HIV vaccine in sight?

[marshlander]

If true, this is indeed good news ...

HIV breakthrough as scientists discover new vaccine to prevent infection | World news | guardian.co.uk

[fredv3b]

To put it in context, it reduced the infection rate over the three years of the trial from 0.903% to 0.622%. So assuming the trail is unbiased, etc. the vaccine reduced the absolute chance of an individual getting AIDS by 0.281%, although that is a relative reduction of 31.2%.

For vaccines against other diseases one would expect a much better performance. In this case most persons who were vaccinated who would have caught HIV had they not been, still caught it anyway. The trouble with developing and HIV vaccine is that other vaccines against viruses are based on the fact that significant numbers of people who contract them will fall ill but then clear themselves of the virus and be left immune, these vaccines offer a way of skipping being ill (and possibly dieing or becoming chronically infected) and going straight to the immune state. To the best of our knowledge this state of immunity to HIV never occurs in humans.

P.S. But it is good news nevertheless.

[fjp999]

[COLOR="Purple"]I find it very odd...

These things are announced with great interest and a week later all news disappears and never heard from again.

I dont like the odds reported for this either... and they probably are elevated and bullshitish as well.

Trying to be positive that something will appear for more than a week of headlines.[/COLOR]

[ardus]

What makes me wonder about this is how did they study whether the people who received the vaccine were actually exposed to HIV. Did they intentionally expose them? If so the people running the study should be shot, if not, how do they know for sure?
Richard

[marshlander]

I doubt it was anything so inhumane, Richard. This kind of study is usually done by comparing a study group with a control group and studying the results of otherwise behaving "normally". I am not a statistician, but I would imagine a larger survey offers results more likely to reflect reality.

[ardus]

Here's the thing though, unless you actually physically expose people to the HIV virus how do you know that they have been exposed. Any smart human being who's been educated past the 8th grade has heard about condoms. People who have safe sex don't get exposed to the HIV virus. You can't when you design a study assume that respondents will be honest, that's one of the basic tenents of Sociology. You design serious studies so that people can't lie on them. So I wonder, how is this a serious study?
Richard

[fjp999]

[COLOR="Purple"]The article is very interesting reading.

Especially:[/COLOR] Today the National Institute's director, Dr Anthony Fauci, warned it was "not the end of the road", but said he was surprised and very pleased by the outcome. [COLOR="purple"]as this was the wonderful doctor who treated me at the University of Pittsburgh HIV research center in the early mid 80s.

During uni, I had a very rare mono... met many docs, psychs, etc... finally my grams doc DIAGNOSED me with HIV without any tests. No blood, no urine, nothing... just from the fact that I had a pierced ear and had visited NYC. DIAGNOSED. Unbelievable, really.

This quack, I think he wanted to be the first in the area to find an HIVer, asked if I wanted him to tell my mom. LOL. I said NO... I would take care of that.

He then called my uni up and MUCH FUN ENSUED. I was put into a special study. Remember this was when there were still very few cases, named diff, and not much known. I think most of the staff used six layers of gloves, multiple masks, etc...

Everyone was very kind but FUCK... was a wild adventure... The most kind and generous human I had met at that time was Dr. Fauci. He didnt wear gloves or masks and shook my hand like I was a human.

The test to confirm HIV infection, at the time, cost around $50,000 (and that is early/mid 80s dollars). The test came back Negative but that $50.000 test did show that I had been infected with a somewhat rarer form of mono but since it took so long to think of testing for that the mono was nearly cleared out.

One prof failed me not believing I had been sick. FUCKER!

Sorry to go on for so long.

The article is very informative BUT the comments made under the article IS REALLY INFORMATIVE. The authors are joining in the discussion and have made some changes in the article after reading commenters statements. What an amazing new world of journalism this is...[/COLOR]

[fredv3b]

What makes me wonder about this is how did they study whether the people who received the vaccine were actually exposed to HIV. Did they intentionally expose them? If so the people running the study should be shot, if not, how do they know for sure?
Richard

Here's the thing though, unless you actually physically expose people to the HIV virus how do you know that they have been exposed. Any smart human being who's been educated past the 8th grade has heard about condoms. People who have safe sex don't get exposed to the HIV virus. You can't when you design a study assume that respondents will be honest, that's one of the basic tenents of Sociology. You design serious studies so that people can't lie on them. So I wonder, how is this a serious study?
Richard

I'm sorry you have rather lost me. The study was carrried out in the same way as for any trial of a vaccine. A large number of people are recruited (in this case c. 16,000) they are all then given an injection, in half of these cases this is the vaccine, in the rest this is a dummy injection (the placebo), who gets what remains secret. These people are then free to carry on life, a few of them being exposed to the virus. (Life tells us very clearly that for whatever reason the knowledge of condoms is not enough to stop people getting HIV). After a period of time (in this case 3 years), the study participants are tracked down and tested for HIV. If fewer people who were actually given the vaccine have contracted HIV than those who were given the placebo (more than random chance might plausibly explain) then we conclude that the vaccine has stopped some people contracting HIV. Since the participants did not know whether they were given the vaccine or the placebo, there is no reason to suppose that their behaviour (and hence exposure to the virus) is any different.

[gaydnuk]

very good news