j2d3

All this was an excuse to use the word brobdingnagian.

This reminds me of the lifetime movie classic starring Mare Winningham, "Who is Julia?"

Them too, but heroku runs on aws and basically provides this, too, but instead of free, it's very very expensive

This destroys heroku, right?

ok, that makes sense! S and C are fairly close together on the keyboard.

Pretty funny typo ;)

CEO is inherently a political role - a CEO is the face of the company. If the CEOs political views are at odds with most of the employees of the company as well as the company's product's userbase, it's hardly surprising that there would be a movement to get him out. He's the face of the company. If that face is ugly / mean, then he's probably the wrong choice for CEO.

...that said, I do like the idea - have a 3 year old, and trying to understand what is available out there is incredibly difficult and haphazard.

"Expedia for..." sounds pretty weird. Think of something else. I can't remember what actual Expedia is for.

There are many millions of people who have HIV but not AIDS. Their immune systems work well, and their viral levels are controlled by medications. These people are on US health insurance and are highly monitored already, and easy to enroll in studies, easily accessed and monitored - as they already conform to an HIV medication regimen and see their doctors regularly.

Why would a company not test a technology that may well benefit both infected and uninfected people on both populations? You would only have more data. It will take much longer to see the results if you are only studying it as a preventative measure because you have to wait (a really long time, I would suspect) to see which of your study ends up getting HIV. Additionally, you'd need to study those that do get HIV (if some do, and some probably would, as even the best vaccines aren't 100% effective) and try to see if you can tell if their infection progresses differently or if it is somehow augmented by the vaccination's boost to the immune system. I mean... your explanation doesn't actually make that much sense to me.

Why not test both populations?

Hi Howie, can you elaborate? You didn't really address the why / why not aspect of the question.

Since the Immunity Project concept relies on training the immune system to mount a successful response against HIV, why would it not present some benefit to an already-infected person whose infection is otherwise controlled with drugs?

You may just be focusing on the preventative aspect, but there are many millions worldwide who are concerned with controlling HIV without depending on expensive antiviral drugs that in many cases are completely unavailable.