Search the Community

HIV vaccine aces first human trials First human tests have been declared as a success with patients' antibodies being boosted after treatment 04 September 2013 | By Joe Morgan http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/hiv-vaccine-aces-first-human-trials040913 An HIV prevention vaccine has aced its first clinical trials. A team of Canadian researchers, from the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry at Western University, have said their first tests have been a complete success. Not only has the vaccine worked, it has boosted the production of antibodies in patients it was tested on. SAV001, one of only a handful of HIV vaccines in the world, is based on a genetically-modified ‘dead’ version of the virus. Team leader Dr Chil-Yong Kang told Ontario Business Report they infected the cells with a genetically modified HIV-1. ‘The infected cells produce lots of virus, which we collect, purify and inactivate so that the vaccine won’t cause AIDS in recipients, but will trigger immune responses.’ Clinical testing in the US began in March 2102, looking at men and women between the ages of 18 and 50. Half the target group were given a placebo, while the others were given SAV001. No adverse effects were found in the group given the vaccine. With the first phase of trials over, the researchers are optimistic about the vaccine’s future. The next trials will show whether SAV001 will provoke the right immune response, and its power to produce the right effect. Sumagen, the South Korean biotech firm sponsoring the vaccine, said manufacturing as well as USFDA requirements could be possible hurdles. But despite this, they were confident they were developing something that could save ‘millions of lives.’ If all goes well, it could be available in 2018. Jung-Gee Cho, the CEO of Sumagen, said: ‘We are opening the gate to pharmaceutical companies, government, and charity organization for collaboration to be one step closer to the first commercialized HIV vaccine.’

The Saga Continues.... IFFY LUBE! By Nevin Jefferson The Center for Disease Control is trying bend us over and slap on a glob of Iffy Lube before giving us the mind f**k of a contradiction. On Tuesday, November 8th , the CDC had their very own Dr. Douglas announce the following: "Syphilis has increased 8 percent during 2003-2004. This increase has occurred among all racial groups. The rate among African-American men rose 22.6 percent. But between blacks the rates increased for the first time in a decade, largely attributable to [men who sleep with men (MSM)]." Douglas cited "part of the problem [is] coming from sexual meetings arranged through the Internet, which made it difficult to track the course of new syphilis infections." Dr. Douglas, not one to hog all of the media attention, shared the spotlight. "Sexually transmitted diseases pose a significant and ongoing threat, when it comes to reducing syphilis in MSM there is no simple solution. Innovative screening and prevention programs around the country are having a positive impact in many areas and providing crucial lessons that will help us meet new challenges," said Dr. Ronald O. Valdiserri, the acting director of the CDC. Syphilis rates increased in many U.S. cities with large Gay populations, including San Francisco, which had the highest rate of any city for the third straight year, as well as Chicago, Denver, Miami, New York City and Seattle, among others. The national rate of primary and secondary syphilis (the early stages of the disease) rose for the fourth consecutive year in 2004, since hitting an historic low in 2000. The good news was that the national rate of gonorrhea reached an all-time low in 2004. The bad news is, research in 28 cities found an increase in gonorrhea cases that were resistant to fluoroquinolone antibiotics, the first-line treatment for the infection and the increase was eight times higher for MSM than for heterosexuals. "The real problem is HIV. Gonorrhea and syphilis are serious in their own right, but AIDS kills. And other STDs make a person even more likely to catch or transmit HIV," said Dr. Hunter Handsfield, director of Public Health-Seattle & King County's STD Control Program. On November the 18th, the CDC released the following to the media then RAN!& The rate of newly reported HIV cases among Blacks has been dropping by 5 percent a year since 2001, the government said Thursday. BUT, Blacks are still 8 times more likely than Whites to be diagnosed with the AIDS virus. "The racial disparities remain severe," said Lisa Lee, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The falling rate among Blacks seems to be tied to overlapping drops in diagnoses among injection drug users and heterosexuals, CDC researchers said. Any, Many, Mighty, Mo, all of this B*LLS**T HAS GOT TO GO! You know when people are lying through their teeth which they make excuses for the smack that they're saying. The study was based on 2001-04 data from 33 states that have named-based reporting systems for HIV. Health officials don't know which diagnoses represent new infections and which ones were infections people had for years, but had just discovered. The CDC found that overall diagnoses in the 33 states decreased slightly, from 41,207 cases in 2001 to 38,685 in 2004. The rate fell from 22.8 case per 100,0000 people in 2001 to 20.7 per 100,000 in 2001. The decline was more pronounced among Blacks-the rate dropped from 88.7 per 100,000 in 2001 to 76.3 in 2004. Among Whites, the rate rose slightly from 8.7 to 9.0. "At least part of the decline among Blacks appears to be tied to a 9 percent annual decline in diagnoses among injection drug users, who can get the virus from contaminated needles. More than half of the drug users were Black," Lee was quoted telling the press. I find this odd because must of the people I see at the Needle Exchange Program are White. The decline is also linked to a 4 percent decline in diagnoses among heterosexuals. About 69 percent of the heterosexuals diagnosed with HIV were Black. Diagnoses among men who have sex with men remained roughly stable from 2001 to 2003, but climbed 8 percent between 2003 and 2004. That was true for men of all races, CDC officials quoted to anyone listening. But, they could not explain the recent increase. The CDC has a list of reasons of why Black men and women have relatively high rates of HIV infection and AIDS. With the top two being poverty and sexually transmitted diseases. The CDC lists that the problem is fueled by denial in the Black community about drug injection use with dirty needles and homosexuality on the low down in the hood. How Very! I live in poverty and I can't afford to have sex! Why is the CDC dealing with this on shaky ground? Well, probably because the folks at the CDC are nervous about the reaction from Blacks throwing a fit and complaining to the N.A.A.C.P. and the A.C.L.U. Yes, once again Blacks are being used as the scapegoats in an epidemic. They wouldn't dare print this about White folks. True, the rise in HIV and STD is a constant happening in the dear old Black Community. Yes, Black men are out on the Down Low and are lying about having sex with men. The Government is trying to come up with a new category for this group. PLEEEASE! Without a shadow of a doubt, there is a higher percentage of HIV and AIDS in the Black female population in the United States. The CDC last year (2004) looked at data from 1999 to 2002 and reported that, using data from 29 states that track HIV infections. The data is somewhat scewed, because several states have serious problems figuring this out including California, New York, and Illinois who did not at that time tabulate a total on HIV infections. Of course, the study found that Black women accounted for nearly 72 percent of the female cases, while Whites made up 18 percent and Hispanics 8.5 percent. True, 13 percent of Americans are Black, you don't need a math scientist to see the scale of the problem. Good news is that the number of new HIV cases reported in women, regardless of race, did not increase during the four years that the study analyzed. Black women in 2002 accounted for 67 percent of the country's AIDS cases among women. The vast majority of Black Women with AIDS live in the South (Shut your mouth, Honey Child!) and the Northeast. Approximately, 35 percent of newly reported HIV cases in the United States between 1999 and 2002 are from heterosexual sex, according to a CDC report published in the February 20th 2004 issue of morbidity and mortality weekly report, as told by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The report stated that 64 percent of newly reported HIV cases from heterosexual hoochie-coochie were among women. Seventy-four percent were among Blacks. Breaking it down, 55 percent of new HIV infections were among Blacks, 31 percent among whites and 11 percent among Hispanics. If you have any problems with the latter I just mentioned, inform Mckenna at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (2/20 issue). They'll probably tell you that they don't remember or the ever popular: "We didn't say that!" According to Reuter Health (2/19 issue), 90 percent of new HIV infections were from "typical teenagers" engaging in heterosexual sex. Of course, they coped a plea that they were unaware of the risk of HIV transmission through heterosexual sex. Yeah Right! They were under the mind-set that it was a Gay disease. Well, they have their parents and church to thank for this one. Since they're under the impression that it's God's will, what will they call it now? The same comment goes to Blacks who operate under the same mind-set. How are all of the heterosexual women getting infected with the infection rate for heterosexual men lower? Since I asked, I'll probably be told: Contaminated swimming pool, dirty doorknob, and defective Tampon. Speaking of numbers, where are the new statistics for AIDS/HIV 2005? The CDC keeps claiming that there's no epidemics, but haven't published the numbers to prove this fact. Maybe they're testing the water with the shake and fake action as done with the STD and HIV/AIDS cases as the tip of the iceberg. Talking loud and saying nothing! December 9, 2005

There have been many different theories about the spread of AIDS, some of them bizarre, but here James Chin returns to a very old one; AIDS is not a threat to the heterosexual population. Chin is an epidemiologist and bases all his arguments on a narrow reading of the HIV/AIDS statistics. He seems to want to turn back the clock to when we talked only of “risk groups”. There are no political, cultural, social or psychological elements in Chin’s arguments, which leaves this book very one-sided. Between 1987 and 1992 Chin worked for the World Health Organisation (WHO) on HIV/AIDS surveillance until he abruptly resigned over what appears to have been a personality clash. This book seems to be an attempt at settling his old scores with WHO. Throughout it there is a relentless attack on WHO’s HIV/AIDS programs, the main argument being that WHO is wrong in saying that AIDS will affect the general population because, Chin claims, they have overestimated the figures. This book is written in the first person; while appropriate for a biography it does not enhance an academic work. It only shows the one-sided nature of Chin’s arguments and highlights the lack of depth to them. There is little analysing here, only Chin’s singular views. This book does show the dangers of using only one discipline to tackle a complex problem and the narrow findings this can give. All this book offers the reader is number crunching and the rehashing of a very old argument, HIV/AIDS prevention needs to be far more than just that. (This review was originally written as a commission by the Nursing Standard magazine) Find it on Amazon here

Treatment and survival of people with HIV has improved greatly over the years. No longer is HIV an automatic terminal condition. Now treatment opinions are varied and complex so treatment manuals are a required resource, but a resource is only as good as the information in it. The editors here, Libman and Mackadon (both doctors), appear to have put a lot of work into this volume. The authors of each section are qualified for the area they are writing on. It felt refreshing that the editors have selected a variety of authors. So often editors only have a handful of authors, the same people writing many of the sections, spreading their experience rather thinly. This book is very medical in tone. The majority of authors are medics. The language used and the approach taken is very medical. This can be off-putting, but don’t pass by this book because there is a wealth of information here. The focus here is a medical model, emphasis on treatment opinions and the physiological effects of HIV, but this information is still valuable for many of us. This isn’t a book to read from beginning to end, some of the dry and medical language used here could make that difficult; but it is a book to dip into for information. The price of this book could also be off-putting; but it is a useful resource for anyone working in the field of HIV. (This review was originally written as a commission by the Nursing Standard magazine) Find it here on Amazon