I've read over the past thirty odd years, I'd be writing this from a villa I own in Gran Canaria instead of a rented house in South Wales.

That was my first impression on the article as well. I don't think this will be the "one" that works, but the method is what intrigued me the most.

Also from what I can gather about what they are trying to do, They are trying to recreate the natural immunity that a small group has. I get that, however even those people are not immune from HIV, it is just MUCH harder for them to acquire it. A real vaccine is 99-100% effective in preventing infection, even with large amounts of exposure.

This is what made me think it could be effective, but also may be a bit too hopeful for success. I do know a person who's been used for the testing of a HIV vaccine (I believe it was this one), and he is basically one of the people who have a strong enough immune system to not catch it easily; but I'm curious as to how effective this particular method is going to be. I think we have the medical advancements to potentially make this work, but I don't think anyone really knows how to put all the pieces together yet. I think they need to step further back, because it seems like they're trying to fight a virus, instead of reverse engineer the virus entirely; but I could very well be wrong.

As far as the big pharma vs. the man argumenet- welcome to the land of conspiracy theories! Sick and dying people do make more money for them than any healthy person, but it also depends on how the money is made. I think healthcare shouldn't be an industry that makes any profit, because it prevents pharmaceutical companies from putting drugs out prematurely, in the name of profit; but that's a different topic itself.

[totalasspig]

As we all know HIV works different in each person. I praise all the work that people are doing. Hopefully this will be the vaccine that does work !!

[VersatileBreeder]

There is actually a study going on in Finland. A Finnish company called FIT BioTech group is working in conjunction with top American and European pharmaceutical companies and they developed a vaccine to begin testing next year in humans. Not to get too scientific, but the vaccine works by transporting immunized genes into the body that will replicate and build a permanent barrier against HIV. In HIV+ patients, this could either stop the progression of the virus, basically making it an indefinitely dormant non-progressing virus OR at best, can eliminate the virus completely. In HIV- patients, this will be a vaccine giving immunization against the virus. I know it all sounds a little bit out there, but it's been 30 years now, billions of dollars spent in research. Treatments have been getting better and better, a vaccine has got to be close.

[wood]

There is actually a study going on in Finland. A Finnish company called FIT BioTech group is working in conjunction with top American and European pharmaceutical companies and they developed a vaccine to begin testing next year in humans. Not to get too scientific, but the vaccine works by transporting immunized genes into the body that will replicate and build a permanent barrier against HIV. In HIV+ patients, this could either stop the progression of the virus, basically making it an indefinitely dormant non-progressing virus OR at best, can eliminate the virus completely. In HIV- patients, this will be a vaccine giving immunization against the virus. I know it all sounds a little bit out there, but it's been 30 years now, billions of dollars spent in research. Treatments have been getting better and better, a vaccine has got to be close.

Dont get me wrong, I have hope, but I still think its a ways off. However, There is one thing that I think makes it promising. In the past 30 years, there has been a hue technology revolution, and that hasn't been just in smartphones and computers. Medicine has also hugely benefited from those increases in technology. Personally I wouldn't be shocked if we saw a cure or vaccine in 10 years, but I also dont expect it. HIV is just a bitch to get rid of in certain parts of the body. Also Gene therapy, and the like is VERY new, and it has to be proven safe before it can be used, especially in an environment where HIV is highly treatable, and things like PrEP exist. Introducing a rouge gene based vaccine that may have huge issues 5 or 10 years down the line would be catastrophic. Much like earlier more simple vaccine an HIV vaccine would most likely be widely used, and if it causes things like cancers or other health issues or death years later, much of the world could be affected.

[Rayne]

There is actually a study going on in Finland. A Finnish company called FIT BioTech group is working in conjunction with top American and European pharmaceutical companies and they developed a vaccine to begin testing next year in humans. Not to get too scientific, but the vaccine works by transporting immunized genes into the body that will replicate and build a permanent barrier against HIV. In HIV+ patients, this could either stop the progression of the virus, basically making it an indefinitely dormant non-progressing virus OR at best, can eliminate the virus completely. In HIV- patients, this will be a vaccine giving immunization against the virus. I know it all sounds a little bit out there, but it's been 30 years now, billions of dollars spent in research. Treatments have been getting better and better, a vaccine has got to be close.

I like it

Dont get me wrong, I have hope, but I still think its a ways off. However, There is one thing that I think makes it promising. In the past 30 years, there has been a hue technology revolution, and that hasn't been just in smartphones and computers. Medicine has also hugely benefited from those increases in technology. Personally I wouldn't be shocked if we saw a cure or vaccine in 10 years, but I also dont expect it. HIV is just a bitch to get rid of in certain parts of the body. Also Gene therapy, and the like is VERY new, and it has to be proven safe before it can be used, especially in an environment where HIV is highly treatable, and things like PrEP exist. Introducing a rouge gene based vaccine that may have huge issues 5 or 10 years down the line would be catastrophic. Much like earlier more simple vaccine an HIV vaccine would most likely be widely used, and if it causes things like cancers or other health issues or death years later, much of the world could be affected.

Agreed. Even though we have had a huge progression in the technological aspect, I'm mostly sceptical because of the potential drawbacks that may occur. Many drugs that show great promise in the beginning turn out to be poisonous. I'm all for taking our time with this "cure", as the risk of ruining more lives from insufficient testing is not worth taking. If this was something that, right now, was killing people within months of contracting it, I'd advocate a little bit of a rush for those who are willing to risk their lives for a better life (hey, if you only have a month, and the drugs give you two, it's still better). But since we currently have the equivalent life expectancy to those without the virus, and it's very manageable when treated properly with our current drugs, rushing is no longer worth the risk.

I just fear new drugs will be rushed, because the healthcare industry is filled with those greedy bastards. Hopefully, they prove me wrong, though.

[bearbandit]

I just fear new drugs will be rushed, because the healthcare industry is filled with those greedy bastards. Hopefully, they prove me wrong, though.

It's extremely rare for a drug to be fast tracked these days: we learned that lesson from AZT, ddI, and the early protease inhibitors. We'll never know the true death toll from AZT (I took it and survived, it killed the partner of one of my closest friends) because HIV itself could have been the cause of the same problems - anaemia was the principle problem, but it also had horrendous side effects like crippling headache, vomiting, and peripheral neuropathy. ddI was similar but with pancreatitis thrown into the mix. The early protease inhibitors, we now know, were prescribed in massive overdose and almost instantly caused metabolic problems. The problem was that we had very few choices of drug and anything that could up going until the next, hopefully better, one, we took. Not to take them was a means of suicide.

The situation is different now: if one combination doesn't suit, for all but the most drug experienced, there's going to be an alternative. Basically we're the only ones on sub-optimal therapy these days, but even that can work: I have about 500 CD4s at 26% and a viral load of zero, largely thanks to raltegravir. It seems that the integrase inhibitors are better than any other class of drug at getting into the places where HIV hides.

Sorry to go on: I know it's a hobby horse of mine, but more information than you need is better than not enough. We've got to the point where successful ARV treatment can leave you incapable of passing it on. Combine that with PrEP and the biggest problems are other STIs. We can afford to wait while projects like genetic therapy are developed. Ok, taking pill(s) every day isn't ideal, but whether you're dodging HIV or keeping it under control, that's a great incentive to take the damn pills.

[Deepanalnut]

I'm an elite controller and have 4 genetic "defects" or mutations that help me keep the virus under control w/o the use of pills. There is a ton of research in that field and I'm part of a study through the University of Colorado Health Sciences to better understand specifically the altered hemoglobin proteins that allow me to keep my HIV not only under control but otherwise completely suppressed. In the years since my infection, I've even had 2 tests come back as HIV- despite the string of tests that say otherwise. If they are to create a legitimate cure or vaccine, it'll like come via genetics as a leading outlet that gets turned into a non-genetic offering once they understand the mechanisms that give folks like me the ability to control the virus.

My initial infection (which was from vaginal sex w/ an infected stripper while in Montreal) had my VL at 15k but over that first year it went down dramatically w/o med and other than a single blip two years ago when my VL was at 140, I've been UD since 8 months post-infection. However these studies need more controllers, both elite and regular, to build a better sample size and understanding at how we do what we do. And it is 100% genetics, no question about it but not all elite controllers have the hemoglobin proteins that I do and others do have the CCR5 receptors yet still keep the virus well in check. Sadly, many people classified as a controller are really LTNPs (long term non-progressives ) until the latent reservoirs literally explode and they go downhill fast.

Anyways, if we want a legitimate cure, I would suspect it's coming from this crowd and the work being done there. Even a vaccine that has to be renewed every few years (much like tetanus or the yearly flu) would be better than nothing.

[bearbandit]

You're right, Deepanalnut... I'm glad you're taking part in research. I'm not even a long term non progressor, "just" a long term survivor, but I've often thought that there's got to be something about my system that's allowed me to take medication since 1989 (I don't personally know anyone still alive who started earlier than me), and get through despite all the hits I've taken from the meds. My CD4 nadir is 80 - it was there for over a year until protease inhibitors came along and I started putting on CD4 cells twice as fast as the next nearest at the clinic. My diet tends to wholefoods by preference, but I used to smoke heavily, both cigarettes and cigars, and I drink more than the guidelines recommend. Even when tenofovir and atazanavir ganged up on me wrecking my kidneys and doing yet more liver damage respectively, my HIV numbers remained consistently good. By all common sense I should have been dead years ago: why not (I'm not complaining!)? If there were a study looking into long term survivors, I'd gladly be taking part in it, but no such creature...