For those of you that are interested...HIV

For those of you that are interested here is a link to a report on the HIV vaccine trial recently carried out in Thailand.

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/2E6E6364 ... 258B85.asp (http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/2E6E6364-8437-4173-85A5-6C1AB6258B85.asp)

:hello1:

[kittyboy]

For those of you that are interested here is a link to a report on the HIV vaccine trial recently carried out in Thailand.

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/2E6E6364 ... 258B85.asp (http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/2E6E6364-8437-4173-85A5-6C1AB6258B85.asp)

:hello1:

Thanks for the article. I recently saw this article in the Wall Street Journal that questioned the significant results of the Thai HIV vaccine trail. IMHO the article you posted has a much better and much more nuanced description of the data analysis.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125511780864976689.html

So after getting through the technical jargon it seems clear that the doubters (led by the major pharmaceuticals) were wrong and that the vaccine has had some effect in preventing the transmission of HIV, particularly in the lower at risk groups (those with fewer sexual partners who had been vaccinated had a lower risk of transmission than those in the same category who had not) while the vaccine became less effective the more sexual partners one had (again in comparison with those in a similar category).

It also appears, although there are no figures available, that a number of those who were found HIV - on first being tested who later tested HIV + were found to have been HIV + when their initial blood samples were re-tested, which seems to cast a question mark on how effective routine HIV testing actually is.

[kittyboy]

So after getting through the technical jargon it seems clear that the doubters (led by the major pharmaceuticals) were wrong and that the vaccine has had some effect in preventing the transmission of HIV, particularly in the lower at risk groups (those with fewer sexual partners who had been vaccinated had a lower risk of transmission than those in the same category who had not) while the vaccine became less effective the more sexual partners one had (again in comparison with those in a similar category).

It also appears, although there are no figures available, that a number of those who were found HIV - on first being tested who later tested HIV + were found to have been HIV + when their initial blood samples were re-tested, which seems to cast a question mark on how effective routine HIV testing actually is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the vaccine efficacy was compared between the high-risk and the low- and medium-risk groups, there was a suggestion that individuals in the low- and medium-risk groups experienced a greater reduction in the risk of infection if they received the vaccine. Whereas the vaccine efficacy was 40% in the low-risk group and 46% in the medium-risk group, it was only 3.7% in the high-risk group. (Confidence intervals overlapped for all three estimates.)
Dr Jerome Kim of the US Military HIV Research Program stressed that the finding was not statistically significant and that the study was not powered to look at these questions, but said the results were intriguing.

--------------------------

No GF what is clear is that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

The article makes clear that given the variance in the samples the 95% confidence intervals overlap and that based on the data you CANOT say THERE is a statistically significant difference between the low medium and high risk groups.

Let me repeat THE DATA DOES NOT SHOWS (IT DOES NOT SHOW!!) A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LOW MEDIUM AND HIGH RISK GOUPS.


Read very carefully the last sentence of the part I posted...It clearly says that the finding were not statistically significant....but the resutls were intriguing.

You need to understand the technical jargon to be able to understand what the author is saying and the author is saying that based on a .95 confidence interval criteria the results of the low medium and high groups are not statistically significantly difference and THE RESULTS could have been the due to random chance.
The probablility of that occurance is low but it does not meet a particular acceptance criteria threshold for significance.

The fact that some of the participants were later found to have HIV at the time the vaccine trials were started
absolutley DOES NOT "seems to cast a question mark on how effective routine HIV testing actually is." (Your quote GF)..

What typically would happen is that the initial HIV test would be with a western blot and and an eliza antibody test. The test looks for HIV antibodies in the blood.. Later when the people were found to be hiv positive a PCR test would have been done to see when they became infected. The fact that they were infected at the time the HIV vaccine trials begans in no way casts doubt on the effectiveness of routine HIV testing.

The data (At least in the US and Western Eurpope) clearly show that people who know their HIV status alter their behavior such that they are less likely to pass on HIV to others and are much more likeley to get medical attention.

GF your conclusion about the effectivness of HIV testing (at least in regards to safer sex practices and seeking medical attention) is absolutely wrong.

Stick to what you know..clearly it is not statistics nor the effectivenss of HIV testing in preventing the spread of HIV or in getting people to seek medical attention.

I would be happy to send you journal article citation that support my view.

interesting kitty
So whats the chance of me offing say 2 bois a week and only using a condom with one of them getting HIV.I only off the good looking ones.

interesting kitty
So whats the chance of me offing say 2 bois a week and only using a condom with one of them getting HIV.I only off the good looking ones.

Troll.

Yes but which type.
I may be a number one. But you darlink are a number 3..........................


1) Mischievous: Such trolls have a humorous intent. Often, they are a "regular" who has temporarily adopted a new identity in order to play a good-natured prank. They are not abusive to members and rarely create trouble within a community. Generally there is no harm in responding to them. Some members may find mischievous trolls to be annoying, particularly if their presence leads to lengthy threads that distract the community from its true intent; other members inevitably find that the troll's humor and light-hearted antics provide the community with an opportunity to laugh together, thereby enhancing and strengthening community bonds.

2) Mindless: Mindless trolls have a tendency to post lengthy stories of questionable belief thus promoting good facial tone in members due to excessive eye-rolling. They are generally harmless. On rare occasion, the ficticious posts of a mindless troll may lead to insightful debate and discussion. Aside from encouraging them, there is generally no harm in responding.

3) Malicious: A malicious troll arrives with the intent of being blatantly abusive to the group and/or specific individuals within the group. One of their characteristics is that within a very short time of gaining access they begin targeting and harassing members using both low-end and high-end tactics. In some cases, the troll has a prior history with the group or someone within the group. In other scenarios, the troll is simply looking for a fresh meat market.

4.) Destructive: Around 1999 a new form of troll began to appear on the net in mail groups and online communities. The primary purpose of this type of troll is to completely destroy the group it has infiltrated. Destructive trolls may work on their own, or possibly in teams or gangs.

Troll.

I discovered first hand that some of the boys don't practice safe sex...tried to mount me without a condom and later on came in my mouth. "Not good" as the boys say. That was the only time that I got angry during my stay. Not just for the risk he subjected me to but out of concern for him.

Yes but which type.
I may be a number one. But you darlink are a number 3..........................
.
No reply from the Bunny???????????????????? :laughing3: OMG I must have touched a nerve!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No GF what is clear is that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.....Let me repeat THE DATA DOES NOT SHOWS (IT DOES NOT SHOW!!) A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LOW MEDIUM AND HIGH RISK GOUPS. ..... Read very carefully the last sentence of the part I posted...It clearly says that the finding were not statistically significant....but the resutls were intriguing.

No, Pissyboy, the most "significant" part of that sentence, which you have overlooked, is that "the study was not powered to look at these questions".

The results of any studies of this scale could be due to "random chance", but to state with such certainty (which the report does not) that there is no possible difference between an efficacy of "40% in the low-risk group and 46% in the medium-risk group" and "only 3.7% in the high-risk group" and to dismiss it with similar certainty is being a trifle dogmatic.


The fact that some of the participants were later found to have HIV at the time the vaccine trials were started absolutley DOES NOT "seems to cast a question mark on how effective routine HIV testing actually is." (Your quote GF).....GF your conclusion about the effectivness of HIV testing (at least in regards to safer sex practices and seeking medical attention) is absolutely wrong.

I have never drawn any conclusions about the effectiveness of HIV testing "in regards to safer sex practices and seeking medical attention" or "in preventing the spread of HIV or in getting people to seek medical attention" either here or in any other thread, so it is difficult to know what you are referring to when you say that I am "absolutely wrong".

My point concerned "how effective routine HIV testing actually is" in the light of this trial where I had been informed personally when my partner was asked if he wanted to take part in it (as I have already mentioned) that the tests would be ECLIA followed by Western Blot tests for any positives to minimize any false positives (not impossible to rule out, but about 1 in 250 000 (95% CI, 1 in 173 000 to 1 in 379 000 if you want to be technical (http://www.annals.org/content/143/1/55.full)). What surprised me, in the light of this, was that there was such a high number (obviously more than 0.1%) of false negatives where the same blood sample, stored and tested months later, subsequently proved positive when the normal proportion of false negatives is around 0.003%. Even overlooking the question of whether stored, frozen blood could develop HIV antibodies this still "seems to cast a question mark on how effective routine HIV testing actually is" - unless one happens to think either that there is no "significant difference" between 0.1 and 0.003 or that the tests were not carried out as claimed (which seems equally unlikely, given the controls).

I am sure that either an experienced statistician or an experienced HIV counsellor (or ideally both) could have explained the significance of the study in layman's terms far better than I did. Unfortunately no-one in either category has made any attempt to do so or appears to post here .


Pissyboy, you have never made any posts here showing any insight into or knowledge of the transmission, testing or treatment of HIV which I would have hoped and expected someone who has been "an HIV counselor" of "12+ years" who has counseled "several thousand people" to do; instead your only posts on the subject of HIV have been a few links to articles in the mainstream news and the occasional post where you have been "basically parroting the American Center for Disease Control" (your quote, PB) and you have instead made the most of every opportunity to abuse me personally. I am not interested in helping you or anyone else derail or hijack any threads for your own purposes, so if you want to continue the abuse take it here (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/any-other-country/fire-magic-t18602.html) where you can continue to make an idiot of yourself without disturbing those who just might be interested in the original subject of a thread.

[kittyboy]

No, Pissyboy, the most "significant" part of that sentence, which you have overlooked, is that "the study was not powered to look at these questions".

Go Fuckyourself - You are correct that тАЬthe study was not powered to look at these questionsтАЭ is important but then you drew the absolutely wrong conclusion from that statement. That statement indicates that there were not enough people in the low medium and high groups so the statistical analysis that was done was NOT reliable. So even though there are differences between the groups the researchers can not tell if it was due to random chance. Exactly opposite of what you stated and exactly what I stated in my earlier post. So you have just confirmed my earlier postтАжClearly you donтАЩt know shit about statistics or statistical analysis and continuing to post shows that you are a stupid self important cunt.

Your point concerning the validity of HIV is half correct then you draw an invalid conclusion. All the participants in the trail would have been given HIV antibody tests. Those who were HIV positive would have been excluded from the vaccine trial. Those who became HIV positive during the vaccine trial would have had their original blood sample re-examined using a more sensitive (and much more expensive) PCR test which looks for the DNA material of the HIV virus in the blood. PCR tests are able to detect HIV at a much earlier time after infection (4-7 days). At the time the PCR test was used those people who began the HIV vaccine trial and were later identified as having been HIV positive at the begninning of the vaccine trial (but had no HIV antibodies) would be eliminated from the analysis of the data. What this tells us is that there were several people who were HIV positive but their bodies were not producing enough HIV anitbodies to be detected by the initial HIV antibody test or they had not yet developed HIV antibodies. This in NO WAY cast doubt on the effectiveness of HIV antibody testing. What it tells us what we know alreadyтАжit takes up to 3 months for people to produce HIV antibodies after becoming infected with HIV.
The conclusion you draw from this data that HIV antibody testing is somehow ineffective is just fucking stupid.

And yes Go Fuckyourself I am basically repeating the mantra of the American Center for Disease Control..after 12 years of HIV counseling I see no need to change my position.

-------------------------------------------------
GF here is your quote тАЬyou have instead made the most of every opportunity to abuse me personally. I am not interested in helping you or anyone else derail or hijack any threads for your own purposes.тАЭ

Abuse you personally? No I pointed out that you were wrong in your interpretation of the HIV data results. Now let me abuse you personallyтАжYou appear to me to be a stupid self-important fucking cunt. Fine I have no problem with stupid self-important fucking cunts...but when you post misinformation about things that you clearly have no knowledge or understanding then I have every right to publically point out that you are wrong and if you insist on posting wrong and misleading information then I have not only the right but the obligation to point out publically your stupid ignorant fucking cuntiness.

Go Fuckyourself...This is not an hominen attack...that would imply that I am attacking you instead of your ideas....you have no ideas and you are posting stupid ignorant crap which makes no sense.
So in this case my comments are an observation about your character based on your posts...
You are a stupid ignorant fucking cunt.

You are correct that тАЬthe study was not powered to look at these questionsтАЭ is important but then you drew the absolutely wrong conclusion from that statement.

I drew no conclusion.


Your point concerning the validity of HIV is half correct then you draw an invalid conclusion. .....
The conclusion you draw from this data that HIV antibody testing is somehow ineffective is just fucking stupid.

Again, I drew no conclusion; I simply questioned why they had over 300 times (0.1%+) the number of false negatives consdered normal (0.003%); if correct, 1 false negative per 1,000 is not a reliable test and this is (or should be) worrying. As expected, you have not answered that question but have instead posted something totally irrelevant.


when you post misinformation about things that you clearly have no knowledge or understanding then I have every right to publically point out that you are wrong and if you insist on posting wrong and misleading information then I have not only the right but the obligation to point out publically your stupid ignorant fucking cuntiness.

Agreed. I have stated repeatedly that my knowledge and understanding of this particular subject is limited, which is why I ask questions about it both here and with those involved in the field when I meet them. You have never answered any of those questions constructively, nor those of anyone else asking questions on the subject here and you fail to live up to the obligation any genuine HIV counsellor would have to do so. Pathetic.

[kittyboy]

Gf here is your quote "the vaccine has had some effect in preventing the transmission of HIV, particularly in the lower at risk groups (those with fewer sexual partners who had been vaccinated had a lower risk of transmission than those in the same category who had not) while the vaccine became less effective the more sexual partners one had (again in comparison with those in a similar category)." Your conclusion is that there is a difference in the HIV infection rate between the low medium and high groups.

Let me state again..you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You read the article and concluded that "the vaccine has had some effect in preventing the transmission of HIV, particularly in the lower at risk groups"..the article clearly says that is not the case...The article clearly idicates that it CAN NOT be concluded that there is a statistically significant difference between the low medium and high groups..

-----------------------------------------------
Here again is your quote GF -
Again, I drew no conclusion; I simply questioned why they had over 300 times (0.1%+) the number of false negatives consdered normal (0.003%); if correct, 1 false negative per 1,000 is not a reliable test and this is (or should be) worrying. As expected, you have not answered that question but have instead posted something totally irrelevant.
-------------------------------------------------------

I gave you the answer in my previous post. A false negative is a negative HIV antibody test when the antibody is present. If the test is given before the person is producing the HIV antibody then there is no false negative as the antibody is not present. In this case the issue is when were these people infected and when did they start producing antibodies to HIV. The protocol would be to go back and test all the HIV positive subect's blood with a PCR test to see if they were HIV positive when the vaccine trials began. A positive PCR test does not indicate a false negative HIV antibody test as the PCR is testing for the HIV virus DNA.
So again questioning the effectiveness of random HIV testing using the HIV antibody test is just plain fucking stupid.... The data clearly shows that people who know there HIV status change their behaviors and are much more likely to seek medical attention for their HIV.

GF if you ask constructive questions maybe they will be answered..If you make dumb fucking statement then that should be pointed out to you.

Go back to your original post and there is not one fucking question mark in the entire post! You did not ask questions you made dumb fucking stupid cunt like fucking statements that were wrong.

If you had said gee..it seems odd that there were so many people who were HIV positive at the begining of the vaccine trials that were missed by the antibody test I wonder how that happened and what that indicates about HIV testing using antibody tests.. then those would have been questions.

Instead you made the following statement "It also appears, although there are no figures available, that a number of those who were found HIV - on first being tested who later tested HIV + were found to have been HIV + when their initial blood samples were re-tested, which seems to cast a question mark on how effective routine HIV testing actually is."


You don't do the victim routine very effectively when the evidence clearly points to the fact that you were making dumb fucking statments.

You really don't have a very good grasp of English do you, Pissyboy? Or maybe you have not actually read the article at all.


Gf here is your quote ....
No its not! You missed out "So after getting through the technical jargon it seems clear that the doubters (led by the major pharmaceuticals) were wrong and that "the vaccine has had some effect in preventing the transmission of HIV, particularly in the lower at risk groups (those with fewer sexual partners who had been vaccinated had a lower risk of transmission than those in the same category who had not) while the vaccine became less effective the more sexual partners one had (again in comparison with those in a similar category)."


Your conclusion is that there is a difference in the HIV infection rate between the low medium and high groups.

Not my conclusion! According to the report it is the conclusion of Dr Nelson Michael, Director of the US Military HIV Research Program and so he is the one who has been making "dumb fucking stupid cunt like fucking statements that were wrong"! You can find it under the only headline in the article - "Vaccine more effective in lower-risk participants тАУ effect may wane: Perhaps of greater long-term significance for the HIV vaccine field, Michael Nelson presented details of sub-group analyses which suggested that the vaccine exerted a greater protective effect in people with fewer sexual partners, although the study was not powered to produce definitive evidence on this question.

47.5% of participants were classified as low-risk, reporting one or no sexual partners in the six months preceding entry to the study and judging themselves to be at low risk. This judgement was corroborated by their answers to questions about their sexual partners; individuals with partners who were commercial sex workers, injecting drug users, HIV-positive or men who have sex with men were classified as medium or high risk. Individuals who themselves fell into any of these categories were classified as high risk. Only 24% of participants were classified as high risk.

When the vaccine efficacy was compared between the high-risk and the low- and medium-risk groups, there was a suggestion that individuals in the low- and medium-risk groups experienced a greater reduction in the risk of infection if they received the vaccine. Whereas the vaccine efficacy was 40% in the low-risk group and 46% in the medium-risk group, it was only 3.7% in the high-risk group.


I gave you the answer in my previous post.
No you didn't - you did exactly what you have done here and explained what a false negative was, etc. I was not "questioning the effectiveness of random HIV testing using the HIV antibody test" and I never have - what I was questioning was "how effective routine HIV testing actually is" when seven out of the 8,197 vaccinated tested HIV negative until their fourth test and vaccination when they were found to have been HIV positive all the time - long after the normal incubation period had passed.

I am perfectly open about my knowledge / lack of knowledge on the subject of HIV, so the only "victim" here is anyone foolish enough to believe a single word you say - fortunately I doubt if many, even of those posting here, are quite that gullible.

[Brad the Impala]

I am perfectly open about my knowledge / lack of knowledge on the subject of HIV, so the only "victim" here is anyone foolish enough to believe a single word you say - fortunately I doubt if many, even of those posting here, are quite that gullible.

Oh right. You are making a fool of yourself for the greater good. How thoughtful.

[kittyboy]

Go Fuckyourself тАУ You have already admitted you know nothing of this subject or about statistics or research methods and yet you continue to make statements that are just plain wrong.

In the article Dr. Nelson clearly states that the data "suggested that the vaccine exerted a greater protective effect in people with fewer sexual partners, although the study was not powered to produce definitive evidence on this question." and later in the article Dr. Kim is quoted as stating there is no statistically significant difference between the three groupsтАжThose two statements tell us that there is the POSSIBILITY that the vaccine is more effective for some groups but the data DOES NOT SUPPORT that conclusion!

Go Fuckyourself again you are posting stupid shit about something you know nothing about. You stated in your original post the followingтАжand you are absolutely wrong. And where did you get the stupid shit about the pharmaceutical companies? That is just your opinion. It may or may not be true but you have no evidence to back up such a broad claim!

--------------------------------------------------
So after getting through the technical jargon it seems clear that the doubters (led by the major pharmaceuticals) were wrong and that the vaccine has had some effect in preventing the transmission of HIV, particularly in the lower at risk groups (those with fewer sexual partners who had been vaccinated had a lower risk of transmission than those in the same category who had not) while the vaccine became less effective the more sexual partners one had (again in comparison with those in a similar category).
---------------------------------------


As for the effectiveness of HIV testing you stated
------------------------------------------------------------------
It also appears, although there are no figures available, that a number of those who were found HIV - on first being tested who later tested HIV + were found to have been HIV + when their initial blood samples were re-tested, which seems to cast a question mark on how effective routine HIV testing actually is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I posted an answer to your question but you apparently did not like or are too fucking stupid to understand the answer. There is a window period when HIV does not show up in the body as the body has not produced the HIV antibodies..however the PCR test can detect the virus...That is the fucking answer.

The results of the thai hiv vaccine trails clearly show that routine HIV antibody testing indicated the HIV status of the vaccine participants. How the fuck does that cast a question mark on how effective routine HIV testing actually is??? The vaccine participants were tested for the HIV antibodies and some were found to be HIV positive so what is your fucking point?

The test results show that it is effective!
Sorry but you are just plain wrong.

......Those two statements tell us that there is the POSSIBILITY that the vaccine is more effective for some groups but the data DOES NOT SUPPORT that conclusion!

You really don't understand English at all, do you?

What part of "Michael Nelson presented details of sub-group analyses which suggested that the vaccine exerted a greater protective effect in people with fewer sexual partners, although the study was not powered to produce definitive evidence on this question." (from the report) don't you understand?

Dr Nelson is the Director of the study. "Suggested" means that the data points to that conclusion but that the "evidence" was not "definitive" as it is insufficient - the exact opposite of your interpretation, which implies that the data contradicts that conclusion. Unless you prefer some other language, it is difficult to be much clearer than Dr Nelson was.


And where did you get the stupid shit about the pharmaceutical companies? That is just your opinion. It may or may not be true but you have no evidence to back up such a broad claim!

From your own reference, which you do not appear to have read either! I cross-checked it before writing with the article they referred to - the January 2004 issue of Science magazine where Sanofi Pasteur, a division of Sanofi-Aventis SA , and Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases both supported a group of scientists who wrote that one component of the vaccine was "poor at triggering an immune response" and the other was "completely incapable of preventing or ameliorating HIV-1 infection." They openly criticized the Thai/US Military trial and even recommended it be stopped on the grounds that "One price for repetitive failure could be crucial erosion by the public and politicians in our capability of developing an effective AIDS vaccine collectively." Merck & Co subsequently added their support to ending the trial when their own trial proved a failure three years later, on the grounds that a trial of this size with drugs which had already been shown to be ineffective was unproductive and possibly dangerous. I believe that these three are considered "major pharmaceuticals" and that what they are on record as saying would make them "doubters" in anyone's book except yours (and Brad's).


I posted an answer to your question but you apparently did not like or are too fucking stupid to understand the answer. There is a window period when HIV does not show up in the body as the body has not produced the HIV antibodies..however the PCR test can detect the virus...That is the fucking answer.

Hardly - unless the window period is EIGHTEEN MONTHS, which is how long it reportedly took for seven of the participants to show up as HIV+ (on the fourth test) even though the re-test of their original sample showed them to have been HIV+ at the start of the trial. That is my "fucking point". It is quite possible that the reports of the time-frame are wrong, but as 18 months is far from the accepted window period your reply is clearly not "the fucking answer". A 0.85% false negative rate on the first 3 tests out of 4 over an 18 month period is far from the accepted 0.003% after an incubation period of up to 6 months which is why, if correct as reported, I consider that "seems to cast a question mark on how effective routine HIV testing actually is". You apparently consider that failure rate "effective" - I do not so we will have to agree to differ on what "effective" means.

Your argument appears to be with Colonel Nelson as much as it is with me - I am sure that if you sent him your CV and views he would treat them with the respect they deserve - as I do.



(Here, Brad) (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/any-other-country/fire-magic-t18602.html)

[kittyboy]

Hardly - unless the window period is EIGHTEEN MONTHS, which is how long it reportedly took for seven of the participants to show up as HIV+ (on the fourth test) even though the re-test of their original sample showed them to have been HIV+ at the start of the trial. That is my "fucking point". It is quite possible that the reports of the time-frame are wrong, but as 18 months is far from the accepted window period your reply is clearly not "the fucking answer". A 0.85% false negative rate on the first 3 tests out of 4 over an 18 month period is far from the accepted 0.003% after an incubation period of up to 6 months which is why, if correct as reported, I consider that "seems to cast a question mark on how effective routine HIV testing actually is". You apparently consider that failure rate "effective" - I do not so we will have to agree to differ on what "effective" means.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GF just plain wrong again.

Here is the link to the article published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/ful ... a0908492v2 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0908492v2)


The article that was originally posted has this:

This analysis included seven participants who turned out to have been infected at the time of randomisation, prior to the first shot of vaccine. These infections were identified when stored samples taken at baseline were tested after the participants tested positive at the time of their fourth vaccination.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NEJM article shows that the vaccine was administered in 4 stages with the last dose being given at week 24 (range, 21 to 28).

The study vaccines were administered at baseline (day 0), 4 weeks (prespecified range, 3 to 7), 12 weeks (range, 10 to 15), and 24 weeks (range, 21 to 28). The ALVAC-HIV (vCP1521) vaccine was administered at each of the four visits.

And

All volunteers were followed with the use of HIV testing at day 0, at 24 and 26 weeks, and every 6 months during the 3-year follow-up phase.

It is clear from this that the volunteers were tested at time Zero (0) and then tested again at 24 weeks when the final vaccine dosage was given and those who were HIV positive at week 24 after NOT having been tested in the previous 24 weeks were excluded from the data analysis if they were HIV positive at time zero based on a PCR test.

Your statement about 18months for some of the participants to show up as HIV positive is a pure fabrication.

GF you just fabricated information to bolster your case and it does not even have a passing resemblence to the truth.

It is sad and pathetic that you need to manufacture lies to make yourself feel better when this issue is so important.

[Beachlover]

David Attenborough:

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing Gone Fishing at the peak of yet another tantrum.

Is this one of nature's rarest events? Certainly not. You can witness it at any time. For he will surely do it again and again and again and again and again and again, like a demented woodpecker.

David Attenborough:

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing Gone Fishing at the peak of yet another tantrum.

Is this one of nature's rarest events? Certainly not. You can witness it at any time. For he will surely do it again and again and again and again and again and again, like a demented woodpecker.
And you are just plain nasty again and again and again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[ceejay]

"seems to cast a question mark on how effective routine HIV testing actually is".

Not necessarily. It could also suggest that the vaccine had slowed incubation.

And you are just plain nasty again and again and again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I haven't seen Beachlover do that to anyone other than GF, and frankly it's warranted. One of GF's favorite lines is to tell people to post on things they know about but then they wouldn't be able to make posts. This is also the second or third thread that I've seen him try to argue with Kitty on some medical matter, which GF is clearly less knowledgeable about. It really is quite repetitive.

"This issue IS so important" which is why it should be talked about rationally, reasonably and constructively. Sadly, any possibility of that happening was lost once the first volley of personal abuse was delivered.


GF just plain wrong again.

Here is the link to the article published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/ful ... a0908492v2 (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMoa0908492v2)

The NEJM article shows that the vaccine was administered in 4 stages with the last dose being given at week 24 (range, 21 to 28).

Now THAT was "the fucking answer" I was looking for, at last!

My "statement about 18months for some of the participants to show up as HIV positive" was not "a pure fabrication" or a manufactured lie - as I very clearly stated it was based on "how long it reportedly took" and "It is quite possible that the reports of the time-frame are wrong". The interval between testing was given specifically as 6 months in the pre-trial material given to those asked to take part in the trial published by the US Military HIV Research Programme and this was confirmed verbally to me at the time; this was also the interval given in a number of articles and on the USMHRP website (http://www.hivresearch.org/about/index.html) , with no mention of any other testing.

Clearly that information was wrong, either by an oversight or some other error - it was not, however "manufactured" by me, and I do not consider it unreasonable to have assumed that the information given by USMHRP about their own trial would be correct.

Had anyone taken the trouble to read what I actually wrote ("this seems to cast a question mark ...... etc") and responded rationally (as, for example, ceejay did), instead of launching into "yet another tantrum" of personal abuse then this "question mark" could have been answered and erased far earlier.


One of GF's favorite lines .....This is also the second or third thread that I've seen him try to argue with Kitty on some medical matter, which GF is clearly less knowledgeable about.

I can only recall using that particular "line" once before (though I could have applied it to many), when I questioned your personal knowledge of Thailand and Thai customs - not unreasonable as at the time you had never been here yet you were posting extensively on the subject. It is also rather a one-sided and unntelligent point to make in this particular thread when Pissy's first response to me here, after the normal abuse and swearing in his opening line, was "Stick to what you know".

The only "medical matter" I can recall "arguing" over with Pissy is HIV and his interpretation of certain aspects of the problem; maybe you could give a link to these previous threads you refer to where this "argument" has been of a medical nature, or where he has displayed any of the personal knowledge and experience he now claims, for example in the fields of transmission, testing and treatment where an experienced HIV counsellor should be only too ready, willing and able to give information on recent developments in layman's terms.

As far as Pissy's knowledge in this particular thread is concerned, compare the Director of the programme's view that "sub-group analyses which suggested that the vaccine exerted a greater protective effect in people with fewer sexual partners" with Pissy's insistence that "there is the POSSIBILITY that the vaccine is more effective for some groups but the data DOES NOT SUPPORT that conclusion!" (his capitals), or his claim that I had "no evidence to back up" what he described as "the stupid shit about the pharmaceutical companies" when my point was confirmed beyond any possible doubt by his own link.

The only other matter of any import we have "argued" over, which established his credentials for me, was his insistence that a paper (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/global-forum/your-mother-really-did-make-you-homosexual-t15304.html?hilit=inherited#p149005) that concluded that homosexuality was probably an inherited trait, based on a study of a single generation and anecdotal recollections from three selected families was "solid work".

"This issue IS so important" which is why it should be talked about rationally, reasonably and constructively by anyone, regardless of any real or imagined expertise. Sadly, any possibility of that happening was lost once the first volley of personal abuse was delivered.

[Irish1972]

"This issue IS so important" which is why it should be talked about rationally, reasonably and constructively. Sadly, any possibility of that happening was lost once the first volley of personal abuse was delivered.


Sadly that happened when you let your ego get in the way. but ho hum par for the course here.

God I must be bored here, please let the Recession end soon, I hate responding to you and BB but too bored not to!

[kittyboy]

I lived in San Francisco in the mid 1980's when AIDS was killing lots of people and I had many friends die. I suspect most gay men of my age and older had a simlar experience so I may think HIV issues are more important than other people...

GF - you posted incorrect information and it does not matter where it came from or how you confused the information from an unreliable source..the fact is that you posted information that was absolutley wrong.
You could have admitted in your most recent post that you were in error, that you posted incorrect information and then appologized to the SGT board..however..you did not really admit that you made a mistake, you blamed others for your posting misinformation. You mention information 'published by the US Military HIV Research Programme and this was confirmed verbally to me at the time; this was also the interval given in a number of articles and on the USMHRP website , with no mention of any other testing." so you are really not to blame for being wrong as it was others who are really to blame?

You are stupid ignorant fucking cunt.

As for your other bullshit...As I have said in the past..I have a background in statistics and research methods and you still don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You can write and rewrite and take things out of context to try and prove you are correct but you are still wrong...as shown by your insistence that 7 of the volunteers in the thai HIV vaccine trails took 18 months to show HIV antibodies..you were absolutely wrong and for me it is an indication that you are sloppy with your facts and thinking. Just because you believe and want something to be true so that you can feel important about yourself...it does not make it true.

[Beachlover]

I lived in San Francisco in the mid 1980's when AIDS was killing lots of people and I had many friends die.

Man, that sounds like a pretty bleak period... having this brand new, completely unknown disease enter the landscape.


You are stupid ignorant fucking cunt.

Here here! LOL.


Just because you believe and want something to be true so that you can feel important about yourself...it does not make it true.

That's true!

You mention information 'published by the US Military HIV Research Programme and this was confirmed verbally to me at the time; this was also the interval given in a number of articles and on the USMHRP website , with no mention of any other testing." so you are really not to blame for being wrong as it was others who are really to blame?

Well, Pissy, the "others" was the organization completely responsible for every aspect of the trial, who I think most rational people would expect to publish correct information on it.


You could have admitted in your most recent post that you were in error, that you posted incorrect information and then appologized to the SGT board..however..you did not really admit that you made a mistake, you blamed others for your posting misinformation.

I had thought that it was clear enough to anyone who can read and comprehend that I was "in error". If it makes you happy I apologize unreservedly to the board (and anyone else interested) for my mistake in believing something the US military said - a mistake I should not have made and something I will try not do again.


Just because you believe and want something to be true so that you can feel important about yourself...it does not make it true.

The absurd idea that I would want HIV testing to be ineffective and that that could possibly make me (or anyone) "feel important" is as totally unfounded as it is absolutely ridiculous.

Pissyboy, had you answered my first post with something like "what stupid ignorant fucking crap. What the fuck are you talking about you stupid self-important fucking stupid fucking cunt. What fucking grounds do you have for such stupid fucking cunting shit?" (or words to that effect) I could have posted the link and the information concerning testing, and you could have posted something constructive and shown that the information was wrong and that would have been the end of the matter. Instead you posted abuse and irrelevancies, as usual - one of the many reasons why I continue to think that you are "full of shit".



I lived in San Francisco in the mid 1980's when AIDS was killing lots of people and I had many friends die.

My sympathy, but that makes you far from unique nor does it give you any greater insight or knowledge - particularly on a gay board where many have had a similar experience and even posted about it in detail, as I have.


Edit: "Absum" postponed.

[kittyboy]

Well, Pissy, the "others" was the organization completely responsible for every aspect of the trial, who I think most rational people would expect to publish correct information on it.

go fuckyourself - I looked on those websites and it was clear to me that you fabricated your information or just did not understand what you were reading. I read through the data on the website you mentioned..it does not even come close to supporting your view..they did not publish incorrect information..it appears to me that you made up information to support your view...or you just did not understand what you were reading.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I had thought that it was clear enough to anyone who can read and comprehend that I was "in error". If it makes you happy I apologize unreservedly to the board (and anyone else interested) for my mistake in believing something the US military said - a mistake I should not have made and something I will try not do again.

You are not apologizing....you are blaming the US Army for your inability to interpret data and for your posting incorrect information....Sorry, the US army is not responsible for your postings on SGT..you are responsible and it is pathetic that you are trying to put off your mistake on the US army when you were the one who posted on SGT with misinformation.

--------------------------------------------------------

The absurd idea that I would want HIV testing to be ineffective and that that could possibly make me (or anyone) "feel important" is as totally unfounded as it is absolutely ridiculous.

Your (willfully?) misinterpreted data then insisted that your wrong interpretation (your quote gf is as follows) "seems to cast a question mark on how effective routine HIV testing actually is."

I do admit it is my interpretation of your postings that makes me believe that you are self-important.
-----------------------------------------------
Pissyboy, had you answered my first post with something like "what stupid ignorant fucking crap. What the fuck are you talking about you stupid self-important fucking stupid fucking cunt. What fucking grounds do you have for such stupid fucking cunting shit?" (or words to that effect) I could have posted the link and the information concerning testing, and you could have posted something constructive and shown that the information was wrong and that would have been the end of the matter. Instead you posted abuse and irrelevancies, as usual - one of the many reasons why I continue to think that you are "full of shit".

No I clearly stated in my first post that you did not know what the fuck you were talking about...a point that you have admitted is true...and I did answer your question and gave you information which you did not like or ignored. You then insulted me in your second post and at that point I get to insult you..that is how these boards work. Stop whining and puling.

-----------------------------------------------------------

My sympathy, but that makes you far from unique nor does it give you any greater insight or knowledge - particularly on a gay board where many have had a similar experience and even posted about it in detail, as I have.

No it does not make my situation unique and as I clearly stated I suspect gay men of my generation have had very similar experiences...however, after having worked as a volunteer with HIV for many many years and after having gone through many training session and doing my own research and with my background in statistics I am in a much better position to evalutate the results of an HIV trial than the average layman. The results of this discussion indicate to me that I have a better at understanding of these issues than yourself....but I am sure you will give me a point by point rebuttal "proving" that you have much superior knowledge.


(I went back and edited my post so hopefully there is no confusion about who is the source of quotes.)

[Beachlover]

I think your quoting marks are wrong kittyboy... makes it look like the stuff GF wrote is something you're writing.

I think your quoting marks are wrong kittyboy... makes it look like the stuff GF wrote is something you're writing.

And vice-versa, BL - something not uncommon here; it all "seems" a bit beyond him.



I read through the data on the website you mentioned..it does not even come close to supporting your view..they did not publish incorrect information..it appears to me that you made up information to support your view...or you just did not understand what you were reading.

What "view"? That there seemed to be a question mark over the efficiency of the tests due to the testing interval (as reported by the USMHRP)? The "question mark" has now been removed thanks to the link to the New England report. End of that story/view. My only other "views" are that the trial Director's view that sub-group analyses "suggested that the vaccine exerted a greater protective effect in people with fewer sexual partners" is pretty clear, and that my "shit" about the "doubters" in the "major pharmaceuticals" is equally well documented (by your link!) and clear.

The only people in a position to "evalutate the results" of this particular trial are those who have full access to the data collected. This does not include you (or me!).

And what "data"? Every report details seven (7) tests that were initially negative that were later (after a fourth test) found to be positive. The USMHRP website (and others) makes no mention of the three tests between the initial test and at the 24 week period, which is what led to my point (I would guess now because they did not consider them relevant, but that would be speculation), but it instead says unmistakably and unambiguously that "tests were carried out at six monthly intervals" and (for all participants) "tests will continue to be carried out at 6 monthly intervals".

And what "misinformation"? See all or any of the above. This was their information, which I said raised a question mark!


Pissy, your "understanding" of my views on all aspects of HIV is as confused as your quotes appear (even after 4 edits!), so let me clarify them for you and for anyone else still desperate for the recession to end (and my views have been consistent and only been confirmed in the time since I joined the board):

As far as I know we have no differences on any technical or medical aspects of HIV prevention, transmission, testing or treatment - apart from debating Brandon's repeated claims that it was "impossible" for a "gay top" to catch HIV (a debate I do not recall you participating in), I do not recall making any posts on strictly "medical matters" concerning HIV as I am not in any position to do so (and neither is anyone else on the board, including those unfortunate enough to have HIV, unless they are a Doctor and a specialist in this field).

We have differed over the importance of HIV testing, but this has actually been largely a difference in perspective rather than of view.

Your view (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/gay-thailand/boys-tested-for-hiv-t18308-90.html?hilit=testing#p190020), as I understand it, "is that people who are sexually active should get tested anonomously every 3-6 months as a way of giving themselves information so they can make choices about their lives."
(I have missed out your view of "everyone", and other parts)

My view (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/gay-thailand/boys-tested-for-hiv-t18308-90.html?hilit=testing#p190020) "is that anyone who is sexually active with more than one partner (or if they are not 100% confident of their partner's sexual habits) should practice safe sex and get tested for HIV regularly (every 6 months - 12 months). I do not believe that HIV testing should be compulsory, and I do not believe that it is necessary for "everyone". .... It would be a sensible precaution for "everyone" (at least if they could afford it) to be tested for those diseases they are most likely to contact; this could be a contagious disease such as TB, or heart disease, cholesterol testing, or cancer screening, or (if appropriate) HIV testing. The greater the chance of contact, the more "necessary or justfiable" the test is."
(by "everyone" I meant everyone).

The difference is that I am looking at it from an overall perspective, factoring in financial costs and the relative risks of other illnesses, all of which need to be allowed for in the real world, while you appear to be looking at HIV testing in isolation.


Having made that clear, it really is "absum" or go here (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/any-other-country/fire-magic-t18602.html) for the very bored!

[kittyboy]

go fuckyourself --As I said you insult me I get to insult you..that is how this game is played..You are an ingnorant cunt. You posted wrong inforamtion that was not even close to being supported on the USMHRP website. You did not appologize to SGT for posting misinformation you blamed the USMHRP website for being wrong and you avoided an responsibility for posing misinformation (that is what makes you a cunt).. why don't you post the link and the exact place where this incorrect information on the USMHRP website is located and then we can evaluate whether the information posted is incorrect or you fucked up and did not understand the information correctly? That might be interesting.

It appears to be board policy (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/posting-guidelines/square-braces-thread-titles-t18684.html) for posts of an "abusive nature" to be posted here, and preferable for threads to continue to be hijacked for personal agendas and "games", which I had hoped to avoid (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/posting-guidelines/fire-magic-t18687.html), so I will reply here for the time being.

I do not consider posting on a subject of this nature to be playing a "game", although it does explain some of your posts.

I gave the link to the website (http://www.hivresearch.org/about/index.html) when I referred (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/gay-thailand/for-those-you-that-are-interested-t18593-15.html?hilit=website#p191339) to it, Horatio.

What may be more "interesting" would be why someone with your "training" would not have responded when Brandon stated repeatedly and insistently that it was totally safe to bareback (impossible to catch HIV) as long as you were a "top".

[kittyboy]

It appears to be board policy (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/posting-guidelines/square-braces-thread-titles-t18684.html) for posts of an "abusive nature" to be posted here, and preferable for threads to continue to be hijacked for personal agendas and "games", which I had hoped to avoid (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/posting-guidelines/fire-magic-t18687.html), so I will reply here for the time being.

I do not consider posting on a subject of this nature to be playing a "game", although it does explain some of your posts.

I gave the link to the website (http://www.hivresearch.org/about/index.html) when I referred (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/gay-thailand/for-those-you-that-are-interested-t18593-15.html?hilit=website#p191339) to it, Horatio.


What may be more "interesting" would be why someone with your "training" would not have responded when Brandon stated repeatedly and insistently that it was totally safe to bareback (impossible to catch HIV) as long as you were a "top".

As I said you insult me I get to insult you..that is how this game is played.You posted wrong inforamtion that was not even close to being supported on the USMHRP website. You did not appologize to SGT for posting misinformation you blamed the USMHRP website for being wrong and you avoided an responsibility for posing misinformation.
Why don't you post the link and the exact place where this incorrect information on the USMHRP website is located and then we can evaluate whether the information posted is incorrect or you fucked up and did not understand the information correctly? That might be interesting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must compliment you on your diversionary tactics GF.
I did go to the website you mentioned and as I stated in my previous post from what I can tell there is NOTHING on the website that backs you up.

Where on the website is the incorrect information that you cited?

That should be simple enough...go to the website and point out exactly where the information is located.
If you are unable to point to an exact location then either you were lying, you did not understand what you were reading or the US Army HIV webmaster heard about our little cat fight hissy fit and corrected the information that you so forcefully stated was incorrect...as I am sure they see you as the reference person for such matters...(A highly unlikely senario).

I stated before, you insult me I get to inslut you that is how this works...stop muling and puling.

[kittyboy]

I must compliment you on your diversionary tactics GF.
I did go to the website you mentioned and as I stated in my previous post from what I can tell there is NOTHING on the website that backs you up.

Where on the website is the incorrect information that you cited?

That should be simple enough...go to the website and point out exactly where the information is located.
If you are unable to point to an exact location then either you were lying, you did not understand what you were reading or the US Army HIV webmaster heard about our little cat fight hissy fit and corrected the information that you so forcefully stated was incorrect...as I am sure they see you as the reference person for such matters...(A highly unlikely senario).

I stated before, you insult me I get to inslut you that is how this works...stop muling and puling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GF

You have admitted that you posted information on SGT that was completely wrong...It was not even close to being correct and you made the excuse that the misinformation that you posted was really not your fault but the fault of the USMHRP website. You have had several days to find and post the place on the website that lead you astray.

I suspect that you are a liar and the misinformation you claim is on the USMHRP website does not and never did exist. I would be happy to be proven wrong. Posting the exact location is simple enough.

[Brad the Impala]

I must compliment you on your diversionary tactics GF.
I did go to the website you mentioned and as I stated in my previous post from what I can tell there is NOTHING on the website that backs you up.

Where on the website is the incorrect information that you cited?

That should be simple enough...go to the website and point out exactly where the information is located.
If you are unable to point to an exact location then either you were lying, you did not understand what you were reading or the US Army HIV webmaster heard about our little cat fight hissy fit and corrected the information that you so forcefully stated was incorrect...as I am sure they see you as the reference person for such matters...(A highly unlikely senario).

I stated before, you insult me I get to inslut you that is how this works...stop muling and puling.

You have admitted that you posted information on SGT that was completely wrong...It was not even close to being correct and you made the excuse that the misinformation that you posted was really not your fault but the fault of the USMHRP website. You have had several days to find and post the place on the website that lead you astray.

I suspect that you are a liar and the misinformation you claim is on the USMHRP website does not and never did exist. I would be happy to be proven wrong. Posting the exact location is simple enough.

Did GF ever provide you with this link?

Did GF ever provide you with this link?

Twice - now three times, as I clearly explained in my last post when I gave it yet again (I gave the link to the website when I referred to it, Horatio.)

Your post is a prime example of seeing what you want to see and ignoring and / or denying what is written in front of you.

Having previously wasted my time repeatedly giving the same link and explaining my position (as many as eight times, in your case) when posters such as you and Pissyboy have already decided that they could not see any ships regardless of what I said, I can see no point in continuing to do so - particularly when anyone interested in knowing exactly what a link says can easily click on it and see for themselves without any puerile "yes it does / no it doesn't" debate; if anyone is interested enough to do so they will not need your or my (or anyone else's) opinion of what is written.

Absum (for the second time, after my link was deleted)

[kittyboy]

[quote="Brad the Impala":148gwllc]Did GF ever provide you with this link?

Twice - now three times, as I clearly explained in my last post when I gave it yet again (I gave the link to the website when I referred to it, Horatio.)

Your post is a prime example of seeing what you want to see and ignoring and / or denying what is written in front of you.

Having previously wasted my time repeatedly giving the same link and explaining my position (as many as eight times, in your case) when posters such as you and Pissyboy have already decided that they could not see any ships regardless of what I said, I can see no point in continuing to do so - particularly when anyone interested in knowing exactly what a link says can easily click on it and see for themselves without any puerile "yes it does / no it doesn't" debate; if anyone is interested enough to do so they will not need your or my (or anyone else's) opinion of what is written.

Absum (for the second time, after my link was deleted)[/quote:148gwllc]

Go Fuckyourself - you did provide the link and as I clearly stated there is no information on the website that backs up you claim. I therefore conclude you are a lying cunt.