Bye AIDs

[Godfather]

A Canadian-developed vaccine to prevent HIV has been given the green light for testing in human clinical trials.

The vaccine, developed by researchers at the University of Western Ontario, has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to start being tested in humans in January.

It is the first preventive HIV vaccine approved for clinical trials to use a whole HIV-1 virus, which has been both killed and genetically engineered, to activate immunity. In this way, the new vaccine is much like the killed whole virus vaccines that are successful against polio, rabies and influenza.

Other HIV vaccines currently in clinical human trials have largely focused on one specific component of HIV to trigger an immune response. Right now, there is no effective HIV vaccine.

“FDA approval for human clinical trials is an extremely significant milestone for our vaccine, which has the potential to save the lives of millions of people around the world by preventing HIV infection,” said Dr. Chil-Yong Kang, professor of virology at the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of Western Ontario, in a release.

The announcement was made Tuesday morning in London.

The vaccine, the only HIV vaccine being developed in Canada, received funding from Sumagen Canada, a company created in 2008 to support the development of the vaccine.

Previous studies have shown the vaccine triggers a strong immune response and has yet to show any adverse effects or safety risks.

[Muddy]

We're gonna give you guys big props if you accomplished this...

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Amazing. Can you guys do cancer next?

[DemonGeminiX]

Awesome, dude.

:tup:

[Godfather]

On a global scale this is great. Just being selfish though, I've got a girlfriend in med school, always helping homeless organizations and places like that. They say that generally, every doctor will get poked at some point. Just one of the things that makes me worry.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

:canada:

[deebakes]

too bad hiv doesn't cause aids :sad2:

[Deepsepia]

On a global scale this is great. Just being selfish though, I've got a girlfriend in med school, always helping homeless organizations and places like that. They say that generally, every doctor will get poked at some point. Just one of the things that makes me worry.

Odds of getting HIV from a jab are very close to nil. Less than a dozen cases, if memory serves . . . if you do get stuck, you get a short protocol of anti-retrovirals, to date no one who's done that protocol has gotten sick.

Hepatitis is a much bigger risk for docs and nurses.

With HIV, a vaccine that worked even "OK" would be great. To eradicate the disease, you don't have to be %100 successful-- you just have to ensure that each infected person infects less than one other person . . . over time, the disease would disappear

[Godfather]

Very true on all counts.

HEP-C scares me too :lol: As does meningitis and all sorts of shit she might pick up. The anti-virals are very impressive. With the right drugs and starting early enough, they can also now almost ensure that a pregnant mother doesn't pass HIV along to their fetus :shock: That simply baffles me, seeing as how the thing is basically crafted out of your cells. Love to know how that works.

[Hal-9000]

Amazing. Can you guys do cancer next?

At the University of Calgary (I can see it out the back door here) they've isolated 22 varieties of cancer and a way to combat them.This was 2 or 3 years ago and they were doing the old grow an ear on the mouse's back experiments.

Not sure where they're at now but us Canucks have made some important strides in the cancer world, now in the HIV world :thumbsup:

[Muddy]

too bad hiv doesn't cause aids :sad2:

Can you explain?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

At the University of Calgary (I can see it out the back door here) they've isolated 22 varieties of cancer and a way to combat them.This was 2 or 3 years ago and they were doing the old grow an ear on the mouse's back experiments.

Not sure where they're at now but us Canucks have made some important strides in the cancer world, now in the HIV world :thumbsup:

:beatdown:

You aren't supposed to try and cure diseases, you are supposed to make them deadlier [-(

[Hal-9000]

:beatdown:

You aren't supposed to try and cure diseases, you are supposed to make them deadlier [-(

and pack them up into missiles and shoot them down south??


I'm on it :thumbsup:

[Hugh_Janus]

On a global scale this is great. Just being selfish though, I've got a girlfriend in med school, always helping homeless organizations and places like that. They say that generally, every doctor will get poked at some point. Just one of the things that makes me worry.
A guy I used to work with got poked with a needle at work and he's a mechanic... he was shitting himself for months and didn't like his new nickname either :lol:

:beatdown:

You aren't supposed to try and cure diseases, you are supposed to make them deadlier [-(

I do believe that's your lot's job :slap:

[Hugh_Janus]

also, who the fuck put that av pic there? god dammit :x

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Bwhahaha. Its classy. But it couldn't have been me

[deebakes]

Can you explain?

Abstract

Almost two decades of unprecedented efforts in research costing US taxpayers over $50 billion have failed to defeat Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and have failed to explain the chronology and epidemiology of AIDS in America and Europe. The failure to cure AIDS is so complete that the largest American AIDS foundation is even exploiting it for fundraising: 'Latest AIDS statistics 0,000,000 cured. Support a cure, support AMFAR.' The scientific basis of all these unsuccessful efforts has been the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by a sexually transmitted virus, termed Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and that this viral immunodeficiency manifests in 30 previously known microbial and non-microbial AIDS diseases.

In order to develop a hypothesis that explains AIDS we have considered ten relevant facts that American and European AIDS patients have, and do not have, in common:
(1)
AIDS is not contagious. For example, not even one health care worker has contracted AIDS from over 800,000 AIDS patients in America and Europe.
(2) AIDS is highly non-random with regard to sex (86% male); sexual persuasion (over 60% homosexual); and age (85% are 25-49 years old).
(3) From its beginning in 1980, the AIDS epidemic progressed non-exponentially, just like lifestyle diseases.
(4) The epidemic is fragmented into distinct subepidemics with exclusive AIDS-defining diseases. For example, only homosexual males have Kaposi's sarcoma.
(5) Patients do not have any one of 30 AIDS-defining diseases, nor even immunodeficiency, in common. For example, Kaposi's sarcoma, dementia, and weight loss may occur without immunodeficiency. Thus, there is no AIDS-specific disease.
(6) AIDS patients have antibody against HIV in common only by definition-not by natural coincidence. AIDS-defining diseases of HIV-free patients are called by their old names.
(7) Recreational drug use is a common denominator for over 95% of all American and European AIDS patients, including male homosexuals.
(8) Lifetime prescriptions of inevitably toxic anti-HIV drugs, such as the DNA chain-terminator AZT, are another common denominator of AIDS patients.
(9) HIV proves to be an ideal surrogate marker for recreational and anti-HIV drug use. Since the virus is very rare (< 0.3%) in the US/European population and very hard to transmit sexually, only those who inject street drugs or, have over 1,000 typically drug-mediated sexual contacts are likely to become positive.
(10) The huge AIDS literature cannot offer even one statistically significant group of drug-free AIDS patients from America and Europe.

In view of this, we propose that the long-term consumption of recreational drugs (such as cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants, and amphetamines) and prescriptions of DNA chain-terminating and other anti-HIV drugs, cause all AIDS diseases in America and Europe that exceed their long-established, national backgrounds, i.e. >95%. Chemically distinct drugs cause distinct AIDS-defining diseases; for example, nitrite inhalants cause Kaposi's sarcoma, cocaine causes weight loss, and AZT causes immunodeficiency, lymphoma, muscle atrophy, and dementia. The drug hypothesis predicts that AIDS:
(1)
is non-contagious;
(2) is non-random, because 85% of AIDS causing drugs are used by males, particularly sexually active homosexuals between 25 and 49 years of age, and
(3) would follow the drug epidemics chronologically.

Indeed, AIDS has increased from negligible numbers in the early 1980s to about 80,000 annual cases in the early '90s and has since declined to about 50,000 cases (US figures). In the same period, recreational drug users have increased from negligible numbers to millions by the late 1980s, and have since decreased possibly twofold. However, AIDS has declined less because since 1987 increasing numbers of mostly healthy, HIV-positive people, currently about 200,000, use anti-HIV drugs that cause AIDS and other diseases. At least 64 scientific studies, government legislation, and non-scientific reports document that recreational drugs cause AIDS and other diseases. Likewise, the AIDS literature, the drug manufacturers, and non-scientific reports confirm that anti-HIV drugs cause AIDS and other diseases in humans and animals. In sum, the AIDS dilemma could be solved by banning anti-HIV drugs, and by pointing out that drugs cause AIDS –modeled on the successful anti-smoking campaign.

[Godfather]

Don't even read that 20 year old, Duesberg AID Denialism, deleting facts to come to inaccurate conclusions. The scientific community has concluded it is incorrect. Moreover, his work is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands. He's an enabler of some twister pseudo-science, and to many - a mass murderer.

[Muddy]

Don't even read that 20 year old, Duesberg AID Denialism, deleting facts to come to inaccurate conclusions. The scientific community has concluded it is incorrect. Moreover, his work is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands. He's an enabler of some twister pseudo-science, and to many - a mass murderer.

Dee?

[deebakes]

:shrug:

[deebakes]

i actually had duesberg coming after me for some of the science i have been doing... now THAT was an interesting time when he was trying to get involved in something else that he truly believed so strongly in that he wanted to wage a public war against some of our research. good times :lol:

fortunately, as GF points out, the scientific community shuns the guy and realizes he is cracked out of his skull, which worked out well for us...

[deebakes]

in looking through it, there are a number of "dissenters" about the HIV=AIDS controversy...

and what about magic johnson? :-k

[Muddy]

Science is awesome... Living the dream Bubba!

[deebakes]

at least it is almost always something different, not the same repetition of a day-to-day grind :tup:

plus, you can ask questions and go after answers, not knowing what you'll find along the way. it's nice to get paid to be inquisitive :lol:

[Muddy]

Im sure it sucks at first though until you start to earn respect...

[deebakes]

don't all jobs? :lol:

[Muddy]

Do you think you'll ever make the big bucks?

[deebakes]

what would your definition of big bucks be? :-k

[Muddy]

1/2 mil. a year?

[deebakes]

only if i am part owner of a very profitable company would that ever happen... in academia, it would more be in the 250K max or so in a number of years for me... the problem with my job is that i need to sell myself and my ideas to get people to fund our research. when we get grants, it is not like they ever go over 250K a year, and that includes expenses for actually doing the research. are you setup to make 1/2 mil a year? :shock:

[Muddy]

are you setup to make 1/2 mil a year? :shock:

Nah... Only if I move into an ownership role... 100k Is about my plateau in what I do..

[Godfather]

i actually had duesberg coming after me for some of the science i have been doing... now THAT was an interesting time when he was trying to get involved in something else that he truly believed so strongly in that he wanted to wage a public war against some of our research. good times :lol:


Wow right on, what kind of work are you doing exactly Dee?

I thought you were just using wikipedia to be a shit disturber to be honest :lol:

[Noilly Pratt]

Odds of getting HIV from a jab are very close to nil. Less than a dozen cases, if memory serves . . . if you do get stuck, you get a short protocol of anti-retrovirals, to date no one who's done that protocol has gotten sick.

I got accidentally hit with a needle after cleaning a dentist's office in the early 80's. They didn't dispose of the needle correctly. That was when we knew very little about the disease and there was a lot of fear out there, with little facts.

I went through the protocol of tests -- blood typing etc...I felt weak as I remember because they kept taking blood but I didn't get sick.

The chance that it was HIV was virtually nil, but the guy didn't want me taking any chances!

It's amazing the leaps forward they've taken in medicine. Even compared with just 20 years ago.

[deebakes]

Wow right on, what kind of work are you doing exactly Dee?

I thought you were just using wikipedia to be a shit disturber to be honest :lol:

in a way i was :lol: , but i knew of him from a study we did about looking at the link between aneuploidy (having an abnormal number of chromosomes) and cancer predisposition. after our article came out, he claimed that we didn't show anything new that he hadn't shown before :lol:

if you are having trouble sleeping, i am happy to give you more details :tup:

[Deepsepia]

in looking through it, there are a number of "dissenters" about the HIV=AIDS controversy...

There always are dissenters-- wouldn't be science without them. Sometimes, people with really "out there" ideas are able to prove them (the idea that bacteria cause ulcers and should be treated with antibiotics comes to mind).

The HIV dissenters look very dubious at this point. Although every last detail of HIV infection isn't known, well thats true with everything in medicine, which is generally speaking an "empirical" discipline.

To take a very basic point: no one who's HIV negative gets AIDS (there are some idiosyncratic immune disorders, but they don't look like AIDS). Second basic point: HIV titers correspond closely to T cell depletion, and correspond closely to becoming symptomatic.

The dissenters often used to claim that AIDS symptoms are caused by the drugs HIV patients take, but we can now dismiss that charge. When you take your treatment, and the viral load goes down, T cells do better, and you live longer. When you stop taking the drugs, viral load goes up, t cells croak, and then so do you.

If I had HIV -- or if I got exposed to someone who did, or got stuck-- I certainly would be taking the anti-retorvirals.