If Immunity Project (YC W14) succeeds, they'll offer AIDS vaccine for free
fastcompany.com
fastcompany.com
-What exactly do they mean when they say that animal studies have been successful? Have they just conducted a proof-of-concept experiment or do they have a working vaccine for mice? If so, how effective is it (1 %, 10 % or 100 %)?
-How mature is the delivery process they intend to use? In their FAQ they mention the use of microspheres and state that "in a petri dish we have been able to induce dendritic cells to take up the microspheres through a process called phagocytosis". Again this sounds like a proof-of-concept experiment, so how mature is this technology?
-Why are there no peer-reviewed publications about their work so far? On their website they state that they're "awaiting publication in a peer-reviewed journal". Which journal did they submit their work to and why can't they publish a preprint of their article? Did they publish some theory papers about the work they did between 2011 and 2013?
If you want my money, please show me the data first :)
1. Zero people on the team or among the advisors have any experience doing research in molecular biology or virology. Check for yourself: http://www.immunityproject.org/ ("Meet the Team") They have an anesthesiologist, a bioinformatics guy, oncology researcher, epidemiologist (who studied HIV, but mostly from a community medicine perspective - e.g. things like gels and microbicides), 4 marketing/biz people, a media strategist, a general pediatrician, and another marketing person.
2. They have zero publications and no references to even preliminary data. Anyone can say they have "very successful mouse data." If these guys are actually scientists, why don't they talk about their science - their site is 100% marketing jargon.
3. By not going through the NIH, this group is not required to release any information about their technology to the public.
4. It's not trivial to do HIV research. If you are working with the virus, you are required to work in a bio-safety level 3 unit. Do they have approval for this? Is there any reason to think that the FDA will approve their trials?
5. What is this mysterious "final experiment" they need to do before starting the FDA approval process? (https://pledge.immunityproject.org/the-free-hiv-aids-vaccine).
It really seems like these guys are just trying to make money from the suffering of others. I find the use of stock images of poor children to be exploitative. Perhaps the NIH is not funding them for a reason. Who would fund someone before they've shown any evidence whatsoever that their technique works.
Okay, I'm off to go fundraising for my Malaria Vaccine Initiative with my fantastic preliminary animal model data from my lead marketing anesthesiologist. If the NIH won't fund me before I have data (I just need to do that one first^H^H^H last experiment), maybe random people on the internet who don't know anything about science will.
### If this vaccine candidate is so promising, why can’t you get enough funds for it from government and foundation grants?
We’ve spoken to many parties and some seem interested, but do not believe this is the best route for us at this time. The landscape is highly political, and most bodies are focused on creating a neutralizing antibody vaccine. Anytime a product completely novel and innovative enters this space, it is extremely difficult to obtain early adopter. Given the extreme toll HIV/AIDs is taking on many communities around the world, we must move swiftly. We are confident these groups will come around down the road, but we do not want to wait.
In the current landscape of investing, crowdfunding has become the vehicle for riskier investments that traditional VCs no longer make (because they don't fit 10% x $2 billion = happy LPs) and I'm sure KP knows firsthand about dealing with bio-pharma regulations.
Hats off to Immunity and YC.
It might not be the best route because while it will provide individual immunity, HIV transmission can and likely will still happen. The worst case seems to be everyone gets HIV but everyone is a controller.
(Btw, the FAQ seems to have changed since that quote: http://www.immunityproject.org/faq)
Studies have also shown that people with higher viral loads are more likely to transmit HIV to others. Lower levels of virus are thus beneficial to the individual, because they predict longer AIDS-free survival, and to overall public health, because they may reduce the rate of transmission. Some HIV controllers are able to maintain levels of virus that are so low that they are termed “undetectable,” these individuals have been described in the literature as elite controllers or elite suppressors.
Are they saying they can't get access to patients for clinical trials? Sick people probably wouldn't like being called "early adopters".
I'm a grant writer who works for nonprofit and public agencies, and I actually just finished working on an NIH proposal.
Getting NIH funding is very hard. First you have to find a program that fits the purpose. Then you have to get the application instructions. Application instructions look something like this: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-13-383.html , and those are just the instructions. [1] Assuming you can actually write a coherent narrative (this isn't easy either), or hire someone to write one, you have to gather the numerous supporting documents.
Assuming you have a complete and technically correct application, you then have to a) wait, b) compete with everyone else submitting applications, and c) hope the reviewers understand what you just submitted. It can easily take a year or more from the time you think, "Gee, I should submit an application" to signing a contract with a program officer.
It may be worth doing but alternative approaches make sense too.
[1] Application instructions are so hard to read that people on HN routinely don't recognize them as opportunities to get money. There are a bundle of related Federal programs call Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) that I used to submit to HN because potential YC applicants might be interested in SBIRs. Eventually I stopped because they rarely got any upvotes.
That seems, to me, to be within the spirit of representative democracy: for every 1 person who knows enough about X to put their money on the line, there's probably 100 people who would if they had X explained to them.
This sets up a perverse incentive: the researchers who can best pander to a layperson crowd will have the highest chance, regardless of the technical merits of their proposal (which the general public almost certainly isn't qualified to judge).
1- The obvious an Aids vaccine 2- Disrupting the pharmaceutical empire on a global scale equal to perhaps a renaissance in the business of medicine and pharmaceuticals. They get a $50 from me.
I still vividly recall my Professor who has many years experiences with viruses saying, "I don't think there will ever be an AIDS vaccine."
I think and hope he's wrong, but it is surely no easy task.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hivaids/research/vaccines/Pa...
Hunger kills 80,000 per day.
One of these we already know how to cure.
Plus, to be really frank. HIV has broader consequences. If it ever mutates to spread through air or water, like common cold viruses. Then we are staring at an extinction level event.
The risks are far more higher.