Human Guinea pig in AIDS vaccine research

[bluntforcemama]

In the news today, there was an article about various AIDS vaccines and how they are at a point where we will find out if they'll work or fail.

http://news.excite.com/news/r/010906/08/science-aids-vaccine-dc

http://www.oxavi.org/oxavi_pages/vaccine_page.htm

So, if you had the choice, would you voluntarily be an AIDS vaccine guinea pig?

 

[SoftPeaches]

If I had AIDS.

 

[SoftPeaches]

Oops, idiot me.....vaccines are to NOT get diseased....hmmm....I'm real bright tonight.

 

[Guest]

Absolutely

The HIV vaccines in testing all use particular proteins found in HIV, but don't include the whole "live" virus, even in attenuated form (as with the oral polio vaccine). There's absolutely no chance of getting AIDS from such a vaccination. You may have a hypersensitivity (allergic-type) reaction to the material in the vaccine, but there isn't any functional HIV there to infect you.

Whether it'll work or not is a very different question. I definitely wouldn't behave as if I was immunized. Don't throw away your condoms yet.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

So, if you had the choice, would you voluntarily be an AIDS vaccine guinea pig?

If I was at risk I probably would - and yes, I know that everyone is at risk to one degree or another; I know it probably better than many people here as I used to work with immunoassays. We often grew HIV (and various forms of hepatitus among other things) in our labs. A number of our researchers were immunized against hepatitus as it is much easier to become infected with, it lives a lot longer outside a host, and people were handling it all the time.

STG

 

[shadowsource]

No

I've seen too many new med cycles: One year it's all over your TV, the solution for whatever, and two years later some law firm is advertising for victims who took it. I just started and stopped a rather new medication whose side effects I didn't like. I opted instead for a rigorous health regimen which, instead of giving me disturbing and unpleasant side effects, will make me really strong in a number of ways. I think the pressure that was placed on the FDA to hasten its approval process has led to things like BST in the milk (tested by Monsanto for 90 days!!!!!) and Olestra (makes you sick!!!!) in your food (though it's apparently died, except for WOW chips). I don't trust the FDA to stand up to the drug industrial complex. I try to let other people debug the new miracle drugs. If I were desperately ill, I'd reconsider, of course.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: No

I've seen too many new med cycles: One year it's all over your TV, the solution for whatever, and two years later some law firm is advertising for victims who took it. I just started and stopped a rather new medication whose side effects I didn't like. I opted instead for a rigorous health regimen which, instead of giving me disturbing and unpleasant side effects, will make me really strong in a number of ways. I think the pressure that was placed on the FDA to hasten its approval process has led to things like BST in the milk (tested by Monsanto for 90 days!!!!!) and Olestra (makes you sick!!!!) in your food (though it's apparently died, except for WOW chips). I don't trust the FDA to stand up to the drug industrial complex. I try to let other people debug the new miracle drugs. If I were desperately ill, I'd reconsider, of course.

I have been involved in the "approval" process, and believe me, the FDA doesn't have a clue what is going on in the first place, especially when it comes to hardware and software, but also with many drugs. Rather than work with the manufacturers to resolve problems and figure out if something is safe/effective, they mostly just want to get in the way and find any discrepency they can to slow things down. I have seen them take over a year to get back to simple inquiries.

Plus, they haven't seen anything that they don't think is a medical device, food or drug - they actively work to expand their power structure and jurisdiction.

I will agree that something like the FDA is needed, but until you have been on the recieving end of their approval process and see just how incompetent they really are, then you have no idea what manufacturers have to deal with. For drugs and devices that are needed on the market now, to save lives, where the risk is worth it, I think an expedited "approval" process is justified.

BTW, "approval" is a word that the FDA studiously avoids; they don't want to give the impression that they actually approve of something. They would rather call it something like certification - and for 510(k) devices (e.g., blood pressure monitors) that is essentially what they do; they certify that the device is essentially the equivalent of what is already out there, with amendments as supplied in the application process.

STG