Basically, what Inker said.

I'd definitely be interested even though I am with a fluid-bound partner only, but you never know what could happen. I do work in the medical field, I doubt a needle stick will happen but again, never know! Might as well be safe! But I wouldn't want to be in the trials.

Once its been out and used for a while with little to no side effects, yes.

I only qualify my yes, because I know how long and difficult the process has been to date and would want to make sure everything was worked out.

If I was not married, and still dating, yes I would consider it. That is only after it has been out for a while, and I knew what the side effects and long term side effects were.

Yes and No, I am iffy about new medicine all the time. I haven't even got that Gardasil shot yet. I am waiting until the last minute before taking it, since by then there will be enough time to study it more than there is now. If it is out for sometime and seems like something I should take then yes I will.

Yes, but I wouldn't be the first in line.

I'll be the first definite NO. I am generally against vaccines personally. You couldn't pay me to take a vaccine unless it was an extremely high risk situation (i.e. traveling to a country where malaria is rampant.) I would rather avoid obvious risks-like using protection in the case of STD's-and build my natural immunity rather than getting pumped full of chemicals.

The concept is great, and there could be one someday, for sure.
While my only chances of exposure right now are at work (blood and body fluids, needles, etc), I think I would get it once it was established, deemed safe and added to the immunization schedule.

I certainly wouldn't go for it. I don't like the idea of being willingly injected with mostly dead HIV bits. I refused that inane guardisil (spelling?) immunization as it doesn't protect against all forms, just a few.

Depends, what are the side effects?

I doubt it.

Although it really really needs to be done, and as others have said, you never know what could happen, I know that I am otherwise at a very very low risk of getting it. I'm not an anti-vacine person at all, but I do know enough about genetics and how vaccines work to know that even if it were a relatively safe vaccine, there's not much emergent need for me to take it.

HIV isn't infectious in the way that many diseases with vaccines are. There are more or less only two ways of getting it, and unlike viruses that can be gotten in the air while breathing, it's pretty black and white when you're at risk for contracting it and when you aren't. The most likely circumstance I could envision contracting it is probably getting raped by someone who had it. Which, really isn't that likely either

For people who are at a high risk to get HIV, this will be a wonderful wonderful thing. If my behaviors changed or if I were to move or spend an extended period of time in an area where HIV was particularly widespread I would probably get it.

Also, for the person who mentioned the gardisil vaccine, the vaccine is important not because it simply prevents those couple strains of the HPV virus, but because the strains it prevents are the ones most frequently linked to cervical, anal and throat cancer. Recent studies have found that having one particular strain of HPV is a higher risk factor for throat cancer in men than smoking is. That strain just happens to be one prevented by the vaccine. Thus, it is less about HPV and more about cancer. To call it"Inane" reflects an inane analysis of it's merits.

Of course! Better safe than sorry. I got the HPV vaccine when it came out as well even though it only protects some types.

I'd get the HPV one if I wasn't too old. A vaccine that stops cancer? YES PLEASE!

As for HIV, by the time it's at my GP's office, I'll probably be too old for that too. Women in their 50s in monogamous relationships aren't exactly high risk for HIV. But if my GP thinks it's a good idea, I'll get it.

If is has a safe track record and has been proven to be effective with minimal/no side effects.

Not in this lifetime. Besides the fact I'm married and at as close to zero risk for contracting HIV as one can be without living in a bubble, I am very skeptical about vaccines, verging on hostile. The HPV vaccine is a wonderful marketing gimmick, but if women continued getting annual pap smears, their risk of cervical cancer is lower than what's afforded by the vaccine. There are more adverse events reported with this vaccine than any other - and considering only 10% or fewer adverse effects actually get reported, who knows how many people have actually been harmed or killed by it? Then there's the fact that it only allegedly protects against 4 variants of HPV - two of which are associated with cancer, and there are many, many more strains of this virus. 90% of HPV infections are cleared by the infected persons immune system with no external intervention. Considering car accidents kill more women per year then cervical cancer...what real need was being addressed? A pharmaceutical company's profit margin...this is an expensive vaccine, but now that they're succeeding in having it mandated for little girls AND boys using scare tactics, the money is rolling in.

Given this, I can only imagine the shenanigans that will be pulled with an HIV vaccine...