AIDS "vaccine"?

[Lackadaisical2]

Its pretty recent, so this is the only link I could find:
http://www.livemint.com/2009/09/2411331 ... T.html?h=B

So they took two drugs that didn't seem to have any effect, and now they're claiming a 33% reduction in AIDs rates for those who were given the combination of the two, vs. the placebo group. It was a pretty big study (something like 16,000 people, although only about 100 cases of HIV), so unless someone has been falsifying data, it sounds fairly successful.

EDIT: 'nother link http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/200 ... RGENT.html

[Kobrania]

Unfortunately a certain group of people might try to ban it's use or play down it's effectiveness, if it actually works.

[Querinos]

Sounds iffy at best. The two drugs may be giving false negatives, or flase positives. Also why did the defuncted AIDSVAX only work with this new drug. That needs some serious looking into... A little trobled with their control group aswell; not one of the test subjects could have lied. Why even limit which sexual oreintation to test? Then again this is Thailand where Jews are blamed for the Bird Flu.

[Non Aligned States]

Then again this is Thailand where Jews are blamed for the Bird Flu.

Wut? Care to source that?

[Lackadaisical2]

Sounds iffy at best. The two drugs may be giving false negatives, or flase positives. Also why did the defuncted AIDSVAX only work with this new drug. That needs some serious looking into... A little trobled with their control group aswell; not one of the test subjects could have lied. Why even limit which sexual oreintation to test? Then again this is Thailand where Jews are blamed for the Bird Flu.

lol... right. Maybe its a Jew vaccine.

My guess would be that its possible, given the massive size of the study, they're finding the differences, that would otherwise have been below the significance level of a smaller test. Or its just a fluke, but that seems ridiculously unlikely.

[Querinos]

Wut? Care to source that?

a source

Ok, Indonesia and Thialand are kind of like spliting hairs.

[Risottia]

1.Linky #1 doesn't work.

2.Fron linky #2: "An experimental AIDS vaccine made using two older vaccines protected volunteers, lowering the risk of infection by about a third, U.S. and Thai researchers reported Thursday."
WHAT?
So thousands of people actually volunteered into being infected with HIV after taking the experimental vaccine? Mh... Sanofi-Aventis + experiments in Thailand... why do I suspect a little-less-than-ethical behaviour, like exploiting the poverty to get human guinea pigs?

3.Well, lowering the risk is a step forward in the road to the vaccine... still it's not a working vaccine.

[SoWiBi]

2.Fron linky #2: "An experimental AIDS vaccine made using two older vaccines protected volunteers, lowering the risk of infection by about a third, U.S. and Thai researchers reported Thursday."
WHAT?
So thousands of people actually volunteered into being infected with HIV after taking the experimental vaccine? Mh... Sanofi-Aventis + experiments in Thailand... why do I suspect a little-less-than-ethical behaviour, like exploiting the poverty to get human guinea pigs?

This question arose with me immediately as well.. but if you read on, you will find that what they did was take a whole bunch of HIV-negative people, supply them with condoms and advice on safer sex, let them run wild, and then re-test them all three years later - and then they found that out of the group that received the "effective" shots, the number of infected people was 31% less than with those who received the dummy shots (though both numbers of course were rather small, what with 51 and 74 out of a rough 8,000, respectively).

The study tested the combo in HIV-negative Thai men and women ages 18 to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four "priming" doses of ALVAC and two "boost" doses of AIDSVAX over six months. The others received dummy shots. No one knew who got what until the study ended.

All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines.

Participants were followed for three years after vaccination ended.

Results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_ ... ds_vaccine

[Risottia]

2.Fron linky #2: "An experimental AIDS vaccine made using two older vaccines protected volunteers, lowering the risk of infection by about a third, U.S. and Thai researchers reported Thursday."
WHAT?
So thousands of people actually volunteered into being infected with HIV after taking the experimental vaccine? Mh... Sanofi-Aventis + experiments in Thailand... why do I suspect a little-less-than-ethical behaviour, like exploiting the poverty to get human guinea pigs?

This question arose with me immediately as well.. but if you read on, you will find that what they did was take a whole bunch of HIV-negative people, supply them with condoms and advice on safer sex, let them run wild, and then re-test them all three years later - and then they found that out of the group that received the "effective" shots, the number of infected people was 31% less than with those who received the dummy shots (though both numbers of course were rather small, what with 51 and 74 out of a rough 8,000, respectively).

The study tested the combo in HIV-negative Thai men and women ages 18 to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four "priming" doses of ALVAC and two "boost" doses of AIDSVAX over six months. The others received dummy shots. No one knew who got what until the study ended.

All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines.

Participants were followed for three years after vaccination ended.

Results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_ ... ds_vaccine

Thanks for the explanation. It's not as bad as I thought (still I don't like this kind of testing for vaccines against a disease we still can't cure).

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

If this actually works, certain religious groups will be against it, because having sex is infinitely worse than people dying of AIDS.

[Non Aligned States]

This question arose with me immediately as well.. but if you read on, you will find that what they did was take a whole bunch of HIV-negative people, supply them with condoms and advice on safer sex, let them run wild, and then re-test them all three years later - and then they found that out of the group that received the "effective" shots, the number of infected people was 31% less than with those who received the dummy shots (though both numbers of course were rather small, what with 51 and 74 out of a rough 8,000, respectively).

Another thing gumming up the works is whether simple probability screwed up the results. E.g. the control group had less luck in finding uninfected partners/shot up on drugs, etc, etc.

[Neo Art]

Biology people, answer me a question. Isn't "AIDS vaccine" scientifically incorrect? Doesn't a vaccine vaccinate against a virus, which would mean it's an HIV vaccine?

[Non Aligned States]

Biology people, answer me a question. Isn't "AIDS vaccine" scientifically incorrect? Doesn't a vaccine vaccinate against a virus, which would mean it's an HIV vaccine?

Congratulations NA, you win a nitpick cookie. Eat it with pride.

[Neo Art]

Biology people, answer me a question. Isn't "AIDS vaccine" scientifically incorrect? Doesn't a vaccine vaccinate against a virus, which would mean it's an HIV vaccine?

Congratulations NA, you win a nitpick cookie. Eat it with pride.

heh, it's more a matter of getting my heckles all risen by journalistic inaccuracy, so before I get all huffy about articles discussing an "AIDS vaccine" I should at least confirm that they're the wrong ones, not me.

[Non Aligned States]

heh, it's more a matter of getting my heckles all risen by journalistic inaccuracy, so before I get all huffy about articles discussing an "AIDS vaccine" I should at least confirm that they're the wrong ones, not me.

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome is the result of HIV infection, so yes, you can get your hackles up. I'd like to see your heckles all risen though...

[Northwest Slobovia]

Thanks for the explanation. It's not as bad as I thought (still I don't like this kind of testing for vaccines against a disease we still can't cure).

Well, um, that's how we test vaccines (and all new medical treatments). Run all the animal studies you want, but at some point, it has to be tested in humans...

FWIW, we can't "cure" most of the diseases we vaccinate against (the various poxes, polio, measles, etc), as vaccines are the only treatment for them. It's prevention or suffering, as 't'ain't much we can do about most viruses.

[Neo Art]

heh, it's more a matter of getting my heckles all risen by journalistic inaccuracy, so before I get all huffy about articles discussing an "AIDS vaccine" I should at least confirm that they're the wrong ones, not me.

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome is the result of HIV infection, so yes, you can get your hackles up. I'd like to see your heckles all risen though...

pft.

And yes, I know, AIDS is the "disease" whereas HIV is the "virus". I just don't know, from a technical standpoint, whether we vaccinate against the disease or the virus. I suppose "flu vaccine" is no worse than "AIDS vaccine", since "the flu" is as much a syndrome as AIDS is.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Biology people, answer me a question. Isn't "AIDS vaccine" scientifically incorrect? Doesn't a vaccine vaccinate against a virus, which would mean it's an HIV vaccine?

Eh. AFAIK, AIDS is the only disease where people commonly distinguish between the name of the infectious agent and the disease it causes.

[Xsyne]

heh, it's more a matter of getting my heckles all risen by journalistic inaccuracy, so before I get all huffy about articles discussing an "AIDS vaccine" I should at least confirm that they're the wrong ones, not me.

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome is the result of HIV infection, so yes, you can get your hackles up. I'd like to see your heckles all risen though...

pft.

And yes, I know, AIDS is the "disease" whereas HIV is the "virus". I just don't know, from a technical standpoint, whether we vaccinate against the disease or the virus. I suppose "flu vaccine" is no worse than "AIDS vaccine", since "the flu" is as much a syndrome as AIDS is.

Well, the term for the virus that causes the flu is the "influenza virus". In that case, the disease and the causative agent can be referred to with the same name..

[Tekania]

2.Fron linky #2: "An experimental AIDS vaccine made using two older vaccines protected volunteers, lowering the risk of infection by about a third, U.S. and Thai researchers reported Thursday."
WHAT?
So thousands of people actually volunteered into being infected with HIV after taking the experimental vaccine? Mh... Sanofi-Aventis + experiments in Thailand... why do I suspect a little-less-than-ethical behaviour, like exploiting the poverty to get human guinea pigs?

This question arose with me immediately as well.. but if you read on, you will find that what they did was take a whole bunch of HIV-negative people, supply them with condoms and advice on safer sex, let them run wild, and then re-test them all three years later - and then they found that out of the group that received the "effective" shots, the number of infected people was 31% less than with those who received the dummy shots (though both numbers of course were rather small, what with 51 and 74 out of a rough 8,000, respectively).

The study tested the combo in HIV-negative Thai men and women ages 18 to 30 at average risk of becoming infected. Half received four "priming" doses of ALVAC and two "boost" doses of AIDSVAX over six months. The others received dummy shots. No one knew who got what until the study ended.

All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines.

Participants were followed for three years after vaccination ended.

Results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_ ... ds_vaccine

Also shows some statistical number scewing going on by presenting the differences in infection rates... Really not a 31% improvement on the vaccine.... if you take the data at face value the infection rate in the vac group was only 00.6%, and in the control group it was 00.9%, which makes a 00.3% margin of difference in favor of the vac group (not 31% success rate).... The "Success rate" on the vaccine is 99.4%, off is 99.1%.... In fact, looking at the numbers it makes me thing they moved the decimal two too many times when they came up with the percentile.

[Soheran]

The "Success rate" on the vaccine is 99.4%, off is 99.1%....

Their numbers are right. You are confused about the terminology. The percentage reduction in risk is the percentage of the risk: 0.09 - 0.06 = 0.03, 0.03/0.09 = 33% (a little lower in reality, because the numbers I used are rounded).

Think about it: this is by far a better measure of the efficacy of a vaccine. Your method makes the measure vary with the percentage of people who get the disease, which is beside the point: the question is what proportion of the people who would have gotten the disease will not get it because of the vaccine.

[Tekania]

The "Success rate" on the vaccine is 99.4%, off is 99.1%....

Their numbers are right. You are confused about the terminology. The percentage reduction in risk is the percentage of the risk: 0.09 - 0.06 = 0.03, 0.03/0.09 = 33% (a little lower in reality, because the numbers I used are rounded).

Think about it: this is by far a better measure of the efficacy of a vaccine. Your method makes the measure vary with the percentage of people who get the disease, which is beside the point: the question is what proportion of the people who would have gotten the disease will not get it because of the vaccine.

To be honest, no one.... Those numbers are too small to account for any real effect. Their studyies margin of error, given the lack of control, would have been pretty high (well above 1%), so having a scew of only 00.3% in the data falls well below what-ever the studies margin of error was.... Meaning the results don't show anything. They would need to vaccinate people and then purposely expose them to HIV in order to get an accurate result.... Or at least show a study which exceeds a reasonable margin of error...

[Flameswroth]

Is it ironic, or poetic justice that this AIDS 'vaccine' has been developed in Bangkok, with the assistance of VaxGen, a pharmaceutical company out of SanFran?

[Lackadaisical2]

Is it ironic, or poetic justice that this AIDS 'vaccine' has been developed in Bangkok, with the assistance of VaxGen, a pharmaceutical company out of SanFran?

It wasn't developed in Bangkok, it was developed in the US, we're just testing it there because its presumably cheaper to do so.

To be honest, no one.... Those numbers are too small to account for any real effect. Their studyies margin of error, given the lack of control, would have been pretty high (well above 1%), so having a scew of only 00.3% in the data falls well below what-ever the studies margin of error was.... Meaning the results don't show anything. They would need to vaccinate people and then purposely expose them to HIV in order to get an accurate result.... Or at least show a study which exceeds a reasonable margin of error...

how can you be sure the margin of error would be that large? Personally I'm interested in that part, but I've yet to see an such data. It was a massive study for a reason though, so I'm sure they must have thought of this, it reportedly cost over $100 million.

Biology people, answer me a question. Isn't "AIDS vaccine" scientifically incorrect? Doesn't a vaccine vaccinate against a virus, which would mean it's an HIV vaccine?

heh, I knew this would happen, but it was like 1 am or so when I posted it.

[Flameswroth]

Is it ironic, or poetic justice that this AIDS 'vaccine' has been developed in Bangkok, with the assistance of VaxGen, a pharmaceutical company out of SanFran?

It wasn't developed in Bangkok, it was developed in the US, we're just testing it there because its presumably cheaper to do so.

Details, details! The point is a city with a sexually suggestive name was pivotal in its development