A new vaccine developed by researchers at the University of Oxford has generated a strong immune response against the Hepatitis C virus in human volunteers.

The vaccine is the first Hepatitis C inoculation to reach this stage of clinical trials, and the results have been promising. The 15 healthy human volunteers who took part in the phase 1 safety trial all responded positively.

The Oxford University team, with colleagues from the Italian biotechnology company Okairos (now part of the transnational pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline) and Stanford University in the United States of America, have published their results in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

Currently, the efficacy of the vaccine is being tested in a trial with intravenous drug users – a group running a high risk of contracting Hepatitis C – in two sites in the USA. This is aiming to discover if the inoculation offers protection from infection of Hepatitis C in this group, compared with a placebo.

The principle investigator Professor Ellie Barnes, of the Nuffield Department of Medicine at the University of Oxford, said, “The size and breadth of the immune responses seen in the healthy volunteers are unprecedented in magnitude for a hepatitis C vaccine”.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council and the European Union, with support from the Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

180 million people world-wide are thought to suffer from Hepatitis C, which is a chronic viral infection. It is estimated that there are 300,000 cases in the United Kingdom. If left untreated, the virus causes liver cirrhosis in 10 – 40% of sufferers, and in some cases this could lead to liver failure and liver cancer.

Nonetheless, in approximately 25% of cases, the immune response elicited by the viral presence in the body of infected individuals is able to overcome the infection, and naturally remove the virus. This mechanism of viral eradication can be targeted by researchers to develop effective treatments against Hepatitis C.

In the past few years, new drugs have been developed which are effective against a number of different strains of hepatitis C. However, these are expensive, and require a prolonged course of treatment.

As second-year Biological Sciences undergraduate Natasha Gillies explained, “An effective vaccine would possibly be a one-time preventative measure to inhibit the spread of the disease. Prevention is better than a cure.”

Agreeing with this sentiment, first-year Biological Sciences graduate Ben Hopkins told Cherwell, “In terms of large scale public health issues, it’s easier to get people vaccinated on a one off system than give people a long course of drugs, which either they might not take, or they may be reluctant to take.”

The research team at the University of Oxford are using two separate vaccine formulations. Firstly, an immune response against the hepatitis C virus is stimulated by the injection. Eight weeks later, a second vaccine boosts the immune response to a suitable level for effectively fighting off future infection.

The researchers found that T cells, a type of white blood cell that is of key importance to the immune system and is at the core of adaptive immunity (the system that tailors the body’s immune response to specific pathogens), are crucial in eradicating the virus from the human body in those 25% of sufferers who are able to naturally clear the infection. The vaccine has consequently been designed to generate a strong T cell immune response.

The level of the T cell response needed to prevent infection is unknown, but the study compares T cell response levels generated with the vaccine to those observed in people naturally able to overthrow the virus. The study found that after the second, booster inoculation, all 15 volunteers had large, broad and sustained T cells responses.

Professor Barnes commented, “The T cell response is really high, and what’s promising is that this is a broad response. A range of different T cells are produced targeting different parts of the hepatitis virus. This is the first highly immunogenic T cell vaccine developed against hepatitis C. We found it to be safe and well tolerated in this group of 15 healthy volunteers. But we won’t really know if it works – if it is able to prevent hepatitis C infection – until we have the results of the efficacy studies in the USA.”

Clinical trials of an experimental vaccine developed by a research team at Oxford University to protect patients against Ebola are progressing rapidly.

In just over two months, almost 200 people have been given the potential vaccine, in safety trials performed in the UK, the USA, Mali and Switzerland. The first volunteer to receive the vaccine in this trial was Ruth Atkins of Oxfordshire, on the 17th September 2014.

Since Ms Atkins, there have been 20 people at the US National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, 80 people at the University of Maryland School of Medicine Centre for Vaccine Development in Mali (a joint venture with the Ministry of Health of Mali), and 34 people at the University Hospital of Lausanne. It is hoped that by December, the number of trialists at the University Hospital of Lausanne will have reached 120.

On Tuesday 18th November, the 60th and last healthy volunteer in a trial carried out by the University of Oxford received the vaccine.

The vaccine is being developed by the transnational pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), in partnership with the US National Institutes of Health. The Chief Investigator of the vaccine development is Professor Adrian Hill, at the Jenner Institute at Oxford University.

The aim of the vaccine is to protect people who don’t have Ebola from becoming infected, and is thus a preventative measure to ward against the disease. The vaccine is targeted at the Zaire Ebola Virus species, the strain currently prevalent in West African countries.

If the safety and immunogenicity data from the Phase 1 trials are promising, the vaccine is expected to move into the next phases of study to further evaluate safety as well as effectiveness in protecting against Ebola infection in African countries.

Professor Adrian Hill of the Jenner Institute at Oxford University was pleased with the progress of the vaccine. He told Cherwell, “The safety data here have looked very satisfactory so far. The response we have seen from people coming forward to take part has been remarkable.” No significant adverse effects have been identified in non-human primates in response to the vaccine.

The vaccine itself does not contain any infectious Ebola virus material, so cannot cause a person who has the inoculation to become infected with Ebola. The vaccine uses a single gene from the Ebola Virus to generate an immune response; this gene was initially extracted from a strain of the adenovirus present in chimpanzees.

The clinical trial in Mali, performed by the Centre for Vaccine Development of Mali (CVD-Mali), the CVD of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, and the Malian Ministry of Health, is providing the only clinical and immune response data to date of the vaccine in West African subjects.

The team are comparing this data to the immune responses observed in adults given the vaccine in the UK and Switzerland.

Professor Myron M Levine, director of the Centre for Vaccine Development, said, “This research is a testament to the hard work and cooperation of all the institutions involved. If this vaccine is proven to work, it could help alter the dynamic of this epidemic by interrupting transmission to the health care workers who are most at risk.”

The Oxford trial is being funded by a £2.8 million grant from the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council and the UK Department for International Development. The consortium’s funding is also enabling GSK to begin manufacturing thousands of additional doses of the vaccine so that if Phase 1 trials are successful, the next phases of the clinical trial programme can begin – which will involve the vaccination of frontline healthcare workers in Ebola affected countries.

In addition to the development of the vaccine, a second research group at the University of Oxford are trialling a potential drug against Ebola. This treatment will be trialled next month by the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders on Ebola sufferers in West African countries undergoing the Ebola epidemic.

The aim of this treatment is to reduce death rates amongst patients who already have the disease, thus boosting survival. The Chief Investigator of this trial is Professor Peter Horby of the Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health at Oxford University.

The drug is called brincindofovir and is manufactured by a biotech company called Chimerix in the USA, who developed the drug.

Professor Horby stressed the huge importance of developing resistance to Ebola, with both vaccinations and drugs, commenting, “The Ebola epidemic remains a major public health crisis of unprecedented scale, and urgent action is needed to contain this dreadful menace.”

“Actions are needed on multiple fronts, including early case detection and isolation and treatment, safe and dignified burials, social mobilisation, but also trials of new vaccines and drugs.”

“Conducting clinical trials in the midst of this crisis is extremely challenging, and we are having to develop new ways of working. But there is an imperative to move fast, and there is an enormous effort ongoing to fast-track the evaluation of drugs and vaccines.”

Members of Oxford University’s Amnesty International (OUAI) group signed an open letter to the Prime Minister calling for the release of all detainees and the cancellation of expansion plans at Campsfield House detention centre. The letter has also been signed by nine heads of Oxford Colleges and sixty one senior academics.

Signatories of the letter include Danny Dorling, Halford Mackinder Professor of Geography at St Peter’s College, and Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Barrister and Principal of Mansfield College.

They joined members of OUAI, Oxford Migrant Solidarity, and the ‘Close Campsfield’ campaign for a demonstration held in Radcliffe Square. Campaigners at the demonstration hung a large banner reading “David Cameron, Close Campsfield down!”

The letter began, “Dear Prime Minister, As current and former senior members of Oxford University, we wish to express our concern over your government’s policy of detaining immigrants. We believe that this policy is contrary to the spirit of democracy, the Human Rights Act, and the United Nations Convention on Refugees. Immigrants should not be detained for administrative reasons alone.

“We certainly do not find it acceptable that they should be detained without trial, without time limit, without proper judicial oversight and with little chance of bail, and thus treated worse than criminals; we understand that some have been detained for many months, even years, before being released or deported.”

The letter continued, “We are greatly concerned about the government’s plans to transform Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre into a 580-bed mega- centre, making it one of the largest detention centres in Europe. Not only does the UK not need to be expanding its detention estate, but Campsfield House, which was opened over twenty years ago as a small, 180-bed centre, is an inappropriate site for such major expansion. Instead we call for a reversal of this proposed expansion.”

The letter highlighted the case of Canadian Alois Dvorzac (84), who died in hospital soon after being moved from a detention centre where he was held despite suffering from dementia, a heart problem and diabetes, as well as that of the Nigerian asylum seeker Isa Muazu who was forcibly removed to Nigeria despite his lengthy hunger strike and being judged by doctors to be too sick to be detained or deported.

Jo Hynes, Oxford University Amnesty International President, told Cherwell, “The UK detains more migrants, for longer and with less judicial oversight than any other country in Europe, yet the facts are clear: immigration detention doesn’t act as a supposed deterrent to immigration and contravenes basic human rights.”

Commenting on the response to the Campaign to Close Campsfield, she said, “We’ve had an incredible response from both academic staff and students whilst coordinating this letter, with Oxford University Student Union also unanimously passing a motion to call for the closure of Campsfield House.”

Larry Sanders, an Oxfordshire County Councillor for the Green Party, argued, “The strength of the opposition to locking up people who have not even been charged with an offence is very heartening. There is a widespread basic sense of decency in this country. What is not heartening is the cowardice of the leaders of the main parties who are competing to outdo each other and Ukip in getting rid of traditional British defences of human rights. I am very proud that my party, the Green Party has stayed true to its values.

“The recognition that there are times when people need refuge from the oppression of their own countries is a rich result from the horrors of the Second World War. We must not send people to torture and death; we must have a fair and speedy way to look at their situations and we cannot lock them in prisons while we do this.”

Alex Marshall, a member of Oxford Migrant Solidarity, commented, “The detention of people who have committed no crime, or who have completed their sentence, for administrative convenience is an unacceptable breach of the most basic rights. The fact this is happening right under our noses, just a few miles outside Oxford puts the University to shame and I am proud that students, staff and locals have come out against it.”

Responding to the campaign, Home Office spokesman Richard Crow argued, “Immigration removal centres play an important role in our work to remove people who have no right to remain in the UK and it is right that we have adequate facilities in place… Detention is used as a last resort when people will not leave voluntarily or when there is a serious risk they will abscond from bail.”

The New Oxford Bus Company Director Phil Southall has called for the popular pedestrianized street Cornmarket Street to be reopened to buses, to avoid traffic chaos during and after the redevelopment of Westgate Centre.

Referring to £400 million plans to create a new, larger shopping centre at Westgate by 2017, Southall argued, “If the Westgate development changes the focus of the city centre to the west, then buses must have good access to the West End.”

It is likely that due to the new development buses will no longer be able to run on Queen Street. However Oxford City Council leader Bob Price was insistent that the Council would strongly oppose the suggestion that Cornmarket should be reopened to bus traffic.

He said, “It [Cornmarket] is simply too congested and heavily used by pedestrians for this to be a sensible course of action.

“From the City Council’s standpoint there is an urgent need for more pedestrianised street in the City centre not fewer!”

Many students were also unhappy with the idea. Fresher Nathan Wragg pointed out, “With buses on Cornmarket there will be a serious risk of people who are in a rush or heading home from a night out getting injured; especially whilst they adjust to the change.”

Khalid Mohsen, a student at Pembroke, likewise highlighted potential safety issues. He told Cherwell, “Not only is it a dangerous change to make to the hub of Oxford where students, school children and local residents go all the time, but from a more logical viewpoint I never use the buses as I travel by foot or bike like lots of my friends, so it doesn’t sound like a change that would directly benefit the student body.”

Meanwhile English student Hannah Congdon commented “It’s one of the few places in Oxford that is free from traffic and bikes and so it would be such a shame to lose it.

“So many people use it on a regular basis that I’m not sure how everyone would be accommodated if buses were to run through it; there’d be people coming off the pavement!”

On the other hand the father of a Pembroke student thought that opening Cornmarket to buses could be a good idea on a temporary basis, having already experienced chaotic traffic in Oxford himself, “While they were doing extensive road works on the ring road I think it would have been fair to temporarily relax transport measures and I expect that the impact of this New Westgate Centre could be similar to those of the current road works.

“Improving traffic access through into and around the city should definitely be considered but they need to be careful if they do reopen Cornmarket to buses as people won’t be used to the traffic. An enforced speed limit could be a good idea.”

Following the cancellation of the second series of his ITV show, the online Vine personality ‘Dapper Laughs’ has had his tour cancelled as well. The tour was set to take place from February 2015 in venues across the UK, including the O2 Academy in Oxford.

This comes after a great deal of controversy surrounding his show, “Dapper Laughs: On the Pull”, and Vines, in which he has been accused of condoning sexual violence. His videos contain quotes like “If she cries, she’s just playing hard to get”.

An online petition appeared on Change.org to get Dapper Laughs off the air claiming that due to the show “everyday sexism is being normalised for both young men and women”. The petition reached 68,209 signatures and ITV publically released a statement that it will not be considering the show for a second season.

Academy Music Group, who owns O2 venues around the country, then released the statement stating, “Please be advised Dapper Laughs ‘Full Length Tour’ has been cancelled. Return to point of purchase for a refund.” Since the release of this statement, all the other venues, including The Ritz in Manchester and Cardiff University Students Union have also cancelled their dates.

Furthermore, in a statement to Buzzfeed, AMG said, “In light of the cancellation of the second series of the Dapper Laughs ITV2 show and significant criticism, Dapper Laughs (Daniel O’Reilly) has himself apologised for any offence caused by his material, and we are aware that Dapper Laughs’ brand of comedy may not be to everyone’s taste.”

The Oxford University forum Cuntry Living has been a hub for debate and condemnation of the show and tour. One of the admins, Exeter student Alice Nutting, told Cherwell, “I’m really pleased that Dapper Laughs no longer exists and won’t be coming to Oxford. It’s a fantastic example of how discussion and activism can lead to meaningful change. His entire act was based around the worst kind of sexist ‘banter’ which repeatedly made light of predatory behaviour towards women.”

The triumph of activism has also been noted by the founder of the Mansfield Gender Justice Society, Lauren O’Neill, who argued, “Though Dapper Laughs’ misogyny is completely heinous (I’ve literally seen a video in which he tells a woman that she’s “gagging for rape”) I think on the whole this situation has had something of a useful outcome, in that it really got people thinking about and sharing explicitly feminist ideas, which is hugely positive and progressive.

“I hope that people who had their eyes opened to the sexism which is rife in our society by Dapper Laughs continue to think about and raise awareness on issues concerning not only gendered justice, but also social justice on a broader and more intersectional level, in their everyday lives.”

Dapper Laughs also recently appeared on Newsnight claiming that he was only attempting to “push the boundaries” with his character and that he got “carried away”. He claimed that the persona is now dead. However, many people have responded to this appearance negatively claiming it wasn’t an apology.

One such person, is the writer of the article “Dapper Laughs and his Turtleneck of Shame” on the website Bad Housekeeping, Izzy Kirk, who told Cherwell, “The downfall of Dapper Laughs has been chalked up as another victory for the public voice of feminism, but it is not without opposition, usually fighting under the banner of ‘freedom of speech’. Freedom of speech may protect your right to not be indicted for your opinions, but it doesn’t give you an unassailable right to a platform for those opinions.

She continues, “We didn’t campaign against you because we don’t like you, we campaigned against you because your material encourages hatred of women and that’s not an attitude we should ever tolerate. Cancelling the tour isn’t censorship, it’s a huge step for women’s rights in the UK – it sends out a clear message that nobody’s going to stand for bigoted, offensive, tasteless shit (or terrible, terrible comedy?) and if it means that fewer impressionable people are going to be exposed to Dapper Laughs telling them that misogyny is ok, then I fully support it.”