See http://liveherpesvaccine.com/category/herpes-immunology/ for a long-running detailed blog by a different scientist who has been working on similar ideas for years. He has shown that a mutated HSV virus which is not capable of causing clinical disease (but which does cause a lifelong infection by the "harmless" version) protects against the dangerous version. This new research seems to be in the same vein:
> When introduced to a mouse, HSV-2 was able to use the HSV-1 gD to enter the mouse’s cells. Once inside, HSV-2 replicated abundantly, but because it could not produce gD, future progeny were unable to infect new cells. According to Herold, infected cells then became “little factories for making viral proteins” that spurred the immune system to produce antibodies to HSV-2.
That sounds like some cells are infected with the mutated virus and this remains as a lifelong infection. So far there seems little hope that the FDA would approve such an approach, based on Halford's experience. (See linked blog.)
You made me curious, so I did some reading. As far as I understand, the measles does use a live attenuated virus, but the resulting infection is not (normally) persistent. However, the varicella vaccine (chickenpox) DOES use a live attenuated virus that causes persistent infection.
Elife is backed by the largest non-profit funding medical research in the United Kingdom (the Wellcome Trust). Its editor won a Nobel Prize recently. I know these are somewhat shallow proxies for trustworthiness, but good enough for me ;)
(As for the more general question - how do you decide this in general, in a field you're new to - I don't know. Probably asking in a thread on HN is a very good strategy actually :))
In particular here - this is very real work, published in a very good journal (if brand new (One of the very few excellent Open Access Journals)).
In regards to your question about how to get a gut feeling - it's not easy. Reputation is still important in the scientific community - reputation of the university/department, of the lead authors, and of the co-authors, and the journal itself. If they're names you recognize, it's not to say that it will automatically be trustworthy- but the likelihood is much greater. Reading the abstract of the actual paper, and seeing how well it comports with the article is another good measure. Oftentimes the abstract will be in significantly less flowery terms, as there are so very very few scientific papers that are flat out, very-first, discoveries. All come from their predecessors, and come with caveats. Finally - science is slow (compared to news cycles). So best bet is to just wait, ask around, and talk with people who have an interest in the field.
There are two types of herpes virus (one affecting you orally, the other "genitally"). Additionally, what confuses me even more is that there are two strains (Type 1 and Type 2). Have a read here:
I can't confirm if the two strains/types are the cause for discrepancy in your stats, but it's worth a look. Anyone have more info on this?
Odd/funny story: I have the oral/harmless version of Herpes, and I once made the mistake of asking a GP for more info. He pulled out a fat textbook, and proceeded to look it up in front of me. Needless to say, that was a very fruitless conversation, and I changed doctors after that incident.
The amount of FUD being spread about HPV is stunning. Maybe it's my tinfoil hat, but I can only associate the increased news coverage on the fact that:
1) A pharmaceutical corporation developed a vaccine for it
2) TV broadcasting is heavily funded by pharmaceutical corporations
3) Profit
It's brilliant. You develop a vaccine for a virus most of the population will be exposed to at some point in their lives (HPV, flu, you name it.) Despite the fact that the vast majority will survive the infection without any issues, you convince them that they'll die if they don't get vaccinated. Better yet: you convince them their kids will die.
Just to clarify some science. The link between HPV and cancer is direct, strong and without dispute. It's one of the rare cases where we can pinpoint exactly how a disease/cancer works.
HPV wants its own DNA to be replicated properly - but a particular protein (P53) in humans impairs the virus' ability to replicate. So the virus has evolved the ability to shut down that human protein. The problem is that P53 also serves another role in humans other than helping to stop viruses - it is a DNA repair protein. So the virus, by shutting down the ability of the cell's ability to repair its own DNA it becomes much more susceptible to DNA-damaging events like smoking, UV light and old age generally.
There are a handful of proteins responsible for keeping your cells from becoming cancerous. P53 is the name of one of these control proteins. HPV has evolved to actively destroy P53. So once a person is infected with HPV, their own P53 proteins are compromised and can no longer repair their DNA as efficiently as someone who is not infected with HPV.
The HPV vaccine is one of the very clearest lines of causality from atomic resolution biology through public policy. It's an amazing feat of society.
HPV is not herpes. HPV (certain strains) is the leading cause of cervical cancer, oral cancer, anal cancer. Having a vaccine against it is a huge benefit to public health. I think pharma companies should be commended for developing it, considering the vaccine hasn't been selling that well and they certainly aren't making money had over fist with it.
> The robust response generated by the vaccine, as well as its novel mechanism, has the researchers undertaking additional experiments in mice to determine whether it can be used to treat individuals already infected by HSV-1 and HSV-2.
> When introduced to a mouse, HSV-2 was able to use the HSV-1 gD to enter the mouse’s cells. Once inside, HSV-2 replicated abundantly, but because it could not produce gD, future progeny were unable to infect new cells. According to Herold, infected cells then became “little factories for making viral proteins” that spurred the immune system to produce antibodies to HSV-2.
That sounds like some cells are infected with the mutated virus and this remains as a lifelong infection. So far there seems little hope that the FDA would approve such an approach, based on Halford's experience. (See linked blog.)