These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous please click "Report" or email us. Terms and Conditions · Privacy Policy
New 'Gay Marriage No Thanks' group launches with 'ten good reasons' to oppose equal marriage
88
Barry Cryer brands ITV's Vicious 'homophobic' television
85
Lord Tebbit: I wouldn't have been surprised if Jimmy Savile was homosexual
84
Archbishop of York: Would the Church of England rather bless 'sheep and trees' than gay couples?
84
Lib Dems' Baroness Williams to support anti-equal marriage 'union' amendment
72
Mixed martial arts fighter: 'Equal marriage could lead to incest, bestiality and child marriages'
69
Maria Miller tables Public Order Act amendment protecting critics of equal marriage
67
Labour MSP Elaine Smith: 'I'm against equal marriage but don't call me homophobic'
65
Tory Lord Mawhinney tables 'traditional marriage' amendment for equal marriage bill
62
Lord Hylton tables new wrecking amendment for the equal marriage bill
62
Kafka 375
Robert in S. Kensington 361
That There Other David 314
Eddy 304
D.McCabe 285
Jock S. Trap 280
twitless 265
Rehan 242
Pavlos 224
bobbleobble 216
Promising news.
Although I hardly see the medical companies celebrating, seeing as they have a financial interest in ensuring that people continue to take expensive treatment cocktails.
24 people is not a study its not even a good party.
although its a small study the results are promising regardles which if nothing else shows good reason to do a much larger and comprehensive study across a larger subject group
It is still progress being made.
“24 people is not a study its not even a good party.”
.
Lol
.
Small studies are not necessarily invalid in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT’s), it really depends on how representative the study sample is, compared with the population which it is suppose to represent. Larger samples do not neccesarily increase a studies reliability or vaildity. Although a 100 tends to be the gold standard, this rests on the principle that every person is ideally representative of the target population, which may not be the case.
.
RCTs in some areas of research have been increasingly turning to smaller highly selective samples.
look, a vaccine with such a profile would have blockbuster potential. You can bet that the big vaccine producers will be fighting to license this in. Note also that many of the combination therapy components are actually coming off patent now, which will reduce thier cost and mean that drug developers will be looking for new pipeline like this.
Which ones are coming off patent? I think of only a few in the next of couple years (Efavirenz, Lamivudine and the PI crixivan).
Brasil Public Health offers also Tenofovir off patent sice May 2011.
Well it’s a start!
“The next step [after phase II and phase III] will be to test the vaccine in HIV-positive people to see if it has any therapeutic impact.”
That will be most interesting.
I would like to say “Cross Fingers”, however, it would be better to hear government departments around the world throwing money at such projects as this to help them make quicker progress.
But unfortunately right now is not the best time for anyone to throw money at even the worthiest causes, it seems.
This is certainly encouraging.
-
The effects are hard going but a way forward will come.
Let’s not forget drug companies make money from sick people so we wont see them jumping from joy with prospect of loss. Still very good news.
utter and total rubbish. God, sometimes I despair!!! Think on this: m,any of the emoployees of these drug companies pioneer research in these areas partly because of the potential for making money but also becazuse they or someone close to them suffers from the disease concerned. This is particularly true in oncology but also in virology.
Sorry, but that is a very naive view.
A case in point is that drugs companies would rather work on big globally affecting drugs that people can afford to pay for, like Alzheimer’s, yet diseases that kill far more people, such as typhoid and malaria tend to be less of a priority as they are mainly in third world countries that don’t have the money to pay for such drugs.
“Let’s not forget drug companies make money from sick people so we wont see them jumping from joy with prospect of loss”
Er, that’s rather silly, in all fairness. They make money from drugs, not from keeping sick.
When Viagra was launched in 1998, Pfizer’s share price doubled, and they tapped into a £1.5bn worldwide market in anti-impotence pills. This is the sort of profits they are aiming for.
No – You’ve just argued against yourself.
Pfizer makes money from viagra by treating people with erectile problems, who need a continual supply of their drug.
It does not make money from preventing it ever happening or curing them.
Likewise, drug companies make money from anti-retrovirals by treating HIV (for a lifetime), not from a one-off vaccine that prevents it happening.
Of course I hope this is a success – but I’ll suspend that until it has had proper trials and I see them written up by a more knowledgable journalist in one of the specialist HIV publications.
“You’ve just argued against yourself.”
Er, no I haven’t. You’re being rather simplistic and insular in your reasoning.
Let me elaborate.
– Lipitor (2009) gross revenue: $7.5 billion
– Nexium (2009) gross revenue: $6.3 billion
– Plavix (2009) gross revenue: $5.6 billion
Three of the most popular drugs in the last 40 years, and their revenue for the of their parent company.
If you for one second think a vaccine is not worth money to these companies, then you need to brush up a little on your economics, point in case the Wyeth acquisition of Crucell, and the pneumonia vaccine Prevnar.
The notion that a drug company “does not make money from preventing it ever happening or curing them” is bordering on the acutely ridiculous, and shows a severe lack of knowledge about the industry. Your logic is the domain of conspiracy theories, not reality.
Sorry to have to spell it out to you, but like the other commenter, I despair at the level of silliness and ignorance of reality here.
Wonderful
Good news but it is far, far too early to rush off and celebrate, or think of a Nobel Prize or worse interpreting this as it’s OK to discontinue safe-sex practices. This research is still in its embryonic stage.
Thank God, somebody is moving to find a cure for AIDS.
Wonderful news, I hope this is confirmed and followed up as a matter of great urgency.
Sorry guys, this is a small phase 1 study of a vaccine that produced some blood results indicating immune responses that maight be helpful. But that’s nothing that a lot of other vaccine cancicates haven’t done. Most of these immune responses don’t translate into anything clinically meaningful. This is a promising study but it was way over-hyped.
“Overall, 92 per cent developed some sort of immune response. However, that is not the same thing as being protected from HIV infection: the response could be inadequate to provide protection.”
This is the key caveat of the article. All this vaccine is doing is provoking an immune response – as any vaccine will. Hardly a breakthrough.
This is another in a growing line of ‘almost there’ vaccines that have been trumpeted as the next big breakthrough which have then fallen flat. This sort of headline grabbing “reporting” is irresponsible; ppl will see the headline and think a cure is ‘nearly there’ so we can all relax.
A lot of these promising research results are more about the researchers talking up their results in order to secure more funding in a competitive market. There’s a lot of money and research careers at stake here. Don’t be hoodwinked. HIV is a fast mutating virus which evolves rapidly to circumvent such vaccines hence why it is proving so difficult to kill off.
Be careful. Counselor of PozGroup.com said there are some serious side effects for some HIV vaccines. You never know what you will get with the vaccines.