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

[Thai at Heart]

Found this in the British News today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle6882417.ece

First successful Aids vaccine may weaken over time

[eggomaniac]

Found this in the British News today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle6882417.ece

First successful Aids vaccine may weaken over time

Yes, the news here in Canada said the 'effects' wore off and ALSO said the original math was 'questionable'.

How embarrasing for those who were trumpeting false science, if they did not gain from a stock increase.

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

Same thing was tried in 2003.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Experimental...-Maj-t3673.html

[caf]

Found this in the British News today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle6882417.ece

First successful Aids vaccine may weaken over time

Yes, the news here in Canada said the 'effects' wore off and ALSO said the original math was 'questionable'.

How embarrasing for those who were trumpeting false science, if they did not gain from a stock increase.

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

Same thing was tried in 2003.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Experimental...-Maj-t3673.html

The questionable maths were spotted on day 1 and repeated several times in the uk and elsewhere; even the researchers have now backed down.

All that chi square nonsense from so called keyboard experts.

[BlackJack]

good news as this makes the nano based product even more valuable

[tig28]

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

Hi JetsetBkk

As none of the volunteers knew which group they were in --- this question does not arise.

[JetsetBkk]

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

Hi JetsetBkk

As none of the volunteers knew which group they were in --- this question does not arise.

I've been away - just catching up on the "news"

Not sure why you changed my original post - probably just a cut & paste error:

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.

What I tried to say was that the researchers knew who got the vaccine and who got the placebo. Dr Suppachai Rerks-Hgarm was quoted as saying that those who received the vaccine reduced their sexual partners - so that could have skewed the results, irrespective of whether they knew they were getting the vaccine or the placebo.

Anyway, it all seems to have gone pear-shaped now, so it's a moot point.

[Rumfoord]

What I tried to say was that the researchers knew who got the vaccine and who got the placebo. Dr Suppachai Rerks-Hgarm was quoted as saying that those who received the vaccine reduced their sexual partners - so that could have skewed the results, irrespective of whether they knew they were getting the vaccine or the placebo.

learn a little bit with your science daily.

today: double blind

The double blind method is an important part of the scientific method,

used to prevent research outcomes from being 'influenced' by the

placebo effect or observer bias. Blinded research is an important tool

in many fields of research, from medicine, to psychology and the

social sciences, to forensics.

Blinding is a basic tool to prevent conscious and unconscious bias

in research ...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/d/double_blind.htm

what that Dr. wanted to say is that during the test or because of the test and accompanying measures like educational campaign, the overall awareness of all the participants raised and had an less risky behaivior of all as result.

the people didn't just get an injection and then left alone for two years until the scientists showed up again and checked their blood for the final analysis. there have been a lot of activities in between, group meetings, tutorials on preventive actions, condom supply and so on.

if the study objects would have been cell cultures in petri dishes, Drosophila or cute fancy rodents the scientists would not have taken any additional measures, interferences that can alter the results. but because they dealt with human beings they act otherwise.

would be unthinkable in a strict scientific experimental setup of solid-state physics, but it isn't solid-state physics.

[JetsetBkk]

What I tried to say was that the researchers knew who got the vaccine and who got the placebo. Dr Suppachai Rerks-Hgarm was quoted as saying that those who received the vaccine reduced their sexual partners - so that could have skewed the results, irrespective of whether they knew they were getting the vaccine or the placebo.

<snip>

what that Dr. wanted to say is that during the test or because of the test and accompanying measures like educational campaign, the overall awareness of all the participants raised and had an less risky behaivior of all as result.

<snip>

One last attempt at clarifying what I originally posted...

Dr Suppachai Rerks-Hgarm was quoted as saying:

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

This implies that the researchers determined that those who received the vaccine (not those who received the placebo) changed their behaviour so they were less likely to be infected.

Perhaps he should have said "after receiving the injections". But he didn't. He said "after receiving the vaccine", implying that placebo group didn't change their behaviour.

I understand that neither group knew what they were receiving - the individuals merely changed their behaviour because they wanted to. It just so happens that more of those receiving the vaccine changed their behaviour the most, to have less risk of infection.

As I said way, way back, it's probably down to a lousy translation by the Nation.

[JimsKnight]

I think this is beginning of the real deal. It is more than noise. Now the scientists refine this and try for better results. This was the first time ever to get any encouraging results. And it started in Thailand. Thanks to all the Thai volunteers.

I agree.

You're an optimist Jingle, I'll give you that.

But it's the waiting game for any effective vaccine that's more effective. We need to see 70%+ effectiveness ideally.

Vaccines come with unforseen afteraffects we don't even know yet. So that's another thing to consider...

[Richard W]

The questionable maths were spotted on day 1 and repeated several times in the uk and elsewhere; even the researchers have now backed down.

All that chi square nonsense from so called keyboard experts.

The analyses reported here were based on the published numbers, and are not nonsense. Unfortunately, it is still a matter of garbage in, garbage out. Choosing the best-looking set of results is, in statistics, lying.

I have not seen the numbers for the 'per protocol' results. If only half the sample were treated in accordance with the full protocol, then the results based solely on them would probably be less significant. Analysing the full set of data is trickier.

[cloudhopper]

From the Jan 2010 Scientific American regarding the phase 3 trial in Thailand:

"Initial fanfare for a protective outcome gave way to disappointment after re-analysis showed that the protection could be attributed only to chance."

[ronz28]

Breaking News--Scientists discover antibody that kills 91 percent of HIV

Last year, following a trial in Thailand, results of the first HIV vaccine to show any efficacy were announced. But that vaccine reduced the chances of infection only by about 30%, and controversy erupted because in one common analysis the results weren't statistically significant. That vaccine wasn't designed to elicit the new antibodies.

The new discovery is part of what Wayne Koff, head of research and development at the nonprofit International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, calls a "renaissance" in HIV vaccine research. In the past year, thanks to efficient new detection methods, at least a half dozen broadly neutralizing antibodies, including the three latest ones, have been identified in peer-reviewed journals.

Mark Schoofs discusses a significant step toward an AIDS vaccine, U.S. government scientists have discovered three powerful antibodies, the strongest of which neutralizes 91% of HIV strains, more than any AIDS antibody yet discovered.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703609004575355072271264394.html?mod=e2tw#'>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703609004575355072271264394.html?mod=e2tw#

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703609004575355072271264394.html?mod=e2tw

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-07/nioa-nsf070210.php

http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/scientists-discover-antibody-that-kills-91-percent-of-hiv/8755/

[smedly]

what puzzles me about this is the fact that the current test for HIV is an antibody test, so the people that where given the vaccine should still have antibodies in their blood if they where exposed to HIV therefore prooving that the vaccine actually worked for that group if they didn;t actually contract HIV infection, maybe I've got that completely wrong. Also even as I understand it even if you had unprotected sex with an infected person 1000 times the chance of being infected is still extremely low, something like 5, this then makes these results very vague if you ask me. The type of sex makes a difference to risk also, could it be that the group that didn't recieve the vaccine where more prone to anal sex, whats the statistic for that in the overall study ? 30%

Personally I think the best solution for HIV is to test everyone and get them on medication if tested positive as effective treatment dramatically reduces the risk of an infected person passing it to another to almost zero if not zero, it's the people who don't know they are infected that pose the greatest risk to everyone and themselves if they continue without treatment, I vote for global testing and let the drug companies pay for it as they are the ones that gain.

Edited July 11, 2010 by smedly

[Globalhot]

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.

Well I admit it's been decades since I studied epidemiology and statistics but those results just don't seem significant to me.

Line up ten people who took RV 144: 7 out of 10 get infected; 3 do not. I think that is what these data can be reduced to.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist? Is the glass half full or half empty?

It is a start and that is good news after four decades of this horrible (and very preventable) disease.

It could lead to a more effective vaccine down the road.

[Rucharee]

Must be a best seller.

[ianwuk]

Basically Thailand failed.

The research was probably counterfiet anyway...

ianwuk

[Histavia]

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.

THat'll be a condom?

[Histavia]

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.

Well I admit it's been decades since I studied epidemiology and statistics but those results just don't seem significant to me.

Line up ten people who took RV 144: 7 out of 10 get infected; 3 do not. I think that is what these data can be reduced to.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist? Is the glass half full or half empty?

It is a start and that is good news after four decades of this horrible (and very preventable) disease.

It could lead to a more effective vaccine down the road.

after all that has been said this poster still does not gt it - this means nothing of the sort and there is nothing to indicate it is a "start" - at best it is a fluke most likely a red-herring and probably of no value whatsoever. Subsequent crits have found the study to bevthin on evidence and at best on very shaky ground.