Wayne Stollings wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
A new direction that just happened to be the SAME new direction of the research involving chimps? The odds of that happening are extraordinarily high.
Are you for real?
"A key feature of the study, is that the Oxford researchers, with colleagues from an Italian biotech company and the University of Birmingham in the UK, departed from a traditional approach and went in a new direction.
The reason they went a different way is because of another feature of HCV: it is always changing its make up, in that respect it is similar to HIV. This makes it difficult to pick a target that will be there for some time and make an effective building block for a vaccine.So the researchers turned to a new idea: they picked a target in the virus that is less likely to change: an internal part, rather than the more traditional approach of picking something on the surface of the virus.
No collaboration, not even a mention in the study, unusual don't you think?
Not really, since it would not be something that would be popular given the attitude on animal research.
The European trial is connected to the others unless EVERYONE is departing "from a traditional approach and went in a new direction" together.
Why is their study connected, funding, joint research? You would have though the Canadian researcher at least got a mention for a part in it, wouldn't you?
Joint research. What part of the odds of two separate groups taking the SAME departure from the traditional approach at the same time being astronomically high do you not comprehend? The latter paper was on the clinical trial of which the Canadian was not a part.
The studies are separate from each other, different groups of people in the race for the hep c vaccine. They aren't the only ones either.
Both using the same non-traditional approach and the one with the chimp research prior to the one listing the human clinical trials? Not very likely at all.
Two different PUBLICATIONS by two different groups on the SAME research and research that is a new and non-traditional direction which makes it very, very unlikely to not be connected.
Is that right? I would love to see you show the link.
I have several times, but you do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of how someone in Canada would write about a new non-traditional approach before the clinical trials and not be part of the over all research project. Most non-traditional paths are not chosen by multiple research groups at the same time[/quote]
Not the same approach at all, show it.
Look at the highlighted portions to see where you are mistaken. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/239982.php
An experimental vaccine against the chronic liver disease hepatitis C has shown promising results in its first clinical trial in humans, say researchers from the University of Oxford, UK, who write about their findings in the 4 January online issue of Science Translational Medicine. However, they caution there is still a long way to go before we have an effective vaccine ready for clinical use.
In their paper the researchers describe how they adapted two adenoviruses to carry NS (nonstructural) proteins from HCV genotype 1B. One adenovirus was sourced from a rare human serotype (Ad6, human adenovirus 6) and the other from chimpanzee
(ChAd3, chimpanzee adenovirus 3).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21198667
Prospects for prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines against the hepatitis C viruses.
Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Li Ka Shing Institute of Virology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. firstname.lastname@example.org
Encouraging efficacy data have been obtained in the hepatitis C virus (HCV) chimpanzee model using prophylactic vaccines comprising adjuvanted recombinant envelope gpE1/gpE2 glycoproteins or prime/boost immunization regimens using defective adenoviruses and plasmid DNA expressing non-structural genes
. While usually not resulting in sterilizing immunity after experimental challenge, the progression to chronic, persistent infection (which is responsible for HCV-associated pathogenicity in human) is inhibited. These and other vaccine candidates are in clinical development for both prophylactic as well as possible therapeutic applications. Given that other vaccines tested in the chimpanzee model may be possibly increasing the rate of chronicity, it is very important that this model continues to be available and used prior to initiation of clinical development. Several vaccine monotherapy trials in chronically infected HCV patients are resulting in small declines in viral load, suggesting that in future, combining vaccination with antiviral drug treatment may be beneficial.
Both have nothing to do with each other, you have not provided a link. Each study doesn't even mention each other and only name them involved.
The earlier would not mention the later because it had not been published and the later probably does not want the chimp model connection published.
come on man, make the link.
Come on get someone to explain it to you so you can understand.
Oh, by the way, the UK study started in 2006