HIV Study? Will you join?

  • Space_Cowboy_...

    Posts: 3738

    May 16, 2010 2:47 PM GMT
    I would, but I sadly do not qualify as I am not circumcised but check it out you might be able to do it icon_biggrin.gif
    http://www.hopetakesaction.org/volunteering/index.html

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2010 3:34 PM GMT
    I wonder what being circumcised has to do with it.
  • jtcrew65

    Posts: 29

    May 16, 2010 4:41 PM GMT
    There's some epidemiologic research saying the risk of HIV transmission is different in circumsized men vs. uncircumsized men. So they're probably just doing that so they have another variable to worry about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2010 5:47 PM GMT
    the previous ad5 study found that uncircumcised men with ad5 antibodies became more susceptible to infection with the vaccine. they are trying to avoid a similar result
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2010 6:04 PM GMT
    chungo44 saidthe previous ad5 study found that uncircumcised men with ad5 antibodies became more susceptible to infection with the vaccine. they are trying to avoid a similar result


    Interesting. Given this result, one has to wonder why they are continuing to waste time and money on this.
  • BlackBeltGuy

    Posts: 2609

    May 16, 2010 7:14 PM GMT
    uncut men are completely more likely to get hiv than cut guys. I don't know why they are re- proving this theory
  • jlly_rnchr

    Posts: 1759

    May 16, 2010 9:48 PM GMT
    I don't know much about vaccine development, how exactly do they test to make sure it works? I'm assuming they'll take a sample of your blood, ensure that you have antibodies to all four proteins, and then...? Proof of antibody production alone can't prove efficacy of the vaccine. And if it's just looking for lower HIV transmission rates in the non-placebo group, I can't imagine that's very accurate.

    Also, why is this trial exclusive to men who have sex with men? Women and straight men are excluded. Is it because we are still the group with most new infections, and therefore the easiest to spot changes in transmission rates?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2010 9:55 PM GMT
    jlly_rnchr said

    Also, why is this trial exclusive to men who have sex with men? Women and straight men are excluded. Is it because we are still the group with most new infections, and therefore the easiest to spot changes in transmission rates?


    Uh, of course that's the reason. Men who have anal sex with men are at the highest risk for HIV transmission by a wide margin. Seeing as how a vaccine would appeal most to this same group it makes sense to make the trial exclusive to such men.
  • DrobUA

    Posts: 1331

    May 16, 2010 10:07 PM GMT
    Sadly I don't think I have enough sex to participate haha. That sounds kinda risky too. You know how some people get the flu from a flu vaccine. Wonder what the chances of getting hiv from and hiv vaccine are.. something to think about. I'm not sure how this vaccine works but most vaccines contain a very small dose of what ever disease you are trying to prevent in order for your body to build up resistance to it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2010 10:19 PM GMT
    KARATE1974 saiduncut men are completely more likely to get hiv than cut guys. I don't know why they are re- proving this theory

    Science is not about proving something and then leaving it at that, you show it over and over again, when you start a new experiment you confirm everything and move on from there, making assumptions even with clinical data can put your research at risk.

    At least that is the understanding that I have of it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2010 10:42 PM GMT
    KARATE1974 saiduncut men are completely more likely to get hiv than cut guys. I don't know why they are re- proving this theory


    This is not quite as proved as they are trying to make it sound. Some studies have shown no difference or even lower rates of transmission in uncut guys.

    For some reason some old white men who are cut want to impose the terrible habit of circumcising children on the rest of the world, and some braindead ape in the WHO started to base policy on flawed studies, ignoring the studies that contradict this stupid theory.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2010 10:44 PM GMT
    Dragoonxi said

    Uh, of course that's the reason. Men who have anal sex with men are at the highest risk for HIV transmission by a wide margin. Seeing as how a vaccine would appeal most to this same group it makes sense to make the trial exclusive to such men.


    No, anal sex is not a listed requirement. And in all these studies they are required to teach you to use condoms. So the cut requirement is strange, to say the least. It only makes some sense if chungo44 is correct in that the vaccine actually makes you more likely to catch the bug if you are uncut, which brings me back to question: If the vaccine is this pathetic, why spend more time and money on it?

    They are probably just throwing good money after bad now because their existing investment is already too high.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2010 10:51 PM GMT
    DrobUA saidSadly I don't think I have enough sex to participate haha. That sounds kinda risky too. You know how some people get the flu from a flu vaccine. Wonder what the chances of getting hiv from and hiv vaccine are..


    From the vaccine itself, zero.

    There is not HIV in the HIV vaccines being seriously studied.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2010 10:55 PM GMT
    circumcised? - that's kind of an odd requirement.

    even if previous studies suggested a higher rate of infection in one group over the other. i don't know why that matters if it is already proven. you just present the results more refinely (e.g. results show x in circumcised men vs x in uncircumcised men)----it doesn't matter if you included or exclued circumcised men.

    no offense to anyone----but is this study being conducted by Jewish doctors like the previous circumcision study? (don't get me wrong---i have nothing against Jewish people, i'm just wondering if there is a bias going into this study).
  • jlly_rnchr

    Posts: 1759

    May 16, 2010 10:56 PM GMT
    Dragoonxi said
    jlly_rnchr said

    Also, why is this trial exclusive to men who have sex with men? Women and straight men are excluded. Is it because we are still the group with most new infections, and therefore the easiest to spot changes in transmission rates?


    Uh, of course that's the reason. Men who have anal sex with men are at the highest risk for HIV transmission by a wide margin. Seeing as how a vaccine would appeal most to this same group it makes sense to make the trial exclusive to such men.

    I understand what you're saying, but...

    ...an HIV vaccine would appeal to everyone, and everyone would get it if it worked. Without this vaccine being applied to the walls of your butt, I don't see why it's terribly essential that only gay men participate. Unless it's because we're the best way to see if it's effective.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2010 11:09 PM GMT
    viveutvivas said
    Dragoonxi said

    Uh, of course that's the reason. Men who have anal sex with men are at the highest risk for HIV transmission by a wide margin. Seeing as how a vaccine would appeal most to this same group it makes sense to make the trial exclusive to such men.


    No, anal sex is not a listed requirement. And in all these studies they are required to teach you to use condoms. So the cut requirement is strange, to say the least. It only makes some sense if chungo44 is correct in that the vaccine actually makes you more likely to catch the bug if you are uncut, which brings me back to question: If the vaccine is this pathetic, why spend more time and money on it?

    They are probably just throwing good money after bad now because their existing investment is already too high.


    on the website there is a video about the vaccine. this is not a vaccine that will be sold to the public, this is just furher scientific research to lead to a later vaccine. basically it seem that they are trying to make a vaccine that doesnt even prevent someone from getting the disease but to make people get less ill when they do get it. There was a relatively recent styudy that found that men in the study who were uncut and had ad5 antibodies became more likely to get hiv with the vaccine so they are taking this population out to find out more about the work they have done. I would not participate in this study, it seems like a waste of time if you ask me
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2010 12:09 AM GMT
    chungo44 said

    on the website there is a video about the vaccine. this is not a vaccine that will be sold to the public, this is just furher scientific research to lead to a later vaccine. basically it seem that they are trying to make a vaccine that doesnt even prevent someone from getting the disease but to make people get less ill when they do get it. There was a relatively recent styudy that found that men in the study who were uncut and had ad5 antibodies became more likely to get hiv with the vaccine so they are taking this population out to find out more about the work they have done. I would not participate in this study, it seems like a waste of time if you ask me


    Exactly.

    Thirty years after the start of the epidemic they are still puttering around like this.

    I am pretty sure they don't want to find an effective vaccine. More money in treating it as a chronic disease, you have a captive lifelong customer base that way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2010 12:16 AM GMT
    I wouldn't be able to afford treatment...
    http://aids.about.com/od/hivmedicationfactsheets/a/drugcost.htm
    1k a month icon_eek.gif
    I wonder how much a vaccine would go for.
  • jlly_rnchr

    Posts: 1759

    May 17, 2010 1:27 AM GMT
    A1EX saidI wouldn't be able to afford treatment...
    http://aids.about.com/od/hivmedicationfactsheets/a/drugcost.htm
    1k a month icon_eek.gif
    I wonder how much a vaccine would go for.

    Those are scary figures, but if you're insured, there's no way you're paying that much. I have an annoying chronic condition whose medicine is $2400 a month, but I only pay $40 a month with my insurance.
  • twentyfourhou...

    Posts: 243

    May 17, 2010 3:16 AM GMT
    I thought the whole cut and uncut protective factor applied to hetero men (who are less likely to do it in the butt). Since most gay men do it in the butt, the argument that a gay uncut man is more likely to get infected (versus uncut) got thrown out the door - earlier this year or late last year. There may still be a slight increase risk but not as previously thought (for gay men).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2010 3:21 AM GMT
    twentyfourhourslater saidI thought the whole cut and uncut thing applied to hetero men. Since most gay men do it in the butt, the argument that a gay uncut man is more likely to get infected (versus uncut) got thrown out the door - earlier this year or late last year.

    I believe it was thrown out because gay men not only give it but they also take it. ...so it still applies to total tops.
  • twentyfourhou...

    Posts: 243

    May 17, 2010 3:23 AM GMT
    And what % of gay men are total tops? My point is - there is really no protective factor (except genetic marker) - assume all gay men are + until proven otherwise.
  • Space_Cowboy_...

    Posts: 3738

    May 17, 2010 7:20 AM GMT
    Hey Guys Rome wasn't built in a fucking day
  • Space_Cowboy_...

    Posts: 3738

    May 17, 2010 12:08 PM GMT
    twentyfourhourslater saidAnd what % of gay men are total tops? My point is - there is really no protective factor (except genetic marker) - assume all gay men are + until proven otherwise.




    That's no way to live life brah
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2010 5:01 PM GMT
    Great discussion here on the current HIV vaccine trial HVTN 505. To learn more about the reasons why the study includes only circumcised men who have sex with men, talk to someone at a study site, or read this document http://www.hvtn.org/media/pr/505_Background_FINAL-1-small.pdf. You can find study site phone numbers here: http://hopetakesaction.org/locations/index.html