3-5 years: vaccine for already infected?

[ChaplinGuy]

I thought this was an interesting read, as it focuses on the difference between a vaccine to prevent the development of AIDS in those already infected versus what most people hope for (one that prevents infection from ever establishing itself):

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003693910_sundaymcelrath06.html

[milker]

Interesting article, thanks for posting it

Milker.

[Jake72]

"The good news is that we are closer than ever before to finding a safe vaccine that will reduce the impact of HIV infection on persons at risk. It is quite possible that evidence for such a vaccine will be available in three to five years."

Does the writer suggest  that a vaccine could be on the market in 3-5 years or that a promising idea (supported by preliminary evidence) could be found by then?

[keyite]

Does the writer suggest  that a vaccine could be on the market in 3-5 years or that a promising idea (supported by preliminary evidence) could be found by then?

The latter, I think. The various stages of a clinical trial and subsequent regulatory approval all take considerable time. Still, an article that inspires a bit of hope...

[appleboy]

Slowly but surely it will come.  I belive in the baby steps which many many have been made ie the many new meds to control hiv, the current research studies into gene therapy etc.  Even though I don't want the HIV I got I am thrilled I have it now and not back in the late 70s early 80s.  My heart goes out to all of them.
AppleBoy

[Jake72]

The latter, I think. The various stages of a clinical trial and subsequent regulatory approval all take considerable time. Still, an article that inspires a bit of hope...

That's what I thought.  A little bit of venting, if you'll allow me: what if HIV (or some other virus) were airborne and hit mainstream populations (middle-class families in suburbs) hard?  Would the time involved be as considerable?  Would the many years required for trials and regulatory approval be shortened?

I've wondered what would happen if a bioterrorist attack should unleash a bizarre virus upon the planet.  Would panicky populations accept the answer of "we could have a vaccine/treatment in 10-12 years"?   

[keyite]

That's what I thought.  A little bit of venting, if you'll allow me: what if HIV (or some other virus) were airborne and hit mainstream populations (middle-class families in suburbs) hard?  Would the time involved be as considerable?  Would the many years required for trials and regulatory approval be shortened?

I've wondered what would happen if a bioterrorist attack should unleash a bizarre virus upon the planet.  Would panicky populations accept the answer of "we could have a vaccine/treatment in 10-12 years"?   

I share your frustration but ultimately it takes time to establish efficacy and side effects. Accelerating that process is not without risks - the public would be very quick to express their condemnation if (a) it turned out not to work properly after all or (b) unacceptable side effects emerged over the medium- or long-term. Remember thalidomide babies?

Still, if I remember right, AZT pioneered by going through approval much faster than any drug before it. Of course, that was absolutely necessary, but again, only now do we know it is one of the main drugs causing lipodistropy.

[Miss Philicia]

While the article is hopeful at its basest it's an opinion article, not actual unbiased news article, by someone who is an admitted participant in the "vaccine" in question.  Color me somewhat skeptical -- not about the concept or the eventuality, but the timeframe; absent of some better 3rd party reporting.  This is nothing more than PR disguised as news IMO.

Plus I don't know HOW many things like this I've read over the past 15 years.

[thirtysomething]

The article does give some hope that progress is underway and vaccine development can be achievable in near future. I'm not sure if it will be in 3-5 years though. Let's keep our fingers crossed!

[Central79]

Interesting article. Thanks for posting.

Personally, I'm pretty optimistic about HIV research - especially new drugs, RNA interference, gene therapy and other approaches. I am not optimistic about a therapeutic vaccine. I don't think that it will offer long-term control of HIV, or a functional "cure". I don't think that educating the immune system to avoid the HIV mutating enough to escape control of the immune system is a long-term solution.

Politically, AZT was approved quickly because quite a lot was already known about it - it was developed in 1964 to treat cancer, but was shelved because it wasn't so hot and had an unacceptable side effect profile! So they used it for HIV/AIDS in 1985.

It's interesting what comes around. Keyite mentioned thalidomide, which is now being used to treat cancer!

M.

PS - I actually believe this 3-5 year timeframe. It's because of the ease of recruiting HIV+ people into a vaccine study, which I think has made things faster. And because it's not as scientifically difficult as an preventative HIV vaccine.