Slashdot Mirror
AIDS Vaccine Is Partially Successful
ifchairscouldtalk writes "A Phase III 'RV 144' study in Thailand succeeded in reducing HIV infection rate in trial with 31.2% effectiveness. The study was conducted by the Thailand Ministry of Public Health and used strains of HIV common in Thailand. It is not clear whether the vaccine, which combines AIDSVAX with Aventis Pasteur ALVAC-HIV canarypox vector, known as 'vCP1521,' would work against other strains in the United States, Africa or elsewhere. Strangely, the vaccine had no effect on levels of HIV in the blood of those who did become infected, providing 'one of the most important and intriguing findings' of the trial, according to Dr Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is one of the trial's sponsors."
I was thinking the same thing. If they weren't tracking and testing all sexual partners I do not understand how they could come up with any statistically valid result. It seems that they are making a lot of assumptions as to the common behavior of all of the subjects. Considering how small of a percentage actually became infected (51 out of 8000 is about half a percent), I don't see how any assumptions could "even out" with the sample pool.
This news is certainly exciting, but IMO it should be taken with a grain of salt.
How the heck do they find volunteers for this kind of thing? Does it go like this:
"Hey kid, let us inject you with 'weak' HIV virus concoctions and then treat you to the hooker of your choice. Oh, and here's some heroin to shoot yourself up with. Have a blast!"
Seriously though; who the heck would willingly subject themselves to any strain of HIV? A vaccine is designed to give you a mild form of the disease that you're trying to prevent. A "mild" case of AIDS doesn't sound much better than a full-blown case - and what about that tiny percentage which already has a compromised immune system and develops the full-blown infection? This can and does happen with vaccines.
AIDS is relatively easy to prevent. Don't be a slut, don't do drugs, etc. and the chances of contracting it are miniscule. The only drawback to that (abstinence) is being a good samaritan is scary - if someone is in a bad car accident and you're trained in first aid, do you help or don't you? Your conscience says yes, but your self-preservation instincts kick in and you think to yourself "I wonder if this person has HIV or hepatitis." Oh and another one: what if your dentist or doctor or tattoo artist or hairdresser or whoever is infected? Vaccines are good for those situations I suppose, but is it worth the risk of a vaccine giving you the full-blown disease?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Wow, I already knew that people on Slashdot had a very tenuous understanding on economic or scientific topics, but damn, most of you have an awfully tenuous grasp of statistics too! ...If it should, then it's not for the reasons you're thinking of.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with your genius. God forbid anyone has an opinion who doesn't have a PhD, right?
If you open your eyes and ears, some of the best ideas can come from people who sound like they don't know what they are talking about. No, I'm not going to go looking for examples for you, but I've seen enough idiots with advanced degrees on the news and the internet to realize it's prudent to listen to people who have something to say and not judge so quickly.
Yes, I responded with enough haste that I didn't stop to think of everyone who would be offended by my lack of statistics training. My sincerest apologies.