A World First: Vaccine Helps Prevent Hiv Infection -produced In Bangkok!

[JetsetBkk]

  jfchandler said:

The significance -- if the results are considered to be statistically meaningful -- <snip>

That's the problem in a nutshell. (No pun intended.)

[BlackJack]

  jfchandler said:

I don't much drink beer, Sunshine...and I don't think it much matters how or where I invest.

The point is... a vaccine whenever it comes would be a good thing...because once vaccinated, it doesn't require any further human action to be effective.

There already is a product now that pretty much provides protection, as you put it, "so the youngsters can ++++++ their brains out with 100% confidence that they will not acquire HIV or Herpese or HPV or babies."

It's called a condom... The problem is...it takes people deciding they want to use one each and every time. And human nature being what is it, that just doesn't happen in the real world. That's where the vaccine makes a difference.

  BlackJack said:

No not silly and or stupid at all - do your homework - see how long it takes to get these things to market and how many dollars it costs - then you will see my comments are not stupid but based on facts instead of wishful thinking.

You obviously dont understand big pharma - talk is cheap and a successful vaccine is years away - (READ earlier posts)

I have invested in research companies for years and if you check earlier posts in this forum you will see that a product is coming on the market very soon - so the youngsters can ++++++ their brains out with 100% confidence that they will not acquire HIV or Herpese or HPV or babies.

Go back to your beer!!

next time dont shoot from the hip - as you will shoot yourself in the foot again sunshine.

Question - when did you last invest in the HIV research program?

your posts prove you dont read or research that much and so theres no point debating this

NEXT

[kirk0233]

It amuses me that so many people will make comments about the lack of significance of the study without knowing what they are talking about. If the numbers are plugged in for the study and a Z test is performed to compare the two proportions there is greater than 99 confidence that the results could not be obtained by chance alone. Check out dimnesionresearch.com's z test and calculate it yourself

[Richard W]

  kirk0233 said:

It amuses me that so many people will make comments about the lack of significance of the study without knowing what they are talking about. If the numbers are plugged in for the study and a Z test is performed to compare the two proportions there is greater than 99 confidence that the results could not be obtained by chance alone. Check out dimnesionresearch.com's z test and calculate it yourself

I did and got a 2-tailed confidence limit of 96.6% and a 1-tailed confidence limit of 98.3%. One of us has plugged the numbers in wrong.

However, the term 'Z-test' strongly indicates that a normal approximation is being used at some point. For the low infection rates, one should note that we are working with extreme probabilities, where normal approximations have a tendency to be inadequate. When working with extreme probabilities, the normal approximation to the binomial is distinctly unreliable, which is why two of us have resorted to chi-squared and Poisson respectively. The 2-tailed Uniformly Most Powerful Unbiased (UMPU) test gives a confidence level of 95.2% that the placebo and vaccine had different effectivenesses, unless my program has been corrupted by rounding error - a distinct possibility. Unfortunately, I haven't coded up the 1-tailed test.

[Rumfoord]

  mommysboy said:

Yes, how many more obscene and costly blunders must the world endure.

It's a joke.

no, it's not a joke, not blunder and not obscene.

it's research. an experimental approach, trail and error. that is costly, takes time and and use a lot of resources.

[JetsetBkk]

  Rumfoord said:

  mommysboy said:

Yes, how many more obscene and costly blunders must the world endure.

It's a joke.

no, it's not a joke, not blunder and not obscene.

it's research. an experimental approach, trail and error. that is costly, takes time and and use a lot of resources.

Er, I think mommysboy's comment was regarding the (not) obvious blunder in the pie chart (below, left) originally posted on the BBC web site. Later reports show the corrected version (below, right).

. .

[stevehaigh]

  webfact said:

  Quote

The results were part of the HIV Vaccine Trial Phase III on 16,402 Thai volunteers in Chonburi and Rayong provinces. Half of the volunteers were given the RV 144 vaccine in 2006, and the other half received placebos. Of those who got placebos, 74 became infected, while only 51 of those who got the vaccines did.

That scares me...

Who are these "volunteers"

Second how will they be cured?

Obviously they are infected with HIV.

my thoughts exactly. sounds like they were been sent out to contract HIV on purpose. but clearly i know nothing about drug trails.

[Rumfoord]

  PeaceBlondie said:

To build the Panama Canal, they needed to find a treatment that prevented malaria and yellow fever. US Army surgeons Walter Reed and William Gorgas saved the canal and started a long US Army tradition in public health.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Gorgas

like many other fields of scientific and technological progress and inventions for the benefit of the civilian society and public good that are by-products of the develeopment of the art of war, the modern surgery has its roots on the battlefields of the wars in history.

some goals and objectives like to build the Panama Canal, military strategic purposes or otherwise profits, economical interests are a main motivator for a research and development in medival science.

and the US Army is not the only one working on that field. other nations, countries, institutions, organisation, countries and enterprises and scientists contribute as and work for the public health. don't overrate it and don't get too excited if in this HIV vaccine study the Army of the US of A is involved.

and i don't know why you brought that William Corgas and his mosquito control and sanitary programs as that big example for a long US Army tradition in public health.. Corgas is more a case of modern science and methods in medicine, to recognise that yellow fever and malaria is mosquito-borne and that he was there to recommend some preventive measures against the breeding of mosquitoes and mosquito bites. but the separation of panama from colombia, the canal and other events in the further history of panama standing for an other kind of tradition of the US Army.

in the tradition or history of the US military are also research in biological warfare. one subject is entomological warfare, using insects as a weapon to attack enemies. infect them with biological agents so that they can spread diseases.

heroic US ARMY sciented conducted tests with yellow fever mosquitoes, how to drop them from airplanes or release them with other methods. on the mass breeding/ production of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomological_warfare

on the website of the U.S. Military HIV Research Program http://www.hivresearch.org are more information on the Vaccine Trial and also on the Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences (AFRIMS) in Bangkok, click here.

About AFRIMS

The U.S. Army Medical Component of AFRIMS is a Special Foreign Activity of Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR), hosted by the Royal Thai Army and staffed by American and Thai personnel. For almost 50 years, AFRIMS, in Bangkok, Thailand, has been America's premier platform for the study infectious diseases of military importance in the Asia-Pacific region.

The largest of the Army's overseas research laboratories, AFRIMS plays a vital role in the study of medical threats facing U.S. forces around the world. Research includes disease surveillance, basic science research, and advanced vaccine and drug development for enteric diseases (infectious diarrhea), malaria, dengue, Japanese encephalitis, hepatitis A & E, scrub typhus, vector control, and HIV/AIDS.

there is also a downloadable flyer, pdf file http://www.hivresearch.org/phase3/military...icine-flyer.pdf about the ""strong, product‐oriented research tradition" of the U.S. Military in its own words.

explaining in a few paragraphs the Military Relevance of the Military Medicine

Historically, infectious diseases have had a major impact on U.S. Armed Forces. In

fact, more person‐days were lost among U.S. Military personnel due to malaria

than to bullets during every military campaign fought in malaria‐endemic regions

during the 20th century.

Dengue fever has had a negative impact on military operations dating back as far as

World War II, and soldiers have been plagued by diarrheal diseases since before

recorded history to modern day.

In the 1980s, HIV was identified as an infectious disease threat. Congress initiated

MHRP to develop effective preventive measures against HIV in the U.S. and Allied

Forces.

under the headline: The military medical community has stimulated some of medicine's greatest advances, often during wartime.

3 events/wars/greatest advances are highlighted:

• 
  
• 1777 The Continental Army is immunized against smallpox per General!
  George Washington’s ! orders !
  
• World War I (1914‐1918) A variety of medical techniques to improve
  soldiers’ survival rates ! are developed, including wound treatment, blood
  transfusions, reconstructive surgery and physical therapy.
  
• Korean War (1950‐1953) The Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (MASH)
  is introduced. Hospital ships equipped with helicopter landing pads are introduced
  as a method for quick‐response medical attention !
  

there is also a timeline of the other landmarks and Military Achievements in the Infectious Disease and Vaccine Development business.

i am missing a more detailed list that elaborate all the specific wars that stimulated other medicine's greatest advances. a few develop vaccines and treatment of diseases are mentioned. the list isn't so long and impressive like a list of the weaponized biological agents and researched possible biological weapons "Venezuelean equine encephalitis, Q fever, tularemia, anthrax, wheat rust, rice blast, brucellosis, smallpox, Eastern and Western equine encephalitis, Argentinian hemorrhagic fever, Korean hemorrhagic fever, Bolivian hemorrhagic fever, Lassa fever, glanders, melioidodis, plague, yellow fever, psittacosis, typhus, dengue fever, Rift Valley fever, Chikungunya virus, late blight of potato, rinderpest, Newcastle disease, fowl plague, staph enterotoxin B, botulinum toxin, ricin." click but all these are not mentioned. why they are so shy about, everybody knows that the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) is the same like the U.S. Army Biological Warfare Laboratories (BWL) at Fort Detrick, justrenamed since 1969, and all the research is done by the US military is purely defensive in nature.

there is nothing wrong that the U.S. Armed Forces wants to protect it's U.S. Military personnel. and i am sure there are not many other Armed Forces of other countries that facing so much various and different medical threats for it's soldiers like the U.S. Armed Forces. medical threats just lurk around everywhere around the globe, waiting to attack brave innocent US-american soldiers, give them the trots and the Forces lose person‐days. or a STD, or a fever in the jungle. like here in the region,SEA, Vietnam. a big menace for the US-american fighters for the public health, have been plants, trees and shrubs with big leaves, unwanted weeds, anything green like rice fields. for the protection of the U.S. Military personnel those plants had to be destroyed, but who should spread all the agent orange and agent blue if the pilot or private had to take a day-off because of sickness behavior and lack of proper medicine and psychotrope stimulants or he has got the runs because he ate some local hochiminh flied lice at a unsanitary place that didn't benefit from the US Army fight for the public health yet. so it goes.

[Rumfoord]

  JetsetBkk said:

  Rumfoord said:

  mommysboy said:

Yes, how many more obscene and costly blunders must the world endure.

It's a joke.

no, it's not a joke, not blunder and not obscene.

it's research. an experimental approach, trail and error. that is costly, takes time and and use a lot of resources.

Er, I think mommysboy's comment was regarding the (not) obvious blunder in the pie chart (below, left) originally posted on the BBC web site. Later reports show the corrected version (below, right).

i am not sure if mommyboy had that in mind. i pointed out the error in that pie chart already. here in this post. nobody seemed to noticed it before, including you, posting the previous erroneous version here at this thread without to mention that in the pie chart placebo and vaccine are switched.

you also failed to mention your source and that you take that pie chart from the bbc website and did not gave link to it. only in the html code or right click and properties i saw that you are hotlinking from the bbc.

interesting is to see that the bbc keeps the erroneous version still on the server and don't upload the corrected version at the same direction with the same file name to replace and delete the faulty version this way. but they also not admit that they make an mistake before and now is an updated version online.

anyway you argue against the significance of that vaccine study and that this difference of 23 cases means nothing. that the BBC pie chart designer got something wrong was never your point.

and such medical research projects are costly anyway. they have been done that for years, money & time was invested without any immediate success but now they have maybe found something that is promising or at least significant enough to see some light at the end of the tunnel and to declare that is a evidence that development of a HIV vaccine is possible. of course additional research is necessary. its a first step, and they found some WOW signal that looks good enough to continue walking this path. that "noise" was loud enough to make them little bit excited and some journalists got their headlines wrong.

they haven't found a vaccine right now, ready for use. more research have to be done, maybe they found something good for use in the end, maybe not and they will never develop a product for distribution for the public. and even than, if the latter will be the outcome, its not a obscene and costly blunder and waste of money, but the normal state, trail and error and error is a part of it.

if you think that result isn't statistically significant at all and know it better than these boys, send them a mail and recommend that the should have a look a thaivisaforum with the the experts on ethics, epidemiology and statistics. so they can recognise that they are totally up a blind alley. and better should stop wasting money. just invite JetsetBkk for a demonstration. for a half case of beer chang he will in 5 different sessions flip a coin 16,395 times each session while wearing a broken condome or not (and not telling anybody if he do or not wearing the broken condome during the particular sessions). the jetsetbkk show will be the final prove that this is all humbug.

[BlackJack]

my last reply was deleted for some reason

anyway

I checked with SSL and they are about to release the worlds first 100% effective block against AIDS, Herpes, HPV etc.

This is not a vaccine.

[TAWP]

  stevehaigh said:

  webfact said:

  Quote

The results were part of the HIV Vaccine Trial Phase III on 16,402 Thai volunteers in Chonburi and Rayong provinces. Half of the volunteers were given the RV 144 vaccine in 2006, and the other half received placebos. Of those who got placebos, 74 became infected, while only 51 of those who got the vaccines did.

That scares me...

Who are these "volunteers"

Second how will they be cured?

Obviously they are infected with HIV.

my thoughts exactly. sounds like they were been sent out to contract HIV on purpose. but clearly i know nothing about drug trails.

They were not infected, the just went about living their lives as normally. And some contracted it during their normal living.

But the infection-rate was actually below the national average*. Hence the need for so many applicants.

(*: Probably due to the fact that they gave all participants extended info on protecting themselves using condoms etc.)

[BlackJack]

28 years on and still no effective agent against AIDS.

Why?

Because AIDS by its very nature constantly changes.

So a vaccine will protect against what? Which strain?

Think outside the box and use nano technology to make the shape that locks the virus so that it cannot infect the cell.

Sounds like science fiction?

No - coming to a store near you soon.

[Sheryl]

The various posters who state that these results are not statistically significant should perhaps take a refresher course in basic statistics.

the Chi Square for these findings is:

Placebo Vaccine

HIV - 8127 8150

HIV + 74 51

Total 8201 8201

Chi Sq = 4.26 p= .0389

Odds Ration = .69

Findings are significant at p=.0389. The conventional cut-off being p= .05 or less. In lay terms this means that there is only a 3.89% chance that the findings were accidental as opposed to there being a genuine lower risk in the vaccine group.

The vaccine tested was developed specifically against the subtype of HIV prevalent in SE Asia (CRF A/E, often referred to as subtype E) and thus could only be tested in a SE Asian populatrion with a reasonably high level of HIV.

Clinical trials of vaccines against the strains of HIV common in the West have been and are, indeed, conducted in the US and other western countries.

The study was not financed by any pharmaceutical company or other group with potential to gain financially from a vaccine. It was conducted by the Thai Ministry of Public Health with funding from the World Health Organization and U.S. Institute of Allergy and Infections Disease because the MOPH deemed it to be in the public interest.

[unforgiven]

  webfact said:

Thailand announces Aids vaccine "breakthrough"

By Deutsche Presse Agentur

Thailandon Thursday announced the first "effective" trial of an HIV/Aids vaccine on some 16,000 volunteers, although the efficacy rate was not sufficient for use.

<snip>

Also, the UN urged that once an HIV vaccine does become available, "it will need to be universally accessible by all persons at risk."

-- The Nation 2009/09/24

When will it be avaliable? and the cost?

[JetsetBkk]

  Rumfoord said:

  JetsetBkk said:

Er, I think mommysboy's comment was regarding the (not) obvious blunder in the pie chart (below, left) originally posted on the BBC web site. Later reports show the corrected version (below, right).

i am not sure if mommyboy had that in mind. <snip>

Well, I can't see what else he could be referring to as a "blunder".

Yes, I didn't notice it was the wrong way round until your post, and that's what set me off looking at both links. Also, I can't believe the BBC are so lazy/incompetent to not correct the first link.

Regards flipping a coin 16,000+ times. Er, no thanks, although doing it wearing a condom could be... Er, no it couldn't.

All the statistical numbers from Sheryl mean little to me - it was a long time ago I did that stuff. My main argument is that this "success" story is relying on 23 people out of 16,000+ not changing their lifestyles to affect the result. There are far too many variables, including broken condoms.

Tell the "boys" they are wrong? Make them lose face? No chance. I don't care how much money they are spending, making or paying themselves. I care about them giving false hopes to people.

[Richard W]

  JetsetBkk said:

All the statistical numbers from Sheryl mean little to me - it was a long time ago I did that stuff. My main argument is that this "success" story is relying on 23 people out of 16,000+ not changing their lifestyles to affect the result. There are far too many variables, including broken condoms.

No, it's looking at how the 125 victims split between the two groups.

The potentially weak point in this study in itself is whether the two groups truly only differed in what they were injected with. And that is a well-known problem, which will certainly have been addressed.

The other problem is whether it is legitimate to ignore the failed vaccine trials. Possibly they are consistent with this one - a very low sucess rate may be expected to show up as a failure.

[JetsetBkk]

Interesting quotes from Dr Suppachai Rerks-Hgarm:

  Quote

We compared the efficacy of the vaccine among volunteers who used a condom when they had sex and those who did not. The result showed there was no difference among both groups.

It is not clear if he is talking about only the vaccine group (i.e not those who received the placebo). I believe he is, and it means that condoms made no difference to the rate of HIV infection, which clearly goes against all expectations. Whether this strange result nullifies other results from this trial is open for discussion.

  Quote

We also found that most volunteers had reduced sexual risk behaviour, including reduced sexual partners, and were using more condoms after receiving the vaccine.

Again, is he talking about the vaccine group only, or is he including the placebo group? If he is talking about the vaccine group only, he is admitting that they changed their lifestyle to be safer, and hence the lower infection rate.

Of course, it may all be down to poor translation by the Nation.

[sassienie]

This vaccine seems all ifs, buts and maybes.

I wouldn`t pack away those condoms, just yet.

[caf]

As cloudhopper said in post 6 of this 108 post thread, and to which i agreed in no 13; the tests were not significantly significant

I think it was Sheryl that came up with some excellent statistics but were not relevant to this particular study.

The Lancet quickly distamced itself from this "world first" from Thailand

But for the doubting Thomases and the experts, take at a look at the latest Wall Street Journal. The researchers knew the results were not statistically significant.

"The additional data were available to the researchers on Sept. 24 when they announced the trial results, but they chose not to disclose them, said Jerome Kim, a scientist with the U.S. Army who was involved in the study."

I hope that both a vaccine and a cure are found;

but a world first for thailand - no; spin

a step in the right direction - maybe.

a candidate for the country becoming a hub - not yet.

[Rumfoord]

  caf said:

I hope that both a vaccine and a cure are found;

but a world first for thailand - no; spin

a step in the right direction - maybe.

a candidate for the country becoming a hub - not yet.

right.

the main problem that the discussion turned so endless is the poorly worded headline and topic title.

"maybe a step in the right direction to find a vaccine." would have been the better choice of words.

[cdnvic]

  sassienie said:

I wouldn`t pack away those condoms, just yet.

Even if the vaccine were 100% effective against HIV, it still sucks to get herpes.

[caf]

now in the new york times as well

[a99az]

  sedeflonga said:

BANGKOK – For the first time, an experimental vaccine has prevented infection with the AIDS virus, a watershed event in the deadly epidemic and a surprising result. Recent failures led many scientists to think such a vaccine might never be possible.

The vaccine cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 percent in the world's largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand, researchers announced Thursday in Bangkok.

Even though the benefit is modest, "it's the first evidence that we could have a safe and effective preventive vaccine," Col. Jerome Kim said in a telephone interview. He helped lead the study for the U.S. Army, which sponsored it with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases....

more you can read at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090924/ap_on_...ed_aids_vaccine

p.s. I tried to post it at news clipping but was not allowed. Can some mod move it there?

regards

Why do the US use places like Thailand and Africato test new drugs. Could it be that life is considered cheeper there?

[Johpa]

According to an article in the NY Times: "Validity of AIDS report questioned". The data is being disputed.

[BlackJack]

  cdnvic said:

  sassienie said:

I wouldn`t pack away those condoms, just yet.

Even if the vaccine were 100% effective against HIV, it still sucks to get herpes.

herpes

have a read here www.starpharma.com

[mommysboy]

I can't believe this thread is still going. Dodgy science, facts, figures, and now some crap vaccine that hardly vaccinates at all. Kill this thread in the interests of truth will you!. It's a damned insult!

[BlackJack]

  mommysboy said:

I can't believe this thread is still going. Dodgy science, facts, figures, and now some crap vaccine that hardly vaccinates at all. Kill this thread in the interests of truth will you!. It's a damned insult!

well

if you read between the lines and sift through the crap and buy a few stocks then you may make some money

[TAWP]

Please kill that post with over-sized letters.

It scared my cat.

[clausewitz]

Validity of AIDS report questioned

When AIDS researchers released results last month from a six-year trial in Thailand of a new AIDS vaccine, they said it showed some promise, although they admitted their data was weak.

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr

The New York Times

Related

Archive | A world first: Vaccine helps prevent HIV infection

When AIDS researchers released results last month from a six-year trial in Thailand of a new AIDS vaccine, they said it showed some promise for new avenues of research, although they admitted their data was weak.

Now two published accounts citing anonymous AIDS researchers who were given confidential briefings about the trial results have reported that the data, released Sept. 24, may be even weaker than the authors acknowledged.

Essentially, instead of being 31 percent better than nothing, the vaccine might be only 26 percent better.

The accounts were on Science magazine's Web site and in The Wall Street Journal.

The debate is over which participants in the study should be counted: all 16,395 Thais who participated at some point or only the ones who got all the doses of the vaccine and stayed in the study for the full time.

The researchers said last month that the vaccine seemed to work 31 percent better than a placebo and there was only a 4 percent chance that the 31 percent difference was simply a fluke. To some it seemed a promising step had been made in the long search for a vaccine against AIDS, which has killed more than 25 million people.

But others who have seen the research say a "per protocol" analysis, that is, how the vaccine worked among the Thais who got all six vaccine shots at the right time and were followed up to the trial's end, would show the results were not statistically significant.

The Science report calling into question the results was on its Web site Oct. 5. The Wall Street Journal report was published Saturday.

[mommysboy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...V-positive.html

You got to laugh I suppose. Best vaccine- lay off the booze and drugs.

Anybody else highly suspicious of AIDS science?