http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32997306/ns/health-aids/
First time an AIDS vaccine reduced
infection rates by 31%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32997306/ns/health-aids/
First time an AIDS vaccine reduced
infection rates by 31%
I like to hear good news on the HIV front, but I wonder if the results are actually that as statistically significant as the media
is portraying them.
"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."
It will interesting to see the actual paper when it is presented and see the statistical analysis. The question is the delta of 23 new infections statistically significant or could be due to standard variation. I'm in the middle of a graduate program in statistics, so I think I'll use this paper for a project in one of my classes.
Nonetheless, indicates a promising line for future developments.
maybe considering the population studied, it's best to
focus on the 16,000 that didn't get infected
According to the press release all participants were given frequent safe sex counseling, condoms, and every six month testing.
Forgetting the value of the vaccine study, a testament that aids prevention campaigns that are focused and on-going work at decreasing new infections. Sadly, through out much of world, there appears to be decreasing emphasis on such programs. Not too mention the stupidity of the abstinence programs the previous US admin pushed both in the states and abroad.
Ditto to all of the above.
The selection criteria was a little bizarre.
My partner, who lives with me monogamously, was asked at our local clinic if he wanted to take part in the study after the ancient receptionist noticed me waiting for him to have a dressing changed after a m/c accident (he said no).
My ex's wife in Pattaya, who was obviously not practicing safe sex as she had already had one son with him and at the time the study started was pregnant with another despite knowing that my ex was HIV+, was never asked about the study by the government doctor regularly checking her, even though he knew the HIV status of both of them.
from what I read, all the participants needed to test HIV neg at the start of the study. So your ex and your ex's wife would not meet the selection criteria; that's why they were probably not asked about participating. Likewise, I would expect that a person HIV neg but stating they are in a monogamous relation with another HIV neg person, would not have been selected as well.
There have been studies in the past that looked for "magnetic" couples.
Sorry, GG, I can't have been clear, particularly about the ex.
Even though my partner and I were/are HIV neg, and monogamous, he was still asked.
Even though my ex's wife was HIV neg, while he was HIV pos and they obviously were having unprotected sex, she was not asked (and surely fewer people could be at higher risk?).
This is not good news. If these people were given sex councelling and free condoms and 125 still managed to get HIV then how many would have got it without counceling and condoms.The mind boggles.Originally Posted by gearguy
[color=#0000BF]why you no risson[/color]
Disturbing to say the least... that 125 still got it. I wonder how they got it... and if it was through consensual unsafe sex... what was their decision process?This is not good news. If these people were given sex councelling and free condoms and 125 still managed to get HIV then how many would have got it without counceling and condoms.The mind boggles.
Well apparently the search for a vaccine has been so bleak, they felt even this was big news. I think it is only a breakthrough if it leads onto bigger and better discoveries.
On BBC someone said it would need an efficacy rate of 70-80% to be considered a vaccine.
I'm worried if they got close to making a viable vaccine people would get careless in terms of safe sex.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote