Point Against Carrageenan
Carrageenan is one of my pet subjects - a product I promote based on early research that seems to imply that it's a strong inhibitor for HPV. You can read my previous posts by clicking on the sti tag over on the left sidebar of my journal or going to http://joreth.livejournal.com/tag/sti, and here are some links to the posts I make specifically about carrageenan:
http://joreth.livejournal.com/21110.html - The basic info for carrageenan
http://joreth.livejournal.com/49944.html - Updated info on the testing for carrageenan
In the last post, I talked about how carrageenan is actually being studied for its *anti-HIV* properties and its anti-HPV properties were sort of discovered in the process. Since these trials are for anti-HIV properties, they are most likely ignoring or overlooking anything to do with HPV. Since the anti-HPV properties have been noticed, I assume that *some* data is being collected, but I have no idea how much at this point.
Out of the five products being tested at the time of my last article on the subject, BufferGel®, Carraguard®, PRO 2000®, C31G, and cellulose sulfate (2, 44), the cellulose sulfate (going by the name of CONRAD) failed its trials and I was rooting for BufferGel because it seemed to have the most amount of applicability. It seemed to prevent against pretty much all types of STDs and served as a contraceptive, whereas all the others only prevented some STDs or didn't work as a contraceptive, or a combination.
Well, Carraguard has now failed its test as a preventative for HIV, sadly:
http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/852571020057CCF685257515007476D0
This does not seem to invalidate its anti-HPV properties (as I said, they're really focusing on the anti-HIV potential and no mention was made of HPV or HSV in this article), but since its primary purpose was to prevent HIV, and the anti-HPV effects were less important or secondary, Carraguard will probably not make it to market at all.
I would like to think that the researchers would take a look at the anti-HPV and anti-HSV properties that Carraguard has and do some more testing with a focus on that direction, and then try to market it for those purposes, but, unfortunately, HIV is the big bogeyman right now, even though we have made enormous strides in the quality of life for HIV patients in recent years. I fear that the pharmaceutical companies will think that there is simply not enough profit in marketing a topical gel that only covers HPV and HSV but not HIV, especially since Merk has publicly declared a loss of profits with Gardasil, and all pharmaceutical companies are reconsidering the profitability of all vaccines at the moment.
Unfortunately, this might leave only the CAM (complimentary and alternative medicine) folks to pick up the slack - if they do at all. I say "unfortunately" because CAM, by definition, does not have robust testing and evidence to support its claims ... even on the rare occasion that they're actually right*, and I would hate for a legitimate medicinal product to get lost in the CAM shuffle.
*Once a product achieves the robust testing and evidence to support its claims, it becomes "traditional" or science-based medicine and is no longer "complimentary / alternative medicine", by definition, so it's not that CAM is always wrong, it's that CAM either has A) no evidence to back its claims or B) has evidence to the contrary. In the case of A, it can be further tested and proven effective, but that removes it from the CAM classification.
http://joreth.livejournal.com/21110.html - The basic info for carrageenan
http://joreth.livejournal.com/49944.html - Updated info on the testing for carrageenan
In the last post, I talked about how carrageenan is actually being studied for its *anti-HIV* properties and its anti-HPV properties were sort of discovered in the process. Since these trials are for anti-HIV properties, they are most likely ignoring or overlooking anything to do with HPV. Since the anti-HPV properties have been noticed, I assume that *some* data is being collected, but I have no idea how much at this point.
Out of the five products being tested at the time of my last article on the subject, BufferGel®, Carraguard®, PRO 2000®, C31G, and cellulose sulfate (2, 44), the cellulose sulfate (going by the name of CONRAD) failed its trials and I was rooting for BufferGel because it seemed to have the most amount of applicability. It seemed to prevent against pretty much all types of STDs and served as a contraceptive, whereas all the others only prevented some STDs or didn't work as a contraceptive, or a combination.
Well, Carraguard has now failed its test as a preventative for HIV, sadly:
http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/852571020057CCF685257515007476D0
This does not seem to invalidate its anti-HPV properties (as I said, they're really focusing on the anti-HIV potential and no mention was made of HPV or HSV in this article), but since its primary purpose was to prevent HIV, and the anti-HPV effects were less important or secondary, Carraguard will probably not make it to market at all.
I would like to think that the researchers would take a look at the anti-HPV and anti-HSV properties that Carraguard has and do some more testing with a focus on that direction, and then try to market it for those purposes, but, unfortunately, HIV is the big bogeyman right now, even though we have made enormous strides in the quality of life for HIV patients in recent years. I fear that the pharmaceutical companies will think that there is simply not enough profit in marketing a topical gel that only covers HPV and HSV but not HIV, especially since Merk has publicly declared a loss of profits with Gardasil, and all pharmaceutical companies are reconsidering the profitability of all vaccines at the moment.
Unfortunately, this might leave only the CAM (complimentary and alternative medicine) folks to pick up the slack - if they do at all. I say "unfortunately" because CAM, by definition, does not have robust testing and evidence to support its claims ... even on the rare occasion that they're actually right*, and I would hate for a legitimate medicinal product to get lost in the CAM shuffle.
*Once a product achieves the robust testing and evidence to support its claims, it becomes "traditional" or science-based medicine and is no longer "complimentary / alternative medicine", by definition, so it's not that CAM is always wrong, it's that CAM either has A) no evidence to back its claims or B) has evidence to the contrary. In the case of A, it can be further tested and proven effective, but that removes it from the CAM classification.