Read about our June 8th Fundraiser at Haute Living
Invitation for ARF benefit
Haute Living society writer Rachel Heller is excited about our next event, hosted at our newest board member’s private residence, June 8th.
Read more:
http://www.hauteliving.com/blog/nyc-charity-event-for-new-nonprofit-cif/
NIH Support for our upcoming human trials
CIF’s for-profit partner Covalent Immunology Products has recieved a STTR Phase I grant for the Phase I trial of Dr. Sudhir Paul’s “E-vaccine”. This is huge step for CIF and its partners, and shows great public support for our innovative approach towards the first effective HIV vaccine.
Grant Number: 1 R41 AI087527-01
Ohio Wesleyan Improv Team raises $1200 for CIF!
Captain of Ohio Wesleyan’s Improv Team, and college senior Jake Barnett, lead an impressive week long series of events to raise money for CIF. Events included and improv show, a dance off, and a concert.
Jake focuses on finding venues and ways to tell the powerful story of Dr. Sudhir Paul’s research, and his journey to scientific discovery.
Read his full recap below:
When you have a cause and idea as motivating as “ending HIV”, part of you expects fundraising to be easy. As I am sure everyone reading this knows however, this is not the case. Stretched pocketbooks, competing causes looking for money, apathy and a score of other factors make fundraising a difficult and disheartening task in many ways, especially on a college campus. My experience with CIF, although marked by some of the difficulties listed above, has also been one in which the optimism and compassionate nature of people has been highlighted. When someone hears the story and goals of CIF and Dr. Paul, it is hard not to become inspired.
That is why a large part of my fundraising efforts were directed at simply creating a format to tell the story of CIF. Instead of asking people for money or setting up donation jars, I wanted to create events with their own independent pull at which there could be a short five minute informational segment to educate and inspire the participants. I tried to keep any talking short, and to hit on what I found most inspiring about Dr. Paul, with my stock subjects being the originality of research, the success in preclinical trials, the nonprofit status of CIF, and the global minded nature of the project.
I started off the project by choosing a week in advance when we could have a series of events, and talking to various groups about becoming involved. This early preparation allowed me to try to facilitate other groups that were involved and /or interested in HIV to become a part of the project. In the end, the International development group, Africa issues and GLBT group on campus all became involved in different ways. This not only gave the week a more diverse and rich perspective, it also took a lot of the organizational burden off of me.
We started off the week with advertising for the events through facebook, posters, campus e mail and face to face. I strongly pushed the face to face aspect of advertising because I felt it would be the strongest way to convey the enthusiasm everyone involved had for this cause. . I also organized people to table at a popular part of campus at lunch, where students could come to buy tickets to shows, learn more about events, learn more about the cause, or buy condomgrams and red ribbons. One aspect of advertising that I did not take full enough advantage of was advertising in the community. In retrospect I would have liked to have talked to our local newspaper and local business people in an effort to pique community interest
Our first event was the “Fast for a Cure.” At this event individuals pledged to fast for 24 hours for donations and wore stickers to raise awareness of their fasting and the week of events. In order to reach out beyond the campus those fasting were encouraged to send out letters detailing the goals of CIF and Dr. Paul, while adding their own personal touches as to why they were inspired by the events. While this fundraising technique was not a particularly timely one, since it took time for the letters to arrive and for people to return them, we felt this was an effective way to raise awareness and funds for CIF beyond our campus.
Our second event was a dance sponsored by the Africa issues club on campus. The dance, which charged an admission price of 2 dollars, had all of the proceeds donated to CIF. While this event gave no format for any speech or awareness raising about CIF, it was a fun and easy way to raise money.
Our third event was an Improvisational comedy show. The long term planning of the week of events allowed me to reserve the main theater at school and actually get another local college improvisational troupe involved. Admission price was three dollars and about 140 people attended. This cause was the one closest to my heart, not only because I was on the improvisational troupe, but also because this was an event at which there was a very easy format to speak about why the work of CIF and Dr. Paul were so important to support. This was also a good event to ask faculty and employees of the school to, one that was at an easily identifiable location with a good reason to come. Getting older members of the community to attend was an objective to me, because it meant getting people with more disposable income. After my original speech I asked people to give on their way out and raised another 150 dollars this way.
Our fourth and final event was a benefit concert. A friend of mine had approached me asking if he could play a concert to raise money for the cause, a proposition I enthusiastically agreed to. This event, although not hugely successful, was still able to easily raise another 70 dollars for CIF without my having to put in any substantial effort.
In the end we were able to raise about 1,200 dollars for CIF, an amount that speaks to the inspiring nature of the cause on a small and overprogrammed campus. I strongly feel that this medicine has the potential to change the world, and after this competition I am proud to say that I am one of the people that has contributed to CIF.
Ohio Wesleyan's Improv team raising money for CIF
Good News From the HIV Vaccine Trial: The Success That Came from Failure
Newsweek logo
Posted Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:30 PM
Newsweek
by Mary Carmichael
Last year the prospects for an HIV vaccine looked so bleak that some scientists began to talk
about calling off the search all together. But today, the AIDS research community is re-
energized—and surprised—by new data showing for the first time that a vaccine can partly stop
transmission of the virus in humans.
Many in the community had not expected the vaccine to succeed, and they still don’t understand
exactly how it works. It’s “a humbling reminder of how little we actually know,” says Anthony
Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which helped fund
the trial. But it’s also the best lead the field has produced in a decade—and that means that
instead of stopping the search for a fully effective AIDS vaccine, it’s time to rev things up.
The vaccine, which was tested in Thailand by a collaboration of world health organizations, cut
down on transmission of the virus by almost a third. (8,000 volunteers received the vaccine, and
51 of them became infected afterwards; 8,000 more received a placebo, and a higher number—
74—became infected.) The vaccine’s 31 percent success rate falls far short of the 80 percent that
public health officials like to see before licensing a product for wide use. On the other hand, it’s
much better than zero percent effective, and that’s the outcome a lot of people were expecting.
“If you had asked me to bet money last week, this was probably the least likely result I would
have bet on,” says Mitchell Warren, executive director of AVAC, the Aids Vaccine Advocacy
Coalition. The trial sounded so futile to some that one advocacy group called for its end in 2005,
saying it was “squandering public goodwill and scarce research funds to boot.”
Why were people so pessimistic about the Thai trial? The AIDS vaccine field is littered with
failed experiments, and this one had some precedents that were especially discouraging. The
vaccine is made of two parts, neither of which had worked in previous human trials. One of the
two components, a formulation called AIDSVAX, flopped in a large trial in 2003 when given on
its own. AIDSVAX caused the human body to make antibodies against HIV, but the antibodies
were never a close enough match to latch onto and attack the fast-mutating virus.
After that disappointment, researchers turned away from the antibody approach and focused on a
vaccine that tried to deploy another facet of the immune system, the body’s T cells. A Merck
vaccine based on this concept of “cellular immunity” showed real potential in monkeys, but it
didn’t work in humans—and it may have even increased the risk of infection in some patients.
Soon after the news broke, some scientists began to wonder if the entire search for a vaccine was
futile.
By that time, though, the Thai trial was already underway. Unlike the AIDSVAX and Merck
trials, it was testing a new double-barreled strategy against the virus—the “prime boost” method,
which conditions the body to attack HIV and then bolsters the immune system’s ongoing
response. How exactly it might do that is unclear—no other vaccine works that way—but
investigators who have seen the Thai data have a theory. The vaccine may first cause the body to
produce an unusual class of antibodies that can pump up the power of immune cells called “T
effectors.” These cells are then able to attack the virus before it can establish a home in the body.
That means the major debate among AIDS vaccine researchers—should we use antibodies, or
should we use T cells?— is now somewhat moot. It turns out we may need both.
There’s a lot more research to do on the Thai vaccine, then—starting with a detailed look at the
31 percent of people who were protected against the virus. Scientists need to know what exactly
was shielding them from infection and whether that shield remains strong in the long term.
They’ll also need to follow the unlucky 69 percent who did get infected during the trial to see if
they fare any better, health-wise, than people who never received a vaccine. They’ll need to
design more trials of the Thai vaccine, which has only been tested on the B and E strains of HIV
that circulate in Southeast Asia, not the C strain that dominates in Africa. Most of all, of course,
they’ll need to figure out a way to increase the vaccine’s effectiveness from 31 percent to
something much higher. The planning is likely to start in October, when the more results from
the trial are released at an international conference in Paris.
Research on related strategies will continue as well; today alone, two new initiatives are being
launched to study antibody-based approaches. One, at the Scripps Research Institute, is based on
groundbreaking research published just three weeks ago in the journal Science, describing two
newly discovered potent antibodies against HIV. The other, spearheaded by a foundation called
Covalent Immunology, involves chemical manipulation of the same AIDSVAX formulation
used in Thailand; it may make it even more powerful.
Just a few hours after the Thai vaccine researchers announced their success, an advocacy group
that had criticized vaccine research for siphoning money from treatment and on-the-ground
prevention programs sent out a press release. Instead of relenting, it was retrenching. “News of a
successful HIV AIDS vaccine trial is welcome,” read the statement from ActionAid, “but
treating existing infections and fighting the underlying epidemic of violence against women
remain more important priorities.” The sentiment is understandable. The Thai vaccine works in
only a third of people while treatment works for many more; a truly effective vaccine is still
years (and probably billions of dollars) in the making while treatment is available now. And
stopping sexual assault obviously has benefits for women far beyond preventing AIDS.
Ultimately, though, a vaccine is the only thing that’s going to wipe out HIV. Yes, there are drugs
and public health programs in place today, but 3.1 million people still die of AIDS every year, a
fifth of them children. “At the end of the day, nobody’s ever completely controlled a major viral
epidemic without a vaccine,” says Seth Berkley, CEO of the International AIDS Vaccine
Initiative. “And that is the goal – to end this pandemic. People are talking about AIDS as a
chronic disease. We don’t want it as a chronic disease. We want it gone.” At least now there’s a
glimmer of hope that someday it will be.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/09/24/good-news-from-the-
hiv-vaccine-trial-the-maybe-cure-that-almost-wasn-t.aspx
Thai Trial – HIV vaccine effort
New hope for HIV vaccination
The US Military HIV Research Program announced on Sept 24 the top-line results from a large trial of a vaccine candidate conducted in Thailand (https://www01.hjf.org/apps/internet/hivnewscenter.nsf/phase3). The vaccine candidate contained two ingredients, one intended to induce T cell immunity and the second intended to induce neutralizing antibodies The two ingredients tested individually in previous trials did not reduce the risk of HIV infection. In the two-ingredient vaccine trial, of 8,197 trial subjects who received the vaccine candidate, 51 contracted HIV infection over a 3 year follow-up period. In comparison, of 8,198 trial subjects who did not receive the vaccine candidate (placebo recipients), 74 contracted the infection. This represents a statistically significant reduction of infection risk (31.2% risk reduction; P<0.04). CIF applauds the modest success of this vaccine candidate as an incremental milestone. CIF recognizes, however, that a more effective vaccine is necessary to prevent the spread of HIV infection, and it is committed to helping develop innovative vaccine candidates.
Hard Medicine
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS RESEARCHER REPORTS DEVELOPMENT OF A PROTOTYPE VACCINE TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF HIV/AIDS
To support his research The Covalent Immunology Foundation (CIF) was formed and will host first Fundraising benefit: Hard Medicine in NYC on September 24th
On September 24 2009, a dynamic group of young professionals will join forces in New York to throw the debut charity benefit for Covalent Immunology Foundation: HARD MEDICINE. This event celebrates the Foundation’s groundbreaking research in catalytic antibody technology in the fight against HIV and their socially conscious plans for distribution of medical care.
In a scientific breakthrough that may expedite development of a vaccine to prevent and treat HIV infection, Dr. Sudhir Paul at The University of Texas Health Sciences at Houston has published the development of a chemically activated prototype vaccine that causes production of protective antibodies against genetically-diverse strains of HIV in an animal model. The report is currently online and will appear in a print issue of the Journal of Biological Chemistry in November.
Dr. Paul, who has been an antibody researcher for over 30 years, said “Our findings open a new path to develop an effective preventative and therapeutic vaccine. The prototype vaccine activates the immune system covalently, a type of chemical bonding that successfully eliminates nature’s restrictions on production of protective antibodies to HIV by the immune system. This work is based on our previous findings of abzymes, antibodies with enzymatic activities that catalyze efficient destruction of target proteins”.
The mission of Covalent Immunology Foundation (CIF) is to raise awareness and support research on the covalent vaccination and abzymes technologies. According to CIF, these technologies will enable development of low-cost and innovative medicines for many millions worldwide who are struggling with intractable diseases like HIV infection and Alzheimer’s disease.
The groundbreaking work of Dr. Paul has inspired a dynamic group of professionals lead by Zachary Barnett and Marie La France to join forces in New York and organize HARD MEDICINE, a charity benefit to be held on September 24th.
HARD MEDICINE will be a 300 person gala at the Red Bull Event Space in SoHo, and will jump-start the Foundation’s mission. The goal of HARD MEDICINE is to raise approximately $40,000 needed to launch a national fundraising campaign and to generate worldwide support for CIF’s mission. The guest of honor, Dr. Paul, will be joined by a diverse group of influential young New Yorkers and celebrities from the worlds of fashion, music, art, and media. The evening will feature a live performance from Amanda Blank, DJ’s Josh Sparber and Lauren Flax, and a silent auction with original artwork and items from exclusive fashion labels including DVF and Bottega Veneta. Guests will receive a limited edition CIF necklace specially designed by Bing Bang Jewelry. The exclusive debut of a video specially designed to raise funds online from donors around the world will be unveiled at the event. The video will feature celebrities and high-profile activists coming together to raise funds online from around the world based on a small-donation model. The funds will support and speed Dr. Paul’s work on developing an HIV vaccine and abzyme treatments for the tens of millions with intractable diseases.
“We have complete faith that Dr. Paul can bring this vaccine to fruition expeditiously and we’re pooling together our resources to help give him a chance to succeed,” said HARD MEDICINE Co-Founder Zachary Barnett. “What’s unique about HARD MEDICINE is that we’re democratizing scientific research and enabling people to donate directly to a specific type of innovative research with which they feel a strong affinity.”
For more information or to find out how you can get involved or to purchase tickets, please visit www.covalentimmunology.org
HARD MEDICINE is based in NYC, founded by Zachary Barnett and Marie La France. It’s also supported by a coalition of over 25 creative individuals who are donating their time to support one scientist’s fight against HIV and other untreatable diseases. HARD MEDICINE will be a fun way to make tangible difference, changing the way we look at charitable support of innovative medical research and development.
