* Most bodies cannot keep up. But some bodies can. And that fact is why I remain optimistic that even if this isn't the vaccine that cures HIV, that we will one day find one.
There's a whole fascinating set of interacting factors which HIV sits in a unique intersection of, but we are capable of building successful antibodies against it - it just takes years, which naturally we normally don't have (probably also some unique genetic factors).
I will not be first in line for that treatment
That would apply to any treatment. Many the most successful treatments we have now killed and maimed initially.
tl;dr snowball effect
Does anyone have any idea what their new approach is?
Many countries in southern Africa have adult prevalence rates of >10% of HIV. In other parts of Africa most countries have a prevalence of ~1% or less. On other continents most countries have less than 1%, including the US with 0.3% adult prevalence.  For all the people wondering why this vaccine is being tested where it is, it's because just like we did for the covid vaccine, you split people up into placebo vs vaccine groups and then wait to see how many people get the virus from each group. If rates of HIV infection are as low as in the United States, you'd need to test the vaccine on ~100-1000x more people to see if it worked.
Non sequitur, but too interesting not to share: The estimated risk of acquiring HIV from a single sexual act is way lower than I realized until recently. Receptive vaginal sex with an infected individual is estimated to lead to infection only 8/10,000 times. Receptive anal sex is ~10-20 fold higher, 138/10,000. Sharing needles with an infected person is 63/10,000 . That means you could have an ejaculates worth of HIV virions in your rectum, and be uninfected 49 times out of 50. (However, HIV infects immune cells, so it's way more likely to find an immune cell to infect if there are more in the area. That means infections or inflammation from other causes increase your risk of acquiring HIV compared to having no infection or inflammation. Similarly, way more target cells in blood, so if you have epithelial damage your risk goes up.)
Someone about a year into the infection will be around the natural low-level during the dormant phase, with perhaps only 10,000s of viral copies per ml of blood. Someone a few weeks after infection, or in the early stages of AIDS after some years, can have millions of copies per ml. The relationship between viral load and infectiousness seems to be, approximately, a simple exponential curve. One Australian study found that your odds of infection with receptive anal sex with a newly HIV+ partner at peak viral load could be as high as 1 in 3, while in the latent phase in may be more like 1 in several hundred, or even lower.
HIV had to be rebranded away from being seen as a same-sex curse to a common ubiquitous threat in the 1990s to get society to care, but its really not something thats as big of a threat for most of us as it was suggested. A lot of it was just not accurate. Generations of heterosexual people running around scared. Probably did slow transmission down, since only “heterosexual” and bisexual men were/are spreading it to women via sex. But also viral load is suppressed and suppressible now.
The mechanics of how a single cell works is mind-blowing. The mechanics of how HIV works is even more mind-blowing. The replicatin process, how it infiltrates a cell, how it avoid detection and how it defeats the body's defenses.
This sort of thing gives me a lot of confidence that pretty much any new virus we see is natural because nature is a whole lot better at making viruses than I think any lab could be. The best a lab could really do, at least at this stage, is gain of function on an existing virus.
They are headed for great things.
I must say that before I went to the U.S., I didn't consciously identify as African. But in the U.S., whenever Africa came up, people turned to me. Never mind that I knew nothing about places like Namibia. But I did come to embrace this new identity, and in many ways I think of myself now as African. Although I still get quite irritable when Africa is referred to as a country, the most recent example being my otherwise wonderful flight from Lagos two days ago, in which there was an announcement on the Virgin flight about the charity work in "India, Africa and other countries."
My impression is exactly the opposite. We don't even like our countries that much, LOL. Tribal affiliations run strong. Sorry.
EDIT: I've always felt that the "African" identity is pushed by non-Africans looking from an outsider's perspective, and our own social/political elite trying to reshape the post-colonial continent.
You're gonna have a hard time assuming things about Africans as a group regardless of your stance
It also fits the context. Countries with the most cases are Russia and almost all countries in Africa (except for the North).
So Africa as a continent is in need of a HIV cure.
It also contains some of the most diverse individual countries in the world, like Nigeria.
I read the title about Africa as a positive announcement for the whole continent.
It made me think.
(undetectable viral load = zero viral load)
Perhaps this vaccine will not cure HIV once and for all just yet, but maybe it can work as an alternative to PrEP by keeping the viral load down?
This is an official trial, but it's just Phase I, to see if it's safe. A few vaccines have made it to phase III, but nothing passed yet.
lol thymalin defficiency is even found to be the cause preceding AIDS so let's not use it h o h o
> Abnormally low plasma thymulin levels preceded the development of peripheral blood T cell abnormalities.
I'm afraid no one cares for those people.
Anyone cares to chime in and explain why it is not so simple like OP implies it is? Again, I very much doubt mainstream science is completely ignoring the panacea and preferring suboptimal solutions. Smells too much like a conspiracy theory to me.
Some researchers in India came up with RISUG, a permanent but safely reversible male contraception. It's literally a piece of plastic, no hormones giving you cancer like female contraceptive, no life subscription to buy condoms and without the risks of a vasectomy.
The treatment is so cheap that it never had financial backing and we're still stuck with subpart alternatives.
After being prescribed benzodiazepines I ignored the prescription because of how addictive they are and self medicated with cannabis. That's a substance which can be an alternative (in some cases), it's not addictive and doesn't give you withdrawal symptoms. And yet, it's still mostly illegal and getting a prescription is insanely hard, even when you qualify.
Because of a condition I have, I qualify for medical cannabis in the country where I reside and I still haven't been able to get a valid prescription in 3+ years.
I really dislike the handwaving nature with which the very real and especially psychologically quite harmful side-effects of Cannabis are discussed for the most part. Mind you, I believed it to be harmless for the longest time, too.
My eyes near roll through my head when I hear people say this.
Anything can lead to dependency. ANYTHING. Sex, judo, farting for attention. Scratching your sack. Making shitty tik-toks.
The withdrawal symptoms for cannabis are so, so, so so far from that of opiates or nicotine; or benzos, as you mention, that yeah, you can basically say there are no withdrawal symptoms.
Some people are prone to dependence on things, due to their physiology or psychological make-up. Those people are far, far, far better off using cannabis than benzos or opiates. Look at how much deaths from overdoses go down in legalized areas. That applies in both medicinal and recreational contexts.
> ...very real and especially psychologically quite harmful side-effects of Cannabis
Wut. Quite harmful compared to what - water? Water kills more people than cannabis does.
On balance, far more people find psychological benefit than harm from cannabis. Same with physical health. Handwave that away.
Compare the side-effects from cannabis to ibuprofen. Come on man, let's keep some perspective here.
So, who cares, right? Withdrawal symptoms of sugar are nothing compared to opiates, yet it's a bigger epidemic than opiate addiction. But since it doesn't make your skin crawl and hallucinate, it doesn't matter?
Cannabis is quite benign in the grand scheme of things, but let's stop saying it's the cure to all problems and that it has no downsides. Like GP I have been through the marijuana addiction phase and it wasn't fun. I'm prone to get addicted to stuff, so that's on me, my quitting my 5 joints a day was almost as hard as quitting my pack a day smoking habit. The difference is that smoking didn't turn me into an idiot pot-head that burned away a big part of his teenage years, of which I can't remember much. Certainly nicotine didn't trigger my anxiety which almost turned into psychosis like THC did. Talking just about dependency and the physical withdrawal means ignoring a big part of what marijuana smoking actually does, something stoners really do not want to talk about.
Right. I don't like sugar being in everything, but I don't cry about evil sugar making me buy pop rocks and ice cream. I don't want sugar to be banned, or to force rehab on people guzzling too much cola. Ending the crazy ass subsidies for corn syrup would be nice though...
> let's stop saying it's the cure to all problems and that it has no downsides.
For every time I've heard someone say that cannabis is a pancea, I've heard 100 people say people need to stop calling it a panacea. It's so tiresome.
> turn me into an idiot pot-head that burned away a big part of his teenage years
Pfft, you did that, not cannabis. Cannabis didn't hold a gun to your head and say smoke me, like heroin or nicotine. Yeah, under 18yos shouldn't smoke. That point gets lost in all the nonsense left over from decades of misinformation. Making it illegal makes that issue far worse, through increased availability to teenagers, and awful contaminants.
And yeah, THC has a (poorly understood and far from straightforward) link with psychosis. So if you're feeling that, then get a high CBD strain, or don't smoke. That's common knowledge and not something to twist your pants over.
"Mainstream" medical science is driven by a massive conflict of interest due to relying on funding from pharmaceutical companies and bureaucrats with a financial interest in pharmaceutical companies. This is why for decades mainstream medical science insisted smoking was healthy. There's a great book on this: https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Democracy-Children...
Efficacy won't be proved by this trial, although potentially disproved.
> The IAVI-sponsored trial, IAVI G003, builds on progress in HIV vaccine research. Recent findings from the Phase I clinical trial IAVI G001 showed that vaccination with the HIV immunogen eOD-GT8 60mer as a recombinant protein safely induced the targeted immune responses in 97% of recipients (healthy U.S. adults). The immune response — targeting and expanding a specific class of B cells — is needed to start the process of developing broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs). The induction of bnAbs is widely considered to be a goal of an efficacious HIV vaccine, and this B-cell activation is the first step in that process. IAVI G003 is designed to test the hypothesis that vaccination with eOD-GT8 60mer, developed by scientific teams at IAVI and Scripps Research, delivered via Moderna’s mRNA platform, can induce similar immune responses in African populations as was seen for IAVI G001.
Both phases are awesome studies
People in labcoats like “go out be sociaalll” and a studious kid in Africa like “oh ok, I guess”
TB is not a disease and the test for it is nonsense. For example it is TB if the test goes one way and just bronchitis if the test goes the other way.
Of course, if you are ignoring this nonsense test you'll always want the treatment quacks give when the test is positive, if living is a thing you are into.
If you had an "obesity" vaccine, the US would be a good population to do trials vs say Ethiopia or Sri Lanka. If you have a Dengue vaccine, you probably wouldn't want trials in northern Canada but would probably target southeast Asia instead.
These companies can see dollars as far as they can imagine and public perception has swung incredibly from the lowest of trust groups to the higher brackets.