[HN Gopher] HIV vaccine trial starts at Oxford
___________________________________________________________________
HIV vaccine trial starts at Oxford
Author : jdmark
Score : 119 points
Date : 2021-07-07 18:13 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ox.ac.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ox.ac.uk)
| roydivision wrote:
| Dumb question - what does 'novel' mean in relation to a vaccine?
| Is it just 'new'? I don't remember seeing the word used like that
| in other contexts.
| echelon wrote:
| Biologists love to use the word "novel". It's littered
| throughout their literature.
|
| As an adjective, it's applied to new approaches, new
| discoveries, previously uncharacterized behaviors, etc.
|
| eg. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=novel+gene ,
| https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=novel+approach , etc.
|
| When you think about it, publication is itself about presenting
| novel results. That's the goal, for better or worse.
| vngzs wrote:
| Not just "new," but also interesting. An approach must be
| both new and interesting to be novel.
| verelo wrote:
| I guess this applies but I keep seeing reference to the
| "novel coronavirus". It is new and interesting?! But i
| mean...feels like the point the parent is making is more
| correct than the virus is novel, biologists just love this
| word as it doesn't seem necessary here.
| pjlegato wrote:
| Perhaps publishing negative or non-novel results ought to be
| an equally important goal of publication. Only publishing
| novel results is a primary cause of publication bias:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias
| azinman2 wrote:
| It means the approach taken is new.
| banach wrote:
| This is just such good news!
| dgudkov wrote:
| A headline that would've been absolutely unthinkable 10 or 20
| years ago. We live in the future.
| est31 wrote:
| Not really. HIV vaccine candidates as well as trials for them
| have existed for decades. One of the earlier ones:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDSVAX
|
| The issue is just that the trials have all failed. Since the
| earliest vaccines, a lot has been learned about HIV and its
| interactions with humans, which allows advanced approaches like
| this one, targeting parts of the virus that we know are highly
| conserved.
| globuous wrote:
| Hoe it works out! But I'm not sure I understand how it works, so
| 13 hiv negative people not considered at risk of HIV are getting
| injected, how will they know if the vaccine works ? Wouldn't you
| rather take two groups of people exposed to HIV, vaccinate one
| and compare the rate of infection of both ?
|
| And also, I had no idea male circumcision contributed to reducing
| the infection rate during unprotected sex, how is that, is it
| because there's less friction somehow and therefore less chances
| of blood exchanging between partners ?
| jagger27 wrote:
| This is most likely a Phase I human trial which only
| establishes the safety of the drug (or vaccine), which is why
| it is such a small group. Phases II and III establish the
| efficacy.
| maayank wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV#Mechanism...
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"While the biological mechanism of action is not known".
|
| Keep this in mind, and anyone reading HN should know that
| circumcision is quite possibly the least effective way to
| reduce HIV transmission. Circumcision has always been peddled
| as some disease reducing measure. Don't accept that on face
| value.
| notRobot wrote:
| You're supposed to clean under the foreskin and regularly wash
| male genitalia, unlike vaginas - which are self-cleaning and
| should never be soaped or washed. Many men in less-developed
| places such as poorer countries in Africa aren't taught that.
|
| The studies that show STD rates being lowered with circumcision
| almost all take place in places like those, where along with
| poor genital hygiene, contraception (such as condoms) are used
| much less frequently and proper sex ed is almost never taught.
|
| The reality is that the rates of STD transmission aren't higher
| for uncircumcised penises as long as proper genital hygiene is
| maintained.
| [deleted]
| willnz wrote:
| But why would human male genitalia be so different from other
| male animals in the regard? I'm pretty sure soapy water isn't
| part of the cleaning regime other animals have...
| _Microft wrote:
| Proper care for animals increases their life expectancy a
| lot as well. The difference in life expectancy between
| (domestic) cats being cared for by humans and living in the
| wild is huge: 15-20 years vs. 1.5-4.2 years.
|
| German source, because English WP lacks this information -
| just use a translation tool of your choice:
| https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauskatze#Lebenserwartung
| trainsplanes wrote:
| And wild animals die of small infections and deal with
| parasites all the time. Success is just being able to live
| long enough to reproduce. Being able to clean ourselves
| improved our health a lot.
| admax88q wrote:
| Are you sure it's different? Or do we just have a much
| lower tolerance for spreading disease than most animals.
| ars wrote:
| > as long as
|
| The number of things that will reduce STD rates "as long as"
| you do them is very very high. I'm sure I don't need to
| provide you with a list.
|
| The reality is that people don't do all of them.
|
| Despite the claims of some activists, circumcision has no
| negative consequences, so if it helps, then it helps.
|
| There's this weird messaging I see sometimes, where people
| are against something that can help because "you could do
| this other thing (but no one is)".
| jagger27 wrote:
| > Despite the claims of some activists, circumcision has no
| negative consequences
|
| [citation needed]
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| >"Despite the claims of some activists, circumcision has no
| negative consequences, so if it helps, then it helps."
|
| It's really telling that studies in non-circumcising
| cultures show that the foreskin has a purpose and that
| removing it has an actual effect on the body. They do not
| recommend it as a routine practice, despite the claimed
| benefits. And, those benefits themselves are also
| questioned from an efficacy standpoint.
|
| But studies done in circumcising cultures confidently
| declare that such a densely innervated piece of tissue made
| to protect a mucous membrane does nothing of value,
| removing it has no negative consequences, and that its
| removal has no negative impact _whatsoever_ on sexual
| function.
|
| These two schools of thought are mutually exclusive.
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| Thirteen adults? It's actually incredibly unlikely to get HIV,
| how does this study have any worth? Wouldn't it need thousands of
| participants?
| tootie wrote:
| Safety test. They can also test for antibody response.
| markus92 wrote:
| Phase 1 trial, just to see if they are fine and if there's any
| major safety signals or not.
| verelo wrote:
| I initially downvoted this, but now i'm upvoting it as the
| comments it exposed probably educated a lot of people on how
| the phases of testing work. Thanks for not being afraid to ask
| the question!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-07 23:01 UTC)