Профиль

Very important phase1/2 trial of a 6-valent group B strep vaccine. The vaccine was both safe and immunogenicity in pregnant and non pregnant persons. Sets the stage for ph3 studies. GBS sepsis is a major cause of neonatal sepsis causing 91,000 newborn deaths/yr. www.nature.com/articles/s41...

The first volunteer has been dosed with the world's first BDBV vaccine. www.ox.ac.uk/news/2026-07...

Thanks for all the great questions as always. See you next month. The thread is now formally closed. for this session.

Beyond infectious diseases, I'm particularly excited about personalized cancer vaccines, where an mRNA vaccine is designed against mutations unique to an individual's tumor. Early clinical trial results in melanoma and pancreatic cancer are encouraging.

The most likely near-term successes are vaccines. Expect more mRNA vaccines targeting influenza, RSV, CMV, and potentially pathogens like norovirus or even HIV, although HIV remains a much tougher challenge.

- If a partner has herpes, they can take daily suppressive valacyclovir, which reduces the risk of transmission to an uninfected partner by about 50%. At the moment, there is no equivalent of HIV PrEP for herpes, although vaccines and other prevention strategies are being actively studied.

What can people do to reduce their risk? - Use condoms or dental dams (they reduce, but don't eliminate, risk). - Avoid sex during outbreaks or when prodromal symptoms (tingling, burning) occur.

2. Can you take Valtrex as PrEP before sex? No. Unlike HIV, there is no approved PrEP medication to prevent acquiring herpes before exposure. Taking valacyclovir before a hookup has not been shown to prevent HSV acquisition.

Great questions. 1. Can herpes become resistant to antivirals like valacyclovir (Valtrex)? Resistance can occur, but it's very uncommon in people with healthy immune systems even with long-term suppressive therapy. It's much more likely in people who are severely immunocompromised.

So while the impact of changes to UNAIDS specifically is likely minimal for Ebola, weakening the overall global health infrastructure can make it harder to detect and respond to outbreaks of any kind.

That said, broader cuts to global health funding can weaken laboratory capacity, surveillance systems, and the healthcare workforce investments that often support multiple diseases.

Probably not directly. UNAIDS focuses on HIV/AIDS, not Ebola response. Organizations like WHO, Africa CDC, national ministries of health, Médecins Sans Frontières, UNICEF, and partners such as CDC are much more central to Ebola surveillance, diagnostics, vaccination, and outbreak control.

I limit the Q&A to ID and vaccine related questions so I can provide answer that align with my area of expertise. Sorry.

Bacteria already living in the nose or throat can then overgrow and cause infections like sinusitis or pneumonia. The virus opens the door; the bacteria take advantage.

Exactly. Most secondary bacterial infections happen because a virus changes the local environment not because you catch new bacteria. Viruses damage the lining of the airways, impair mucus clearance, increase inflammation, and temporarily weaken local immune defenses.

For decades, CDC, NIH, and ACIP have been major drivers of vaccine research, surveillance, and evidence synthesis. If that capacity is diminished, the likely consequences are slower evidence generation, greater reliance on fewer institutions, and wider gaps for countries with limited infrastructure.

Yes, but there will be consequences. Countries won't be left without guidance. WHO, EMA, independent researchers, and national advisory groups will continue to provide evidence-based recommendations.

This is an exciting area of research, but we're not yet at the point where we can prescribe vaccines specifically as a dementia prevention strategy.

You don't need all of these vaccines to "prevent dementia." They should be given because they're recommended for preventing their respective infections. Any reduction in dementia risk, if confirmed, is an added potential benefit not the primary reason to get vaccinated.

Evidence for COVID-19 vaccination is emerging and is biologically plausible, given that preventing severe COVID may reduce neuroinflammation and vascular injury. For RSV, it's simply too early we don't have enough long-term data.