You must log in or register to comment.

redrightreturning t1_iykqkj3 wrote

I was in an HIV vaccine trial like 15 years ago back in NY. The results at the time had seemed promising enough for the FDA to extend their trials. When the study was unblinded it had turned out that i was in the highest-dose experimental group, meaning maybe I’m immune to HIV, but afaik i was never exposed to the virus so it’d be hard to know for sure. Anyway, I’m always excited for more research on this subject and I feel a connection to the experimenters and study participants working to put an end to this god-awful disease.


Upstairs-Motor2722 t1_iyl39h3 wrote

Thank you for helping us all.


redrightreturning t1_iyl6e6k wrote

You’re so welcome. I encourage everyone to go participate in clinical trials. It’s so cool to be a part of the process. And usually the researchers are so passionate and appreciative. Participating as a subject humanizes science and makes it more tangible for people who otherwise aren’t in touch with it.


Bobert_Manderson t1_iyl7kgn wrote

Maybe when you’re old and know you ain’t got long you can just try a little bit of HIV to see if you were immune the whole time.


HomoRoboticus t1_iyll98e wrote

I mean if I knew I had <3 years or something - fuck it, let's make a win out of it.


omnichronos t1_iyme0mv wrote

You can also earn a living doing it. I did one last month that paid $15,050. I just received my final payment yesterday. It allows me to be a better Santa Clause to my poor family.


redrightreturning t1_iymeare wrote

Hell yeah. I have been in other paid studies too. Most recently one for Botox lol. Got free Botox and got paid for them to study my face. Lol. Make that money and enjoy the holidays.


mcspazz731 t1_iymx6qx wrote

Where do you find them, I have some interest but never really looked into it much.


crown_valley t1_iymztdi wrote

Where do you find "opportunities" like this?? Is there like a website I'm not aware of or something?


omnichronos t1_iynn15s wrote

If you have an expensive medical condition, you might consider the free health care of a study that includes travel pay. See for those.

Or, if you're healthy, you can be a healthy human subject for medical research studies, like me. I spent the month of October at a medical clinic so they can test a minute amount of a new drug on me intended to help hypoparathyroidism. In exchange, I collected $15,050. If you're interested, it's worth traveling to other states to do them. Many are paying over $10k currently. You can see them on the website or JALR.Org, which stands for Just Another Lab Rat.

Canada has some also:
Toronto: [] (,,,


Fluenzia t1_iyn7zti wrote

Man where do you find trials that pay that well. I have looked on the websites that people recommend and there's either none near me or they want such a specific demographic I don't fall into it.


omnichronos t1_iynmp65 wrote

> there's either none near me

It's unlikely that they will be near you. I traveled from Detroit to Madison WI for my last one and my next one is in Nebraska. It's worth driving all day a couple of times for several thousand dollars.


Fluenzia t1_iynnuqw wrote

Yeah I'm currently in university and in Canada so I don't know the difference that will make but driving far kinda sucks with school.


omnichronos t1_iynw3i4 wrote

My Canadian friend is trying to do the US ones because they pay better here.


Fluenzia t1_iyo5hzv wrote

Yeah if you're in Detroit I'm across the river so I suppose it's the same distance


begaterpillar t1_iyle3bk wrote

you can even make money doing them


No_Mammoth_4945 t1_iym97k1 wrote

Yep. I took part in the Pfizer Covid trial that just ended a couple months ago. I got paid 5$ a week to answer a yes or no question on my phone and around 200$ for each in person visit. It was double blinded but once it got approved they told you if you got the vaccine or the placebo and I ended up getting the vaccine months before anyone I knew. Win win


begaterpillar t1_iymdlcr wrote

I did like 10 15 paid studies when I was a student . I got paid anywhere between 250$ to 3500$. average around 700. most of them I stayed in the clinic from Friday night to Sunday evening. took a dose of a different drug and they took blood samples. it was great I just brought my homework. the 3500 one I was in the clinic for 2 weeks though. that one was a little rough but still better than working a random construction job for months to save up that much money. they had decent wifi and the food was okay


diskowmoskow t1_iylrdja wrote

How these studies conducted for effectiveness for acquiring the virus? Trial subjects are already in high risk groups (sex workers / HIV+ partners)? I would like to be part of these studies but in anycase I wouldn’t do any unprotected sex (apart from accidents during protected sex).

I am really happy for advancements in HIV studies. PrEP already changing lifes of many but battle of supplying of these preventions (as well as medicines) seem still trivial for big part of the world.


redrightreturning t1_iymengu wrote

They weren’t studying efficacy in that way in my case. I’m guessing it would be really hard to study high-risk people over a long time. And really expensive to follow people for 20, 30, 40’years.

In the study I was in they drew blood to test for the presence of antibodies to HIV.


TheGoodFight2015 t1_iyl9ouj wrote

If you were in the highest dose experimental group, why would you make the conclusion that you are immune to HIV? Are you saying you believe you were likely exposed to HIV virus but that medication ended up not working in the study?


redrightreturning t1_iylaaw8 wrote

No, no one was exposed to HIV, that would obviously be unethical. The way the drug worked was that it was supposed to mimic some of the HIV proteins and cause your body to make antibodies to those. The study was also experimenting with a novel mechanism of injecting the vaccine, using an electrical sock (for lack of a better word) to facilitate the uptake of the vaccine.

*shock, not sock


Louisville_Jason t1_iyli7cj wrote

I'm sorry...using a what?


bootymix96 t1_iyllkh9 wrote

Pretty sure they meant electric shock, which is a phenomenon known as electroporation (Sardesai & Weiner 2011). According to Sardesai and Weiner (2011), electroporation involves a series of “brief electric pulses” administered in conjunction with DNA-based injected vaccines to boost the vaccine’s uptake by our cells through “transient and reversible permeabilization of the cell membrane.”

Ojiambo (2021) discusses the administration process in the context of COVID-19 vaccinations. The DNA-based vaccine is injected, a separate hand-held device is used to generate the electrical impulses at the injection site immediately afterwards, and those impulses induce electroporation and allow the vaccine molecules to break through our cell membranes and increase our immune system response to the vaccine (Ojiambo 2021).


techno156 t1_iylqg4w wrote

Interesting that electroporation works on people. I only expected it to work on bacteria, or to be unsafe for humans due to the whole heart and brain thing.


Just_Another_Wookie t1_iym025p wrote

As long as the path of the current doesn't cross the brain or heart, it's all good!


dromaeovet t1_iym1uqt wrote

Electroporation is one of the principles by which Dolly the sheep was cloned :) They basically took cell contents that could eventually become the sheep, used electroporation to insert it into a recipient cell, and then implanted that in the surrogate.


redrightreturning t1_iymfsy4 wrote

Yes this is exactly what I meant! Thank you for adding your knowledge.

I will say the shocks hurt pretty bad. The first time they told me it would be like getting punched in the arm. Well it turns out I had never been punched before so I had no idea what to expect and almost passed out. Subsequent times I was ready for it and it wasn’t as bad.


MicrosoftOSX t1_iylkd89 wrote

e-sock. like e-mail, but a sock


JebediahKerman3999 t1_iylo026 wrote

If you put a sock over the vaccine, when the virus grabs it it only has the sock


MicrosoftOSX t1_iylovh3 wrote

It is especially effective around the end of the year


teraflux t1_iylm1jq wrote

I use SOCKS 5, great for pirating things


redrightreturning t1_iymfyqo wrote

Woops, I meant an electrical shock. A user below did a good job explaining what the process is and why they used it.


TheGoodFight2015 t1_iyvqox9 wrote

Sorry I didn’t mean exposed in the study, I meant exposed at some other period in your life. But then I see you said they believe they weren’t exposed, so my post was pretty confusing. So you’re basically wondering how well the drug worked for you personally. I’m just still confused because wouldn’t they provide data for the efficacy in the experimental group of that trial? Or are you saying it’s still ongoing?


Pjcrafty t1_iylaili wrote

He means that he got the highest dose of vaccine, so since it looked promising in general he may be immune since he got a big vaccine dosage.

The experimental group in a vaccine study isn’t exposed to what they’re vaccinating for. That would be extremely unethical.

They compare the vaccinated population to the unvaccinated control group in the population and see if the people who got vaccinated contract the virus at a lower rate.

So, for example, you vaccinate 10k people and have a control group of 10k people who get a placebo. Over the next 5 years, 100 people in the control group get HIV but only 2 people in the vaccine group do. That implies that the vaccine works, because ideally your control and test groups are similar enough that the only thing that makes them different is having the vaccine.


Baud_Olofsson t1_iylwdh0 wrote

And as a sidenote, this is why vaccine trials usually take so long: it takes ages for enough people to get infected to be able to draw any real conclusions about the vaccine's efficacy.

With COVID, which was spreading like wildfire, you didn't need to wait long at all - you got statistically significant results within months.


redrightreturning t1_iyleugw wrote

I’m not a “he”. Pro tip: If you don’t know someone’s gender it’s completely bizarre to assume. It’s literally no skin off your nose to write “they” instead of assuming someone’s gender. Do better.


Pjcrafty t1_iylfwlh wrote

I was using he in the “gender neutral” sense, but you’re right that that’s fallen out of favor.

While I do apologize for misgendering you, I think that you could have made your point a bit more politely. That wouldn’t have been any skin off of your nose either.


NotShey t1_iylikz1 wrote

That's an incredibly aggressive and rude way to address someone making an innocent mistake.


[deleted] t1_iylgsht wrote



redrightreturning t1_iylhka9 wrote

Thanks for engaging. I’m glad you don’t care, and still therefore took the time to write about how much i shouldn’t care. Since you took the time to write, I thought I’d give you the same courtesy.

I think what annoys me is when people assume you are male, it’s like male is the “normal” default. But actually, being female is default for me, and like half of the world. Just like it would be weird for someone to assume I’m Chinese (I’m not) or Indian (I’m not) just because there are a lot of Chinese and Indian people in the world, it’s weird to assume I’m a man. There’s no benefit to assuming my ethnicity, and there is likewise no benefit to assuming my gender. Furthermore, it takes no more effort for someone to write “they” instead of “he”. The only difference is that it means they weren’t assuming things about my identity.


FormalWrangler294 t1_iylhppz wrote

Don’t assume someone on the internet is a native English speaker. That’s racist, do better.


Whiterabbit-- t1_iylf9xo wrote

fwiw depending on how you learned English, "he" could very well be the non-gendered singular pronoun. "he" is the male or generic pronoun. "she" is the feminine pronoun. what I'm saying is that person may not be trying to insult you. but regardless, I want to thank you for your participation in the vaccine.


nicktheone t1_iylm68j wrote

Moreover, in many languages masculine pronouns are the neutral/undefined gender by rule so it's also possible they are not an English native speaker and used their own grammar rules.


HomoRoboticus t1_iyllu3o wrote

> it’s completely bizarre to assume

I assume this all the time on Reddit. It's not bizarre at all.

It's not right, sure. But it's not bizarre.

> It’s literally no skin off your nose to write “they”

"They" is traditionally a plural pronoun, so, either we knowingly make a grammatical mistake and introduce possible confusion there or we just take a 50/50. My English prof, a very snooty old white dude with a lot at stake in such trivial grammatical affairs, suggested using "he" half the time and "she" the other half - on different essays/posts of course so as not to be too confusing.

Whatever side you come down on this - and there is no objective right or wrong here - the one thing we can all agree on is that it's trivial and only pedantic cretins like me (and apparently you) worry about it.


MadNoobins t1_iym1dkv wrote

serious question, did you know you were testing the HIV vaccine? what did it pay and what did they tell you the risks were when you signed up?


redrightreturning t1_iyme288 wrote

Yes I knew. I was paid $50 or $100 per visit I believe (this was 15 years ago). Iirc I received a basic check up first and then over time 2 or 3 doses of vaccine. most visits were a quick blood draw. The study lasted over a year and I think I probably went in about 1-2x/per month.

They did explain the risks. That is a normal part of the consent process for any human subject participating in a study.

To be clear, there was NO RISK of being exposed to HIV, if that is your concern. The vaccine didn’t contain any HIV.


ClassyDingus t1_iymk8ch wrote

Thank you for being a part of the trials!

Anyone who wants a little more story telling about the history of AidsVax and how shit we treated HIV/AIDS patients in the past, highly recommend Not Past Its episode on the subject.


IceEngine21 t1_iylo6mk wrote

Do you know why the research wasnt continued using the highest dosing?


redrightreturning t1_iymfc00 wrote

Not sure what you mean. They had several arms of the experiment. I think a control, a low dose, and a maybe one or two higher dose. After a few months the results seemed to indicate that some people in the experiment were producing antibodies. The fda told them they could expand the study to do an additional round of vaccines - like a booster. When the study was unblinded I found out I was in the highest dose arm of the study and had also received the booster.

Running experiments is hard and costly- especially ones that unfold over a long time son they can’t go on indefinitely.


GimmickNG t1_iynayi1 wrote

Probably because higher doses would be more costly and inefficient if lower doses were equally effective.


SummerCaps t1_iymfgn6 wrote

Did you receive compensation?


redrightreturning t1_iymhxg4 wrote

Yes… it was i think $50 or $100 per session, and i went in about 1x/month over a year. Also, when i moved across the country, they paid for my flights to come back to NY, which was very generous.


Mandelvolt t1_iyoe5as wrote

Props for donating your body to science while you're still living in it!


tonymmorley OP t1_iykivcv wrote

Vaccine prompts HIV antibodies in 97 per cent of people in small study — "An experimental HIV vaccine led to antibodies against the virus in 35 out of 36 volunteers, but whether this offers protection against the infection is unclear" 💊

>"A two-dose HIV vaccine generated antibodies against the virus in 35 out of 36 people (97 per cent), with no severe side effects."

"The early-stage trial was designed to demonstrate safety and a proof-of-concept for a relatively novel approach to HIV vaccination. It is unclear whether the vaccine protects against HIV. Based on the antibody levels generated by the two-dose regimen, booster doses are expected to be required."

The good news is that innovations in HIV/AIDS, early intervention, and treatment are helping drive down the prevalence of new infections and deaths while improving the quality of life for millions. Deaths from HIV/AIDs peaked in 2004 at 1.8 million people globally; by 2019, that number has fallen by 52%, to roughly 863,000, and continues to decline slowly. Dive into the full data on the Our World in Data page on HIV/AIDS.

While it's still early days for the development of an effective, inexpensive, and safe vaccine to prevent the spread or decrease the virulence of HIV/AIDS, continued progress and incremental innovation is a promising cause for continued optimism in our global fight against the disease.


American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Journal reference:

Leggat, D.J., et al. (2022) Vaccination induces HIV broadly neutralizing antibody precursors in humans. Science. reference: Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.add6502


tonymmorley OP t1_iykjvvq wrote

Oh a paywall eh? Jump it here:


Lee_yw t1_iylq7kb wrote

Interesting. For those are curious on why the antibodies might not be effective, can read this:

Having the antibodies against HIV doesn't equal having immunity against HIV due to the structures of the HIV.

HIV infected patient usually produces antibodies against the virus however the antibodies produced by the immune system aren’t effective against HIV. Protein spikes on HIV’s surface are too few and far between for antibodies to adequately latch on to.

Antibodies are tiny Y-shaped protein chains that are produced by the B cells and that latch on to protein receptors studding viruses and bacteria. Not only do these antibodies have the ability to neutralize the invader or flag it for elimination by cells of the immune system, but they also help prevent the virus or bacteria from latching on to healthy cells in the body.

Antibodies are Y-shaped for a reason, molecular biologists suggest: It allows each arm of the Y to bind with more than one protein spike on the surface of a disease-causing microorganism. By binding with two arms, rather than one, a single antibody is all the more powerful.

One of the hallmarks of HIV disease—and a major obstacle to vaccine research—is that HIV antibodies don’t work very well in controlling the virus. Past research suggested that HIV’s receptor spikes are coated with a thick sugary substance that antibodies cannot penetrate. The Y-shaped antibodies don’t have the reach necessary to cover receptors that are spread out across HIV’s surface. In turn, the virus escapes being neutralized and is able to go on and infect CD4 cells in the body.

HIV typically has only about 15 receptor spikes on its surface, and that these are spread too far apart to be targeted by a single Y-shaped antibody. They compared HIV to a similarly sized flu virus, which typically has 450 receptor spikes within much closer proximity to each other hence increasing the effectiveness of the antibodies against flu viruses.,be%20ineffective%20in%20blocking%20infection.

The second reason is the the greatest challenge in developing an effective HIV vaccine has been the high rate of mutation and recombination during viral replication . The enormous genetic diversity of HIV is mainly driven by the high rate of variability of the viral envelope (Env) glycoprotein, which ironically happens to be the main target of neutralizing antibodies . The HIV genome contains nine genes which encode 16 proteins including the major structural proteins Gag, Pol, and Env; accessory proteins Nef, Vif, Vpu, and Vpr; and regulatory proteins Tat and Rev. HIV diversity, which is mainly generated by the error prone viral reverse transcriptase, has various implications for disease progression and responses to ART . The high mutation rates of approximately 1–10 mutations per genome per replication cycle, extensive conformational adaptability, and massive glycan shielding of the Env enable the virus to evade the effects of neutralizing antibodies and other immune responses,during%20viral%20replication%20(9).

Edit: links


18boro t1_iym827h wrote

Another reason antibodies are Y-shaped is they can then be attached to two pathogens at the same time, thus clumping them together and inhibiting their movement/drift.


Fair_Dig_6687 t1_iym10n0 wrote

I also think the vaccine is still in the early stages of testing and more research is needed to determine its effectiveness in a larger population.


LeftOnQuietRoad t1_iykmogt wrote

As someone who’s uni capstone project covered the hope of manipulating co-repressor proteins this is a long, long way coming. This is awesome. That virus is one sneaky bastard.


HighpriestIalu t1_iykybkz wrote

Cool. Can someone tell me why this won't lead anywhere just like the 80 thousand other attempts at this? So many dead ends have made this gay man cynical. :(


pavlovs__dawg t1_iylbn01 wrote

It might go somewhere, but at this stage, these results are meaningless. I posted a version of this comment somewhere else in this post but basically seeing antibodies after injecting a foreign antigen is expected and has no bearing on whether those antibodies are effective. This is an extremely routine process. It would be like trying to craft the perfect barrel of whiskey and your test to determine if it’s the best barrel of whiskey is to light it on fire. Of course anything with alcohol will ignite but that doesn’t mean the whiskey tastes good. This is just too early to be excited about a potential vaccine


awildhorsepenis t1_iykyl0y wrote

i think technology has finally caught up. Guess we’ll see.

Sorry you’ve lost folks on the way.


EstrangedLupine t1_iyl29vz wrote

>Sorry you’ve lost folks on the way.

I don't think that's what he meant by "dead ends"


chopyhop t1_iylpafc wrote

If you are out for a 'perfect cure' in medicine, you are rarely ever going to get it.

However, what you are describing happens as a result of the fact that after these initial press releases (which are often misunderstood or misrepresented to be an 'wonder cure', when the researchers themselves never claimed as such), the wider public do not retain interest in a specific story, largely because there are millions of researchers around the world all working in many different fields producing exciting research all the time, resulting in multiple headlines of high impact every week.

But the reality is that medicine has moved forwards considerably, even in the last 2, 5 and 10 years, even if you feel that all these breakthroughs are going nowhere.

These breakthroughs do go somewhere, and often lead to improvements. It's just impossible for any one person to keep track of.

The fact we don't have an outright cure for many viral infections, cancers or neurodegenerative diseases doesn't mean that nothing is happening. The quality of life and life expectancy of many patients is increasing substantially every year.

>the wider public do not retain interest in a specific story

So, going back to this point from the start of my comment, if you are particularly interested in a specific story you can save its original research citation and then look up what articles cite it in the future, and future work by those authors, you will see often that parts of the research can be adapted into many other people's work, even if the original drug/idea doesn't make it to humans.


TaqPCR t1_iylp2cz wrote

Someone infected with HIV constantly makes new HIV antibodies. HIV then mutates to make them not work anymore because most of the protein is junk to block the important bits.

The issue isn't getting your body to make antibodies, it's getting your body to make ones that bind to the important bits that can't be changed from the right direction so the junk isn't blocking it.


DoraTehExploder t1_iyl87xs wrote

Gladly, nothing will happen because cures are a one time purchase and treatment is forever.


TheGoodFight2015 t1_iyl9sik wrote

Yeah this is dumb because if one group can make a cure, they will reap multiples of billions very quickly.


fallingcats_net t1_iyljtzb wrote

The problem with one group is, they are easily bought by an established pharma corp


[deleted] t1_iyllgfy wrote



skarn86 t1_iylmh6z wrote

Those promising treatments are, for a large part, working.

Of course cancer is not one disease, it's a lot of distinct diseases with a few common features, and as such they are treated with a broad spectrum of different techniques. Many of those promising cures of course didn't pan out (such is the difficult path of progress), but many other added one extra arrow to our quiver.

Have you checked how the survival rates for cancer have changed over the decades?


DoraTehExploder t1_iylf6vs wrote

You ever heard the thought experiment surrounding choosing to take $100 today or $1 every day for the rest of your life?


TaqPCR t1_iyloqza wrote

Yes the CEO has the company take the $100. Exclaims how he's made the company a ton of money very quickly. Then moves on.


TheGoodFight2015 t1_iyvr874 wrote

Patents expire. Treatments will enter generic use licensing. There is no conspiracy to stop the treatment of cancer, that’s absolutely ridiculous. You think the smartest scientists in the world could ALL be bought off without anyone saying anything? A lot them work for way less money than you’d expect… they’re not in it for the money they’re in it for the cure. You’re bordering on disrespect for cancer patients and cancer scientists and healthcare workers.


DoraTehExploder t1_iyx9f6n wrote

Lmao ok, you enjoy huffing on that ignorance buddy; it is meant to feel like bliss after all. If you ever decide you wanna join the real world you could start with Googling the difference in patent law since the early 1800's, which are the definitions you seem to be going off of, and then you could move on to understanding the separation of will between the business arm of a multinational capitalist institution and the subtextual will of those whose work is exploited for sale.


TheGoodFight2015 t1_iyywbwi wrote

So you think we have discovered a cure for cancer and corporations are just crushing it time and time again? No young budding scientist has ever blown the lid on it? Everyone is being fed a total lie?

I agree corporations are controlling our societies in ways they shouldn’t be, but you’re starting to trickle off into the rant in the style of a Q’anoner and it’s not endearing to your side. I haven’t even disagreed with the idea of power structures controlling itself, just pointing out the inconsistencies in the argument. I’d invite you to do the same and be logical if we want to have a real discussion.


HardwareSoup t1_iyl8jnl wrote

There are plenty of pharma companies out there willing to make billions from vaccinating half the human population.

So don't let cynicism get in the way of a good dollar.


DoraTehExploder t1_iyl9lhv wrote

Mmm but see the difference is HIV/AIDS is terminal. If they can own you by threatening to withhold your life saving medication then they've got you for life. Something like a highly communicable respiratory disease is another whole story.


TheChance t1_iylbn6n wrote

At the intersection of magical thinking and dumbfuckery, live on Reddit for one night only, it’s Pharma Loves Illness!

Perfectly functional adults look at abusive, powerful entities and respond, not by reacting to the abuses, but by looking for even more cartoonish abuses.


HighpriestIalu t1_iyle7gs wrote

After seeing what these companies do with Insulin, it's not a stretch to see why people might feel this way. People regularly die in the US because they can't afford it. Pharma companies couldn't give a shit.


DoraTehExploder t1_iylexqu wrote

Oh but I thought this expert knew all about the abuses of the pharmaceutical industry, surely they know about the withholding of life saving medications instead of going on as if it's some kind of hypothetical and not something that actively happens on regular basis...


TheChance t1_iymw1sg wrote

That’s correct, and it’s a societal-level horror show. /u/DoraTehExploder believes the opposite: that big pharma is withholding medicine until you sign over your soul.

I can’t even figure out their logic. Obviously selling somebody a product over and over is more profitable if they carry the same markup than selling a limited number of something…

…so the obvious thing to do is to let our customers die, whereupon they’ll never be able to buy anything again.

What a maroon.


DoraTehExploder t1_iynsz9g wrote

You could use some practice with reading comprehension and logical extrapolation. Not once did I ever imply or suggest that the most profitable option was to let the customer die. I suggested that they (being the pharmaceutical industry) could abuse the inelastic demand for a life sustaining medication in order to lock their "customers" (who have the sum total of two choices: A. do whatever is necessary to continue receiving doses of medication or B. die.) into an abusive relationship (read: hostage situation).


DoraTehExploder t1_iylf2uz wrote

Yes the pharmaceutical industry would SURELY love to cure themselves out of existence! Sustainable business doesn't even come across the abusive executives minds when they charge the public billions of dollars to lead R&D on products that they get to patent in perpetuity and then sell back at ridiculous prices.


DarthMeow504 t1_iyl6rby wrote

I'm really looking forward to seeing those bigot fundy "AIDS is gawd's holy punishment!" types lose their minds when HIV is announced as eradicated.


Ignifazius t1_iylb9uw wrote

Easy: the vaccine is the devil's work and you are forbidden from taking it, otherwise you get to hell.

Oh, and don't forget the antivaxx folks - it will probably never be eradicated...


right_there t1_iylph5s wrote

Judging by the monkeypox vaccine uptake in the LGBT community, I don't think we'll have any problem getting the most vulnerable groups to take the HIV vaccine. At least, not in the West.


Safe_Indication_6829 t1_iylthu3 wrote

>Oh, and don't forget the antivaxx folks - it will probably never be eradicated...

if they keep it up they're the ones who will do it to themselves


dedicated-pedestrian t1_iyn4a9f wrote

They'll just take antiretrovirals if they do get it. They did the same with monoclonal antibodies for COVID. Once they're actually in danger they accept all the miracles modern medicine has to offer.


NorthNorthAmerican t1_iynvyb3 wrote

Fascinating how they stop their "whatattabouts", and "doing my own research" and questioning science/medicine when their asses are on the line.

"Didya do any research into the drugs we're giving you to survive now?"

"No? Okay. This is spelled: d-e-x-a-m-e-t-h-a-s-o-n-e..."


DarthMeow504 t1_iynzomc wrote

>the vaccine is the devil's work

You triggered my trap card!

How could Satan, let alone mere humans, have ever thwarted the Almighty's divine punishment? Surely if God made it to carry out his will, it could never be undone. And yet, it was. How is that even possible?

Of course you can expect them to attempt any number of mental gymnastics and probably settle on the "mysterious ways" cop-out, but there's clearly no good answer to be had. And though they may never admit it, even to themselves, deep down they'll know it. And that knowledge will torment them, as they most certainly deserve.


pavlovs__dawg t1_iylb2r1 wrote

There is almost no scenario in which a foreign antigen would not induce antibodies. This means nothing without efficacy data. It can’t even be described as “promising”. This is like trying to craft the perfect barrel of whiskey and the test is “does it light on fire?”. Well of course it lights on fire it’s alcohol regardless of how it tastes.


pmaurant t1_iym8drp wrote

We have PREP that is helping reduce the amount of infections. Also we now know if you have an undetectable HIV viral load you can’t transmit the disease sexually. Which is why you usually get the disease from somebody that doesn’t know they have it. Never trust DDF!!

A vaccine would be great but a real cure would be better because even if you have an undetectable viral load just having HIV in your body can cause damage. Such as HIV small fiber neuropathy. Also it has a massive psychological impact as well. It’s awful.


dandyharks t1_iylkmxg wrote

I work in healthcare and would jump at the chance for an HIV vaccine when/if they are able to fully develop one. Needle sticks are no joke.


Tremere1974 t1_iyknipy wrote

HIV like COVID is a RNA virus. Like COVID, HIV mutates a lot. Vaccines are not very effective for RNA virsus over time because of the mutations.

Vaccines work well against DNA viruses though, so don't consider this a antivaxx post, it's just that RNA viruses are inherently antivaxx themselves.


Alwayssunnyinarizona t1_iyl21vp wrote

Except that's not really correct. Disclaimer - I am a clinical virologist.

While it is true that RNA viruses mutate faster than DNA viruses, not all RNA viruses are the same. Some mutate almost out of control - HIV, for example, which lacks a "proof-reading " enzyme found in some RNA viruses like... You guessed it, covid-19. Those proof-reading enzymes really help minimize the mutation rates of RNA viruses that carry them; coronaviruses in general are pretty stable. The mutation rate we've seen globally over 3yrs with covid-19 is on par with the mutation rate of HIV in a single host !!!

Another RNA virus without those proof-reading enzymes, one you may have heard of? Measles virus - which is considered one of the most infectious viruses we know about, yet also one for which we have a damn good vaccine. Its genome is remarkably stable in the wild.

Yet another RNA virus you may have heard of? (I'd forgive you, since it's on the verge of being eradicated). Poliovirus. Nearly eradicated because of two very effective vaccines.

I'd post links, but all of this is publicly available knowledge on pubmed and some subs flag posts with actual science links. If you want links I'd be happy to send them by pm.


Tremere1974 t1_iyl5grv wrote

IMHO, the most life saving vaccine out there that is being criminally underutilized is for HPV. Eliminating close to 80% of uterine cancers over a lifetime, and the acceptance rate is piss poor. It's disgusting.


And hearing "If vaccines work, why isn't there one for AIDS yet?" does frustrate things, and I tend to simplify things for those who by their knowledge level a hamster and a Tiger ought to behave identically.


morbidbutwhoisnt t1_iylhixf wrote

I think the HPV vaccine is used more than it was in the beginning based on the information I've seen just on the overall reduction rate in cancers they've seen in folks a little younger than me (I did get one of the 2 shots needed when it first came out. I had a really bad muscle reaction and did not get the second shot. Knowing now why those reactions happened I wish I had but they also say now just one shot gave some protection so I'm glad I at least got that).

I think the few people who got serious side effects were paraded around like with the whole covid misinformation but people were not dying in front of us 1000s by the day with HPV literally getting coughed in your face just by going to the store so there wasn't the urgency to stop the misinformation out there.

Plus there was the "not my child getting the shot! Thats a sex thing and they will never have sex!" I know that I had to have someone drive me in case there was a reaction and the only person available was my grandpa. I was at the top of the age range when it came out, I think like 19, and he was a little grumbly about it because it was "a sex thing" but he also knew in his head that a cancer prevention was a cancer prevention. He died from cancer just a couple years later btw so you know, fuck cancer.

But now you can get it so young and even older and boys and girls so I do wish pretty much everyone who could get it would. I'm so happy that I have some protection. I just wish the guys my age had that option too.

Also if anyone is curious the muscle reactions were because they shouldn't have been giving them where they were. It just wasn't the ideal place to put them, they were literally triggering the muscle spasms by the location.



Just_Another_Wookie t1_iym0vh4 wrote

You could probably still get that second shot, or both of them again. Check with your insurance, it's covered up to age ~45 by many.


Alwayssunnyinarizona t1_iym6xoj wrote

Just to circle this back to the initial comment, HPV is a DNA virus, but yes, the vaccine is effective and greatly reduces the risk of awful cancers in both men and women. I plan to have both my children vaccinated when they are old enough.

There's been decades of work on an HIV vaccine, obviously. One of the most promising a bit over a decade ago was able to stimulate antibodies quite well just like the one in the story - maybe event the one u/redrightreturning got, who knows. Sadly, it turned out that individuals who had been vaccinated were more likely to get HIV. Why?, and the perpetual problem with HIV vaccines - HIV targets white blood cells. When you vaccinate someone, you're potentially instructing the immune system to find the virus, and at the same time the virus now has a backdoor access key to get into those white blood cells (the antibodies you made with the vaccine).

Making vaccines for most viruses is not overly complicated - we have many of the tools and approaches hammered out pretty well now, but there's still areas that can be improved (targeting CD4 vs. CD8 T-cell responses for one). mRNA vaccines were the next frontier for covid, but there are other, more tried approaches that work OK too - the ChAdOx approach is pretty common, and Sinovac is as simple as it gets. One virus, a DNA virus in fact, that has been especially problematic is African swine fever. No direct concern to you or me, but one of the most economically important viruses of agriculture out there. All sorts of new tech has been tried with that virus, with mRNA vaccines under development now...but I'm not incredibly hopeful.

Some viruses, though rarely, just don't respond to any of the vaccine approaches we've come up with.


Lemon168 t1_iyko813 wrote

+1 for exposing the original antivaxxers.


pavlovs__dawg t1_iylfdie wrote

This is flawed logic. Polio is an RNA virus and is nearly eradicated. There are wayyyyyy more reasons why influenza, sars-cov-2, and HIV are challenging to vaccinate against.


m0nk37 t1_iyl9rzt wrote

Define mutates a lot, context please.

All viruses by definition mutate, a lot.


Tremere1974 t1_iylbtqv wrote

Mutate a lot in this context would mean having HIV antibodies for a single strain of HIV is as helpful as holding onto a cup of seawater while swimming in the ocean.


That some viruses do change their genetic encoding disturbingly fast, too fast to get a complete Vaccine for every variant of a common virus out there, it means giving ammunition to those who say vaccines don't work.


m0nk37 t1_iylcqfk wrote

It makes perfect sense why its so deadly now. Considering antibodies target specific things, if it changes that fast then its understandable why the immune system cant get control.

Sorry i just never knew that about that virus. Interesting.


Cheezitgodx t1_iyla774 wrote

I think this is a promising development in the search for a cure for HIV but I also think the vaccine is still in the early stages of testing and more research is needed to determine its effectiveness in larger populations.


FuturologyBot t1_iykknz0 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/tonymmorley:

Vaccine prompts HIV antibodies in 97 per cent of people in small study — "An experimental HIV vaccine led to antibodies against the virus in 35 out of 36 volunteers, but whether this offers protection against the infection is unclear" 💊

>"A two-dose HIV vaccine generated antibodies against the virus in 35 out of 36 people (97 per cent), with no severe side effects."

"The early-stage trial was designed to demonstrate safety and a proof-of-concept for a relatively novel approach to HIV vaccination. It is unclear whether the vaccine protects against HIV. Based on the antibody levels generated by the two-dose regimen, booster doses are expected to be required."

The good news is that innovations in HIV/AIDS, early intervention, and treatment are helping drive down the prevalence of new infections and deaths while improving the quality of life for millions. Deaths from HIV/AIDs peaked in 2004 at 1.8 million people globally; by 2019, that number has fallen by 52%, to roughly 863,000, and continues to decline slowly. Dive into the full data on the Our World in Data page on HIV/AIDS.

While it's still early days for the development of an effective, inexpensive, and safe vaccine to prevent the spread or decrease the virulence of HIV/AIDS, continued progress and incremental innovation is a promising cause for continued optimistic in our global fight against the disease.


American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Journal reference:

Leggat, D.J., et al. (2022) Vaccination induces HIV broadly neutralizing antibody precursors in humans. Science. reference: Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.add6502

Please reply to OP's comment here:


woodsboro2 t1_iylkts5 wrote

Why has it taken so long to develop a vaccine for HIV? I know Covid vaccine research had massive amounts of funding behind it, but it still came about relatively quickly. What’s the difference?


alf666 t1_iylmdbp wrote

Keep in mind, I'm trying to remember my high school health class from 15-ish years ago, but I will try to explain as best I can.

If someone has better or more up-to-date info, feel free to correct me.

Viruses replicate by breaking into healthy cells and rewriting the cell's DNA to make the cell create more copies of the virus until the cell dies.

Covid has a recognizable molecular pattern that it uses to attach to cells when breaking into them, and that pattern can be "recognized" by your immune system (e.g. giving someone a vaccine so the immune system can "learn" which molecular patterns to attack), which allows the immune system to fight Covid.

The problem with HIV is that it specifically attacks cells that are part of the immune system, and as it is rewriting a target cell's DNA, it also flags its own molecular pattern as "safe" to prevent the immune system from fighting back.

The result is an immune system that is weakened on two fronts:

  1. the immune system's cells are replicating HIV before dying early

  2. the immune system does not recognize HIV as something it should attack in the first place, allowing HIV to run rampant

The result is a heavily weakened immune system, which allows other germs to run rampant as well, causing chronic illness (and eventually death when the immune system is fully overrun) in someone who has HIV.


woodsboro2 t1_iynico4 wrote

That makes so much sense, thanks for explaining!


Wizywig t1_iylln7k wrote

I thought this was always the case and it's a bad thing... The stronger the immune response the more food comes straight to the virus.

It's so dangerous because it specifically attacks the exact mechanism we have to kill it.

I could be very wrong. Would love info from anyone who understands this better.


KaryMullis1 t1_iz90ac8 wrote

HIV, for a long time was the only virus where if you had antibody levels, you were fucked.


HerefoyoBunz t1_iymkkuc wrote

I thought this was talking about the covid vaccine at first, with no context and just scrolling by.

I was like “wuh? Really?”


Fuzzy_Logic_4_Life t1_iymyanp wrote

Not exactly on topic, but can someone explain why “per cent” is used in some situations over “percent”?

Is it a language thing, or does it have another meaning?


Pilot0350 t1_iyn5ysi wrote

For a second I thought it was a top down photo of a nuclear explosion and I was very confused


sudden_aggression t1_iynzt8e wrote

Catching full blown AIDS produces antibodies against HIV too. The problem is that the virus attacks your fucking immune system. It doesn't matter that you have antibodies against it.

The people who are "immune" to HIV are immune in the same way that a dog is immune- they lack the receptors for it to enter their cells.


_The_Judge t1_iym3sru wrote

Nice, so I can remove a few filters from my Tinder searches?


[deleted] t1_iykoz1w wrote



Kirlain t1_iykqwg4 wrote

Rona vaccine is well done and properly baked, comrade. Vaccines don’t take 20 years anymore. Welcome to the future.


AppointmentMedical50 t1_iyks49l wrote

They do take a while, rona is just very similar to sars so we weren’t starting from scratch


Kirlain t1_iykssvn wrote

Indeed, indeed. Had a lot of information already available


Admiral0 t1_iykr5yu wrote

Properly baked vaccines don't cause reproductive complications in women. Comrade


Misty_Milo t1_iyl21t1 wrote

Except, women are still getting pregnant and giving birth even with the vaccine. Hell it didn't even harm the pregnant women who took it nor the fetus. Just gave them both a survival chance greater than fucking around and finding out.


Kirlain t1_iyksoxi wrote

Might be the sender of the instructions. My vaccinated woman have no problems printing my clones with my strong genetic instructions. 💪

Sorry for the bad luck comrade


Admiral0 t1_iykssdy wrote

How would you know?


Kirlain t1_iyktezl wrote

You says vaccine cause reproductive harm. I say I have proof this is false right here.

Which is more likely, I have such strong genetic instruction I can overcome such “reproductive harms” or that there is no reproductive harms to begin with and maybe is some other problem, like maybe weak instructions, ya? Only Stalin knows!

Nothing some vodka and a little effort can’t fix comrade!


m0nk37 t1_iyla9ms wrote

So you are saying if some women suffered reproductive harm from the vaccine it was not the vaccine but inferior genetics which couldnt cope from the vaccine? Or are you flat out calling his wife infertile?


Kirlain t1_iylwyzy wrote

Comrade dis is not hard to understand, yes? There is no harms done. There is existing problem to start with and this is…. How you say… grasping for the straws?

Maybe is man seed not strong like Stalin, maybe lady’s farm land not so hospitable place to begin with. Maybe something else, but this problem already existed.

If blaming something for life happening is what is needed for the coping then that is what you do yes? Personality I prefer much vodka, yah!


Admiral0 t1_iyku0pk wrote

You having "such strong genetic instruction" is more unlikely


Kirlain t1_iylx5v3 wrote

Da, da. Not conceiving is tough hand to be dealt in life comrade. Do not do the blames games.

There are many children who needs homes and families with much loves right now.