Experimental HIV Prevention Injections are 100% Effective in Monkeys

[Sea]

Lance Loud was a monkey. Now all we need is time travel.

Also, stuff like this is why I wholeheartedly 100% endorse the practice of intentionally infecting poor helpless animals with monkey aids so that we can conduct cruel experiments on them.
New studies conducted on monkeys show that an antiretroviral injection called GSK744 could provide protection against HIV infection (http://inhabitat.com/tag/hiv/) in humans. Two separate studies found that monkeys who received monthly injections of the experimental drug were 100% protected from simian HIV. If the results can be replicated in humans, the drug may prove a major breakthrough in preventing the spread of AIDS (http://inhabitat.com/finnish-company-to-begin-testing-hiv-vaccine-on-patients-this-year/).


http://inhabitat.com/new-monthly-hiv-prevention-injections-are-100-effective-in-monkeys/ (http://inhabitat.com/new-monthly-hiv-prevention-injections-are-100-effective-in-monkeys/injection/)
http://inhabitat.com/new-monthly-hiv-prevention-injections-are-100-effective-in-monkeys/ (http://inhabitat.com/new-monthly-hiv-prevention-injections-are-100-effective-in-monkeys/squirrel-monkey/)




http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/03/Squirrel-Monkey-537x402.jpgImage of squirrel monkey (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-288118p1.html) / Shutterstock (http://www.shutterstock.com/) Since 2010, research has shown that healthy people who undergo daily antiretroviral therapy can reduce their risks of infection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS) by up to 90 percent. Clinical trials, however, have shown high failure rates due to people who don’t take their antiretroviral pills on a daily basis. This new slow-releasing drug, however, could overcome that major obstacle and would only need to be injected into the arm every one to three months.
Related: Finnish Company to Begin Testing HIV Vaccine on Patients (http://inhabitat.com/finnish-company-to-begin-testing-hiv-vaccine-on-patients-this-year/)
In the monkey studies, researchers injected primates (http://inhabitat.com/tag/monkey) with the GSK744 drug once a month before exposing them to the deadly human-simian immunodeficiency virus. None of the monkeys who received GSK744 were infected. According to Dr. Wafaa El-Sadr, Director of the International Center for AIDS Care and Treatment Programs at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, preliminary studies on the effectiveness of the drug on humans is expected to start later this year, though it may take years before larger trials are carried out.


http://inhabitat.com/new-monthly-hiv-prevention-injections-are-100-effective-in-monkeys/

[Sinister Intents]

Lance Loud was a monkey. Now all we need is time travel.

Also, stuff like this is why I wholeheartedly 100% endorse the practice of intentionally infecting poor helpless animals with monkey aids so that we can conduct cruel experiments on them.

http://inhabitat.com/new-monthly-hiv-prevention-injections-are-100-effective-in-monkeys/

While I support the research I do honestly think it's fucked up we use animals for research of this stuff, the animal gave no consent whatsoever. Awesome to hear the injections are effective though!

[Sea]

While I support the research I do honestly think it's fucked up we use animals for research of this stuff, the animal gave no consent whatsoever.Complaining that a non-human animal has not done something that it is not capable of doing in the first place is utterly (udderly if the animal in question is bovine) absurd anyway.

edit: That said, needless experiments like cosmetic shit are also absurd and ineffective.

EDIT EDIT: THAT'S ALSO NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD

[Sinister Intents]

Complaining that a non-human animal has not done something that it is not capable of doing in the first place is utterly (udderly if the animal in question is bovine) absurd anyway.

edit: That said, needless experiments like cosmetic shit are also absurd and ineffective.

EDIT EDIT: THAT'S ALSO NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD

Dude, I understand. I'm glad that the Experimental injection has a 100% effectiveness, I'm not gonna derail the thread. Simply I think it's terrible we use animals for research like this. But it's necessary otherwise we won't find a cure for this horrible disease

[Sasha]

Hey, its the monkeys who gave us aids in the first place, fuck 'm

(thats a joke obviously)

[Sinister Intents]

Hey, its the monkeys who gave us aids in the first place, fuck 'm

(thats a joke obviously)

Yes, very mature :rolleyes:
Wasn't it the green monkey? I swear I read or heard that somewhere as being the origins of HIV. Also AIDS denialists piss me off

[Skyhilist]

Monkeys are really inadequate when we're talking about people that this would be used on. There have been some things such as TGN1412 for example that other primates handled fine. Then it ended up having a horrible impact on humans. The only way you can know how humans will react to it is by testing humans. If researchers feel the need to do other testing, they should use cellular/in vitro models. Is it true that in some cases animal testing can increase the certainty that something wont harm humans? Yes. But it isn't worth it given that animals cannot consent to such testing and have nervous systems that are just as centralized as us, meaning that they feel an equal amount of pain if the drug has negative repercussions as if it were humans. No less pain with animals means it's no more ethical than with humans. In fact, it's more unethical often because the animals can't consent. Besides, there are plenty of people whose lives are at risk from things like HIV/AIDS who are willing to take experimental drugs, especially if they are their only hope for getting better.

So yeah, fuck animal testing. Saying that it's unethical to start by testing on humans but ethical to test on animals is absolute nonsense. Besides, species is just an arbitrary place to draw the line anyways. A racist might say it's ok to test on only blacks first, because their skin color is different, representing that their genetics are something like .01% different than their own. Meanwhile, someone supportive of testing on monkeys might suggest it's ok because they're a different species... which might equate to 3-4% of a genetic difference (or even less possibly) in the case of monkeys. "Species" is a human created concept. So where exactly do we draw the line? How different does the individual's genetic code have to be from our own before it becomes okay to torture them or test on them without their consent? The racist says .01%, while the speciesist says 3%. But really, no matter what percentage you draw the line at, it's no different. Suffering is suffering, pain is pain. I'm glad that the animals used ended up alright, but this kind of thing is not ok.

[Skyhilist]

Complaining that a non-human animal has not done something that it is not capable of doing in the first place is utterly (udderly if the animal in question is bovine) absurd anyway.

So then it's ok to rape really drunk people? I mean, they're too drunk to be capable of consenting, so surely by you're logic, it's ok to use people for sex when they're drunk. At the very least we shouldn't be complaining that they didn't consent, no?

Oh wait a second, that's actually a really bad argument because inflicting harm onto anyone is not ok. Whether they can consent or not and whether it's through raping drunks or causing harm through animal testing to un-consenting beings. It's still not ok.

[Sabot Cat]

Friendly reminder that, in the United States, only 7% of animals used in testing experience any unmitigated pain. 57% of animals never have to, while 36% have pain but its relieved by anesthetic according to the latest statistics on the matter. (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awreports/awreport2005.pdf)

Also, I'm cautiously hopeful that this is a step forward for a cure.

[Sentinel]

Vaccine for HIV underway? Who would have thought, sounds awesome! Monthly injections seem like much, expensive and difficult to administer to the large amounts of people at risk, but this is only the experimental drug of course.

And obviously we have to do this kind of vital medical research experiments on animals.

[Slavic]

Monkeys are really inadequate when we're talking about people that this would be used on. There have been some things such as TGN1412 for example that other primates handled fine. Then it ended up having a horrible impact on humans. The only way you can know how humans will react to it is by testing humans. If researchers feel the need to do other testing, they should use cellular/in vitro models. Is it true that in some cases animal testing can increase the certainty that something wont harm humans? Yes. But it isn't worth it given that animals cannot consent to such testing and have nervous systems that are just as centralized as us, meaning that they feel an equal amount of pain if the drug has negative repercussions as if it were humans. No less pain with animals means it's no more ethical than with humans. In fact, it's more unethical often because the animals can't consent. Besides, there are plenty of people whose lives are at risk from things like HIV/AIDS who are willing to take experimental drugs, especially if they are their only hope for getting better.

So yeah, fuck animal testing. Saying that it's unethical to start by testing on humans but ethical to test on animals is absolute nonsense. Besides, species is just an arbitrary place to draw the line anyways. A racist might say it's ok to test on only blacks first, because their skin color is different, representing that their genetics are something like .01% different than their own. Meanwhile, someone supportive of testing on monkeys might suggest it's ok because they're a different species... which might equate to 3-4% of a genetic difference (or even less possibly) in the case of monkeys. "Species" is a human created concept. So where exactly do we draw the line? How different does the individual's genetic code have to be from our own before it becomes okay to torture them or test on them without their consent? The racist says .01%, while the speciesist says 3%. But really, no matter what percentage you draw the line at, it's no different. Suffering is suffering, pain is pain. I'm glad that the animals used ended up alright, but this kind of thing is not ok.


If we had it your way millions of humans each year would still be dieing from polio and small pox, but at least the monkies are having a blast swinging in trees.

Nature is harsh and we must do everything we can to tame and survive in it. It is impossible to do this if we enter a moral dilemma everytime there is a chance had an animal could be injured by our activities.

Call me a speciesist, but I shed no tears for the ants that I step on, the mosquitoes I swat, and the primates who's trials for vaccines have saved the lives of millions.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

If we had it your way millions of humans each year would still be dieing from polio and small pox, but at least the monkies are having a blast swinging in trees.

Nature is harsh and we must do everything we can to tame and survive in it. It is impossible to do this if we enter a moral dilemma everytime there is a chance had an animal could be injured by our activities.

Call me a speciesist, but I shed no tears for the ants that I step on, the mosquitoes I swat, and the primates who's trials for vaccines have saved the lives of millions.


Or, you know, we could test on consenting humans, and get results that actually work.

Not coincidentally, small pox vaccination wasn't based on animal testing. History, yo.

[Sea]

Yes, very mature :rolleyes:
Wasn't it the green monkey? I swear I read or heard that somewhere as being the origins of HIV. Also AIDS denialists piss me offI have reason to believe it was one of these:
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070925204534/southpark/images/1/1e/4assed_monkey.gifthe four-assed monkey
If we had it your way millions of humans each year would still be dieing from polio and small pox, but at least the monkies are having a blast swinging in trees.

Nature is harsh and we must do everything we can to tame and survive in it. It is impossible to do this if we enter a moral dilemma everytime there is a chance had an animal could be injured by our activities.

Call me a speciesist, but I shed no tears for the ants that I step on, the mosquitoes I swat, and the primates who's trials for vaccines have saved the lives of millions.
1. Go learn more about monkeys.
2. Why do you step on ants, meanie-poo?
3. It's "whose", not "who's". You essentially said: "...and the primates who is trials for vaccines have saved the lives of millions."

[Ritzy Cat]

Simian HIV is not the same as the evolved human HIV virus, this is promising but all-in-all nothing to get too excited about. I'd assume that there are other vaccines for many animals or something of the sort that have been discovered but have been unsuccessful in humans.

As a previous poster said, the only way we can know if this works for sure is by actually testing it on humans. The only way that could be ethically done is in a fake body or molecular level...

[consuming negativity]

I feel like I see a new "we're about to cure AIDS/cancer/communism" article every week nowadays. I'm happy that the research is promising but alert me when human subjects have been prevented from getting HIV.

[Bala Perdida]

Rich people don't have AIDs

There probably already is a vaccine, the corporation that owns it is probably waiting until the entire African continent is infected so they could make the most money on administering it
Good to know. The next question is how much is it gonna cost? Aids medication is expensive enough, so I don't expect the distributers to just give it away. Also who's gonna get it first if they make a human version? Rich? Poor?

[Ritzy Cat]

Good to know. The next question is how much is it gonna cost? Aids medication is expensive enough, so I don't expect the distributers to just give it away. Also who's gonna get it first if they make a human version? Rich? Poor?

Rich people don't have AIDs

There probably already is a vaccine, the corporation that owns it is probably waiting until the entire African continent is infected so they could make the most money on administering it

[BIXX]

I feel like I see a new "we're about to cure AIDS/cancer/communism" article every week nowadays. I'm happy that the research is promising but alert me when human subjects have been prevented from getting HIV.


Let me know when they've been prevented from getting communism!

Seriously though, I have a feeling that this will be used in some ducked up way to make poor folks even more poor.

[Slavic]

Or, you know, we could test on consenting humans, and get results that actually work.

Not coincidentally, small pox vaccination wasn't based on animal testing. History, yo.

Your right I was mistaken about the small pox; regardless animal testing is used in the facilitation of other vaccinations and medications.

Also you are aware that in a capitalist society the most likely "consenting humans" would be those most vulnerable ie. the homeless and the poverty stricken. No person of means would submit themselves to testing that can lead to adverse health conditions and death.

Mind you, in a post-capitalist society I would be all in favor of not using animals for clearly harmful research purposes. Since the tempo of research is largely hindered by costs, in a post-capitalist society human tissue cultures could be used for human testing of products. Normally human tissue cultures are very expensive to maintain as opposed to monkey and rodent tissue.

[Bala Perdida]

Magic Johnson has HIV. Although he does seem to be doing okay despite. Although, I am open to the idea of them keeping the vaccine for themselves, while long term medicine remains very profitable.

[Sasha]

Rich people don't have AIDs

There probably already is a vaccine, the corporation that owns it is probably waiting until the entire African continent is infected so they could make the most money on administering it

shut the fuck up, many rich people have HIV, many rich people died of AIDS, that now not many rich people are dying of AIDS anymore is because they have access to good combination therapy, just like many poor western people and increasingly poor people in the 3th world.

[Sasha]

I feel like I see a new "we're about to cure AIDS/cancer/communism" article every week nowadays. I'm happy that the research is promising but alert me when human subjects have been prevented from getting HIV.

here you go; http://www.popsci.com/article/science/second-baby-may-have-been-cured-hiv

[Sea]

here you go; http://www.popsci.com/article/science/second-baby-may-have-been-cured-hiv1. That's way different because baby hasn't been alive long enough to get AIDS. HIV has a rather long dormant period between "I feel like I have the flu" and "my 'nads are turning psychedelic colors".
2. That's way different because the article in my OP is about prevention.
Rich people don't have AIDs

There probably already is a vaccine, the corporation that owns it is probably waiting until the entire African continent is infected so they could make the most money on administering itI'm not sure you understand how commerce works. And even if that were the case, it would only mean that the rich hypochondriacs get it before the poor sick people.
Simian HIV is not the same as the evolved human HIV virus, this is promising but all-in-all nothing to get too excited about. I'd assume that there are other vaccines for many animals or something of the sort that have been discovered but have been unsuccessful in humans.

As a previous poster said, the only way we can know if this works for sure is by actually testing it on humans. The only way that could be ethically done is in a fake body or molecular level...Mutated, not evolved. It's not "more evolved" just because it infects "higher beings" (!). And, for your last point, at that point people would start arguing that it's still wrong because said "models" would really be humans too if I'm understanding you correctly.


edit: praise jesus I can edit my posts normally!!

[Patrice O'neal]

While I support the research I do honestly think it's fucked up we use animals for research of this stuff, the animal gave no consent whatsoever. Awesome to hear the injections are effective though!

Chickens have never consented that I eat them, this however is totally irrelevant to whether or not I choose to. There is absoloutely nothing fucked up about animal testing, killing animals for fur, hunting game for meat or farming for food.

Humans are omnivores and we have the ability to domiante other species for our benefit. Which is great for us.