HIV is still an issue with no vaccine in sight.

Actually, redemmie, scientists just last week identified a vulnerable area on HIV that might be susceptible to antibodies and could prevent the virus from infecting human cells. This important finding means that "scientist[s] might be able to clone the target site and create a vaccine that will allow the immune system to create HIV antibodies." Click here (http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=42983) for the the news and more scientific information than I can translate.

Of course, to the general public, this is not cause to go out and have unprotected sex, and it will be many, many years before it may be developed, tested, and approved, but, still, it sounds like a fantastic breakthrough.

(By the way, how does one link to a URL in these comments? I tried doing it like this: [url=www.stuff.com]my text[/url] but it didn't work)

There are a number of vaccine trials and theories out there. None have been found to be useful in the foreseeable future.

Indeed, redemmie, there are a lot of vaccine and microbicide trials out there, but I think it's hopeful to know that so much work is being done, looking at different populations and trying different vaccine combinations. A vaccine to prevent HIV may not happen in our lifetime, and STDs like chlamydia and gonorrhea may prove simpler and quicker to create vaccines for, but that's no reason to dismiss it completely.

I follow this stuff for my work. Just today there was word on more trials and funding for them: (http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=43058) and (http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=43057).

(And as soon as someone tells me how to link, I will stop annoyingly posting those massive URLs!)

Actually, according to the link you provided "Chlamydia is known as a "silent" disease because 75 percent of infected women and at least half of infected men have no symptoms." So in other words, a larger percentage of men experience symptoms (though they're better off for it since symptoms or no sypmtoms, it still leads to the same health consequence; better to diagnose and treat it early on).

But in any case... yay for medical science and vaccines!

I haven't heard much exclaimation about how Gardisil (the HPV vaccine) has been marketed (exclusively towards girls - like they're the only ones that get STDs). I'm wondering how the clap will now be advertised without the guise of cancer to hide behind.

Kate, a vaccine for chlamydia would probably be marketed much like medications for genital herpes. Have you seen those ads on television? The ones with the really good looking, clean cut white couple where the man has genital herpes and the woman does not? They are solely about protecting your monogamous partner from getting your herpes.

It would be nice if we could completely wipe out stds, but from my (admittedly small) understanding of bacteria and viruses, aren't they always mutating? And don't new viruses spring up from time to time? I'm not defending the rightwings retarded abstinence only programs, I am only saying that I don't really foresee a time when there won't be a need for widespread condom use.

a vaccine for chlamydia would probably be marketed much like medications for genital herpes. Have you seen those ads on television? The ones with the really good looking, clean cut white couple where the man has genital herpes and the woman does not? They are solely about protecting your monogamous partner from getting your herpes.

This is completely tangental, but in reading SBJ's comment, it occured to me that I don't think I've ever seen one of those herpes-medication commercials where the man was clearly identified as the one with the STD. There are some commercials done with a male voiceover and some with a female voiceover, but as I recall, the male VO ones use an "outside" (implied doctor's?) POV: "Use BrandX to treat your genital herpes outbreaks..." whereas the ones with a female VO always seem to be phrased as a patient's POV: "I use BrandX to treat my genital herpes outbreaks..."

...interesting, that.

Back OT: Yay, vaccine!
Sadly I imagine the abstinence-only crowd will take the same stance of opposition to this that they take with the HPV vaccine: If we vaccinate our children, they'll lose their fear of being punished for their sluttiness by a vile STD and turn into crazed sex-monkeys!

Bah. It's still good news.

Some viruses mutate faster than others. The flu, for instance, is a particularly nasty and resilient piece of work, which is why we need a new flu vaccine every year, and that even with the shot, you can still get some kinds of flu (also because "flu" tends to be a catch-all term for the feeling of being badly sick from a virus, so you can get an illness that isn't technically flu, but still feels like flu).

But lots of viruses are not as mutable. We haven't really seen much change in the case of polio, mumps, or rubella, which is why those vaccines have been so effective.

Bacteria are different, but most of them are vulnerable to assorted antibiotics, except for the ones that have evolved resistance, because of people who don't finish the entire cycle of antibiotic pills and/or take antibiotics unnecessarily (like, for colds and suchlike).

"I don't think I've ever seen one of those herpes-medication commercials where the man was clearly identified as the one with the STD. "

I have. I know exactly which commercial string_bean is referring to. It's this irritatingly wholesome-looking young white couple doing outdoorsy things and cuddling, while the man says "I have genital herpes," and the woman says "And I don't," and then the man says "And we want to keep it that way." It's not a terrible ad, but that couple really annoys me for some reason.

That does sound pretty irritating. But at least that means we're not getting a subliminal "vaginas are dirty" message after all, which is definitely a relief.

I find all those herpes-treatment ads rather creepy, just because they couple classic "romantic" imagery (beaches, sunsets, cuddling) with dialogue about an incurable STD that not even the medication being advertised prevents from spreading--which is really NOT romantic.

"Sadly I imagine the abstinence-only crowd will take the same stance of opposition to this that they take with the HPV vaccine: If we vaccinate our children, they'll lose their fear of being punished for their sluttiness by a vile STD and turn into crazed sex-monkeys!"

Sadly, I think this has somehow already started...I was just watching the news last night, and a report on mandatory vaccinations for children in IL and IN came up. The reporter mentioned that it was giving "some people" pause because they were worried that it would lead to "an increase in premarital sex". Yeeesh.

As for the HPV vaccine...I am all for anything that will help prevent diseases, but I'm also a little afraid of the consequences, especially since long-term studies have not been done yet.

Also, have you heard about the HerpeVac trial going on now? I'm thinking of participating. It's the second run of the Herpes Vaccine trial. The first run was successful.

I wouldn't put too much stock in this research, as it relies on unreliable animal experimentation.

I wouldn't put too much stock in this research, as it depends on unreliable animal experimentation.

I'm hopeful for the success of this drug. I'd love to see the day when STDs are a thing of the past. Having fear-free sex would be a truly liberating experience.

And... that's all. Yup.

I am very far from being anything close to resembling conservative, I cried when Bush was elected and even harder when he was re-elected, yet, I have found myself somewhat on the side of the those who are against the HPV vaccine, not because I am a prude or am anti-sex.
As a feminist and former single girl who used to love experimenting, I am all for anything that can make it safer for women to partake in the pleasures of the flesh ;) But, as the mother of a vaccine damaged son, I am scared of all of these new vaccines coming out, but not as scared as I am of the threat of them being made mandatory. I think that it is important to understand that it isn't just the right wing abstinence only pushers who are objecting to these vaccines, but other parents who have children who are hurt from vaccines. Now, I am going on a tangent, but by making them mandatory, isn't that just like taking away the choice for parents to parent how they see fit and for the girls to make their own decisions regarding their bodies? Yes, there is an "opt out" form associated with this legislation, but shouldn't it be "opt in"? I am all for women doing what they want with their bodies, whether that means having sex with 2 or 222 men/women, choosing to have or not to have a child, choosing to end or continue a pregnancy, choosing how to prevent the aforementioned pregnancy, or medical procedures, including vaccinations.

SassyGirl: The good thing about making them "mandatory" with an opt-out option is that the cost is then covered for people who can't afford it. So anyone who wants it for their kids can get it, and anyone who doesn't can opt out. Otherwise we'd have a lot of people who didn't have the choice to use it because of money issues.

Inky,

I do realize that, but, still as the mother of a vaccine damaged child and the friend to others who have had children either die or have been damaged, the thought of another vaccine being "mandatory" is a very scary idea. I am not of the mindset that any of them are completely safe and with the HPV vaccine, they only used 1200 girls in the trials and long term effects weren't looked at. There are already girls who are suffering immediate effects, such as fainting, but they are being laughed off as girls just being afraid of a needle. The other thing that bothers me is that when the word mandatory gets applied to anything, people tend to believe that it is, in fact mandatory. Every state has exemptions for vaccines, in my state of Michigan, I just have to sign a form stating that they are against my philosophical beliefs, which one could contend is an "opt out", yet, not many people know that. Doctors don't volunteer that information and neither do school officials.

I just don't like the term mandatory when it comes to anything to do with my body or my childrens' bodies.

I don't know, I guess that after dealing with the aftermath of vaccines and after the reading that I have done, I am not convinced that this one is good for anyone, although those who choose to have it, should have that right. I am just heaving a heavy sigh of relief that it doesn't look like it is going to be mandated in Michigan or many other places for that matter as GSK has stopped lobbying for it due to negative publicity.