HIV vaccine?

[MittensKittens]

Has anyony got more info about this? I saw this on the news in passing, and they mentioned it was "31 percent effective" - based on what?

[carriebft]

The new study was conducted in Thailand, with more than 16,000 people between ages 18 and 30 participating. They were all HIV negative at the beginning of the trial.

Nearly 8,200 received a placebo and a similar number received a combination of six vaccines over six months. All were followed for three years.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/24/hiv.vaccine/

[Mama~Love]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/...d_aids_vaccine

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. All participants continued to receive an HIV test every six months for three years after vaccinations ended.

The 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. Two of the infected participants who received the placebo died.

How do they know for sure if education & condoms reduced the rate of new infections instead of the vax?

[Leav97]

Originally Posted by Mama~Love

do they know for sure if education & condoms reduced the rate of new infections instead of the vax?

Because both groups received the education and the reduction is statistically significant in the vaccinated group.

[boheime]

However, it isn't a controlled study. You would have to have the same number of encounters with HIV inected individuals for it to even be comparable.

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by boheime

However, it isn't a controlled study. You would have to have the same number of encounters with HIV inected individuals for it to even be comparable.

That's only part of the problem. The simple fact that the HIV antibody tests are well-known to create false positives is even more important. Many scientists feel that the tests are so poor as to render outcomes useless. That is just the beginning of the opening of this can of worms.

[PiesandAbrosmama]

I'm reading and learning!

[Mama~Love]

Originally Posted by Leav97

Because both groups received the education and the reduction is statistically significant in the vaccinated group.

It doesn't seem statistically significant to me. I'm sure there's a lot more variables that are not even considered, considering it's not a controlled study.

Originally Posted by boheime

However, it isn't a controlled study. You would have to have the same number of encounters with HIV inected individuals for it to even be comparable.

Yes, exactly. Plus, most could be HIV+ & not know it for years.

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

That's only part of the problem. The simple fact that the HIV antibody tests are well-known to create false positives is even more important. Many scientists feel that the tests are so poor as to render outcomes useless. That is just the beginning of the opening of this can of worms.

[elisent]

I'm really surprised they're even bothering with finding a vaccine since they've discovered that circumcision prevents HIV so effectively.

[carriebft]

I think she meant "statistically significant" in a mathematical sense. It doesn't "seem" or "not seem"-- it's a mathematical value.

[Leav97]

Originally Posted by boheime

However, it isn't a controlled study. You would have to have the same number of encounters with HIV inected individuals for it to even be comparable.

In order to do the study you are describing they would have to vaccinate half of the test subjects, wait for the vaccine to be effective, and expose both groups to HIV. That test will never be done. That is why they did this test with 16,000 people. It helps control for some of those variables.

[Leav97]

Originally Posted by Mama~Love

Yes, exactly. Plus, most could be HIV+ & not know it for years.

That would be why you test people at the beginning of the study.

[MountainMamaGC]

Maybe the placebo group had more exposure to the virus. HIV is not an evenly spread disease. The only way to know how effective the vaccine is, is to have equal exposure. It all comes down to who used condoms and how many times they were exposed. Just because you have sex with an HIV positive person once does not mean you will definitley get the virus. This is a bogus study.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by elisent

I'm really surprised they're even bothering with finding a vaccine since they've discovered that circumcision prevents HIV so effectively.

I hope that was a joke.

[SuburbanHippie]

^ I think she was being facetious.

[elisent]

Originally Posted by Fellow Traveler

I hope that was a joke.

yes

[MittensKittens]

Mind you, I do think the infection rate in both groups seems extremely high... Is that "normal" in the area the "study" was conducted in? Or were the test subjects more exposed to HIV? Is it also possible that some got HIV from the vax?

[Leav97]

Originally Posted by MittensKittens

Mind you, I do think the infection rate in both groups seems extremely high... Is that "normal" in the area the "study" was conducted in? Or were the test subjects more exposed to HIV? Is it also possible that some got HIV from the vax?

The overall infection rate is .76% over 3 years. Given the HIV rates in the area it sounds about right (I haven't done the math).

If some of them got HIV from the vax you would expect to see higher #'s of HIV in the vaccinated group than in the un vax'd group.

http://www.avert.org/aidssoutheastasia.htm

HIV prevalence in Thailand remains the highest in the region.

[Marnica]

another take on this

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true