This is some scary shit right here: scientists have stopped tests for a vaginal gel meant to block HIV transmission in unprotected sex. Scientists have been working with women from a number of African nations to investigate the effectiveness of the microbicide called cellulose sulfate. It seems it had the opposite effect. The San Francisco Chronicle elaborates:
An independent safety monitoring panel took a routine early peek on Friday at data from a study that had enrolled 1,333 women in Benin, South Africa, Uganda and India — one-third the number researchers eventually intended to include in their experiment.
…
Monitors found that 35 women had already become HIV-positive since enrollment began in July 2005, and the majority of them were getting the actual microbicide, cellulose sulfate, instead of an inert placebo gel.The microbicide that was meant to reduce HIV infection actually appeared to promote it.
Scientists are not releasing how many women were, in fact, infected. They did say they’re “disappointed” with the results. Um, we should hope so…
What we don’t understand is how it’s legal for scientists to test this product on humans. Sure, some of the women may not have been having protected sex before the doctor’s came around, but it seems to us that by distributing this unconfirmed gel, scientists were tacitly endorsing unsafe sex. Responsible science or unnecessary risk? (Perhaps that’s why they took their test to Africa?)
24play
You’re right. You don’t have a fucking clue about how these studies are organized, vetted, enrolled or conducted.
But, as usual, that hasn’t stopped you from mouthing off about it.
Carry on.
Rob
Sooner or later, any medical substance intended for use by humans has to be tested on humans. Just because it works in animal studies does not mean it will work in humans. Even chimpanzees, our closest genetic relative, will sometimes respond differently than humans. In this case, it was certainly not the intention of the researchers to infect more people. If medications could only be tested on humans if it was known before hand they would work, no medicines would ever be developed. Then again, I contracted HIV the old fashioned way without any help from medical science. Clearly it wasn’t one of my more thoughtful moments.
Lano
Sorry Andy but I have to agree. You should do a little research on the basics of medical testing before making statements like that….
John (is glad he's not bitter)
I think someone should get mad for these women who now have HIV.
I don’t feel like this post was written nastily. He didn’t say the scientists were idiots, or criminals. All he said was, in short, “gee wiz, they kinda messed that one up”.
And even if the scientists in question WERE very careful in how they administered testing, that doesn’t make this a GOOD thing, does it? I’d say, when you’re dealing with a disease that kills, in a location where so many die from it, that this kinda messed up peoples lives? And with a medicine that does the opposite of what it’s supposed to? I’m not saying that hiv is a death sentance, or the doctors were trying to do bad, but. well, shit.
Of course, it sounds like you three are all scientists? Oh? You’re not? But you took a biology course once?
Well never mind then.
werdna
Good god, how hard is it to check with “the Google” before you go posting ignorant insinuations about the ethics of researchers. Two clicks and I found this press release: http://www.conrad.org/press/phaseIIItrials.htm
Relevant quote:
“…All participants received intensive HIV prevention counseling at each monthly visit and all women were given high-quality condoms free of charge. Participants received regular testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. Pregnant women were not included in the study.
Participants were admitted into the study only after receiving detailed information about the purpose of the study and the possible health benefits and risks. During this process, their understanding of the study was assessed prior to their signing a consent form. Each trial site is linked to local organizations that provide care for women who become HIV-infected during the trial. As part of the trial preparation, CONRAD set aside funding for women who become HIV-positive during the trial to ensure adequate health care, including HIV antiretroviral treatment when needed. ”
It’s not like these doctors just blundered in and started handing out “AIDS prevention cream” to innocent villagers. Come on lads, do a little research next time…
nystudman
Before you get all “Constant Gardner” about this (which was your implication, dude), why not think about the fact that these unfortunate women were at high risk at contracting AIDS in the first place due to their social situation. So the researchers were hardly explioting them.
Who needs the religious right to condemn us and inhibit the fight against AIDS when we’re doing such a good job ourselves.
irresponsible bullshit. Think before you post, OK?
John
I can’t believe you just used the “Well, they were gonna get it anyways” defense.
I hardly think his post was inflammatory, I think you guys just wanted to get pissed off about something.
sseninde julius
to come up with asolution such things must be done. imagine polio vaccine is a half dead polio virus.