Hi Marliss,
I hope that everyone has a valid reason to be optimistic about this discovery, but based on the following quote from the article, I'm guessing that animals apparently do not develop C. diff infections.
In the study, the vaccine protected the mice and non-human primates against the purified toxins produced by C. difficile, as well as from an orogastric spore infection, a laboratory model that mimics the human disease, after only two immunizations.
Otherwise, one would think that they would have done the tests using actual C. diff infections, rather than to use "purified toxins produced by C. difficile" and "an orogastric spore infection". Call me a nit-picker, but preventing clinical symptoms (or even laboratory markers) from an infection is not the same as preventing an infection. And why would those convoluted methods lead them to be confident that the vaccine would actually work to prevent a C. diff infection in humans?
Maybe I'm just overly suspicious, or dense, or paranoid, or whatever, but this doesn't appear to me to be a done deal until it's proven to actually work on humans.
Mighty interesting though — I sure hope they know what they're talking about.
Thanks,
Tex
