Experimental HIV Vaccine Reduces Chance of Infection by 31%

[James Tiberius Kirk]

After reading about this I did some checking and it seems you are being ,to put it bluntly, lied to.

What is astonishing is how some people actually lap this propaganda up without applying some simple checking.

Here is my simple calculations which show the bare faced lie this research actually is.

This study and its findings form a good example of how misleading such things can be.

While on the surface this reported 31% reduction in infection looks promising, they have skewed the figures in a very un-scientific way by only considering those test subjects who actually became infected.

Well, it's kind of useless to test against those who weren't exposed, now is it? There's obviously a statistically significant difference between the groups, and 31% is the best estimate given that the subject is EXPOSED to HIV.

 

[strongmind]

After reading about this I did some checking and it seems you are being ,to put it bluntly, lied to.

What is astonishing is how some people actually lap this propaganda up without applying some simple checking.

Here is my simple calculations which show the bare faced lie this research actually is.

This study and its findings form a good example of how misleading such things can be.

While on the surface this reported 31% reduction in infection looks promising, they have skewed the figures in a very un-scientific way by only considering those test subjects who actually became infected.

What they should have done is shown the infection rates as percentages relative to both the trial (innoculated) group and the placebo group. Then we would see if there is a statistically significant result that might be attributable to the vaccine.

You have probably seen how infection rates for "swine flu" and other epidemics/pandemics are quoted both as net figures -- i.e. actual cases logged -- and as infections/100,000 of population.

That is the correct way to do it, because without including the data of the size of the total subject group, the whole thing becomes misleading at best and meaningless at worst.

According to that article which summarizes the HIV Vaccine Trial, 8,197 people were given the vaccine and 8,198 were given a placebo. After three years, 51 of the vaccinated group had become infected with HIV, compared to 74 of the placebo group. So, let's look at the percentages of those infected in relation to all the people who participated in the study.

Percentages (Numbers rounded to 2 sig figs):

Of the vaccine group of 8,197, 0.62% (51) became infected -- and 99.38% (8146) did not.

Of the placebo group of 8,198, 0.90% (74) became infected -- and 99.10% (8,124) did not.

Of the total group of 16,395, 0.76% (125) became infected -- and 99.24% (16,270) did not.

Statistically, then, for any person in the group chosen at random (with no knowledge of whether they were vaccinated or not), the chances of this individual not being infected worked out at 99.24%, which is only 0.14% worse than if they were one of the vaccinated!

To put it another way, the vaccinated group only improved their odds of not being infected by 0.28%, compared to the placebo group.

This is such a small statistical difference that it falls well inside pure-chance variation.

There has to be an allowance for variation due to chance because we are dealing with humans and a communicable disease that's related to social behaviour, so even slight variations in the way the subjects behaved over that three-year period would yield some differences in their infection risk.

A net infection rate difference of 0.28% between the two groups is negligible.

Think about it.

It certainly wouldn't make me feel confident about using that vaccine as a protection against HIV infection.

This is why I say that their claim of 31% is misleading, because it only considers the participants who got infected, and not the two complete groups who were being monitored for those three years.Their claims seem to be a scam in my opinion.

But don't get me wrong: I applaud the efforts of these researchers in trying to do something to reduce the risk of HIV transmission, and also have nothing but admiration for all the people who volunteered to take part in the study. I just feel that the researchers were clutching at straws when they came up with that "31%" figure, and actually I suspect that the relatively low overall rate of infection in a high-risk region like Thailand was probably due to the counselling that all participants received. If the participants had not received any counselling at all about HIV prevention then the infection rates would likely have been higher -- and we might then have seen if the vaccine's effects were actually of any statistical significance.

According to avert.org, the rate of HIV infection among adults in Thailand is over 1%, so as this studied group is well below that, the counselling was probably a contributing positive factor.

(Ref: HIV and AIDS in Thailand )

I fear these headlines are spawned by various media hacks on the take after being fed by the assorted big business interests.In some cases they just copy/paste what ever bullshit is put in front of them after getting a free beer and a sandwich.

"Journalists" are so dirt cheap and corrupt nowadays.

Actually, the difference between the two groups is not negligible. A simple two-proportion z-test indicates that the p-value is 0.04 so we can reject the null hypothesis that the proportions are equal. At the 95% significance level, the HIV vaccine reduced infection.

I'm not sure why you think the 31% reduction is misleading either, as 0.62% infection rate means that you have a 31% lower chance of contracting HIV compared to a 0.9% infection rate - (0.9-0.62)/0.9 = 31.1%. Of course there will be an error term, so perhaps it's more like 31+/-10% or whatever, but the best estimate is still a 31% reduction.

statistics,lies and damned lies.

Simple arithmetic shows true story of less then 1% effectiveness and within noise levels.Random result.

Also the virus is multi-varient.You cannot have a vaccine against it as every copy of the virus is slightly different.

Your z-test is designed in such a way as to show a non-existent effectiveness.I suppose the gullible will clutch at this z-test straw as they have been over the last 20 years.

 

[Bluesteel]

Fixing HIV is all well and good, but I'd rather people focused on cancer, AKA the one that actually has a good chance of killing many of us who don't engage in unsafe sexual practices.

Cancer is already way overfunded when one looks at death rates and bang for the buck.

Really want to save lives? Donate to malaria relief. We already HAVE a cure, it costs mere cents, but over a million still die of it every year. Mostly young people too, which is not generally the case with cancer.

Why stop Malaria? Malaria is a population controller. If you stop your taking away one more limit in the developing world. I know people don't want to hear this. But the biggest danger the developing world is facing especially my home Africa is a large population growth. In 2050 the estimated population size of Africa will be 2 billion. More then a 100% increase. Now at this moment when Africa is suffering from land erosion,a huge mix of environmental problems and an economy unable to employ most people especially the youth.

We're expected to believe that if the population doubles everything will be ok? I say end the pain now and get done with it.

 

[John Picard]

Fixing HIV is all well and good, but I'd rather people focused on cancer, AKA the one that actually has a good chance of killing many of us who don't engage in unsafe sexual practices.

Cancer is already way overfunded when one looks at death rates and bang for the buck.

Really want to save lives? Donate to malaria relief. We already HAVE a cure, it costs mere cents, but over a million still die of it every year. Mostly young people too, which is not generally the case with cancer.

Why stop Malaria? Malaria is a population controller. If you stop your taking away one more limit in the developing world. I know people don't want to hear this. But the biggest danger the developing world is facing especially my home Africa is a large population growth. In 2050 the estimated population size of Africa will be 2 billion. More then a 100% increase. Now at this moment when Africa is suffering from land erosion,a huge mix of environmental problems and an economy unable to employ most people especially the youth.

We're expected to believe that if the population doubles everything will be ok? I say end the pain now and get done with it.

Yep, we need more population controls in place in the world and this actually is one of them. Too many people. Boy, I remember when I was younger and the big news items was that the world population was going to hit 2 Billion. Perhaps people think it is more noble for a healthy person to die of starvation rather than malaria.

 

[strongmind]

Fixing HIV is all well and good, but I'd rather people focused on cancer, AKA the one that actually has a good chance of killing many of us who don't engage in unsafe sexual practices.

Cancer is already way overfunded when one looks at death rates and bang for the buck.

Really want to save lives? Donate to malaria relief. We already HAVE a cure, it costs mere cents, but over a million still die of it every year. Mostly young people too, which is not generally the case with cancer.

Why stop Malaria? Malaria is a population controller. If you stop your taking away one more limit in the developing world. I know people don't want to hear this. But the biggest danger the developing world is facing especially my home Africa is a large population growth. In 2050 the estimated population size of Africa will be 2 billion. More then a 100% increase. Now at this moment when Africa is suffering from land erosion,a huge mix of environmental problems and an economy unable to employ most people especially the youth.

We're expected to believe that if the population doubles everything will be ok? I say end the pain now and get done with it.

Could you 3 stop hijacking this AIDS VACcINE thread and start your own about your thinly disguised genocide?

Could the mod wake up?

 

[Bluesteel]

Cancer is already way overfunded when one looks at death rates and bang for the buck.

Really want to save lives? Donate to malaria relief. We already HAVE a cure, it costs mere cents, but over a million still die of it every year. Mostly young people too, which is not generally the case with cancer.

Why stop Malaria? Malaria is a population controller. If you stop your taking away one more limit in the developing world. I know people don't want to hear this. But the biggest danger the developing world is facing especially my home Africa is a large population growth. In 2050 the estimated population size of Africa will be 2 billion. More then a 100% increase. Now at this moment when Africa is suffering from land erosion,a huge mix of environmental problems and an economy unable to employ most people especially the youth.

We're expected to believe that if the population doubles everything will be ok? I say end the pain now and get done with it.

Could you 3 stop hijacking this AIDS VACcINE thread and start your own about your thinly disguised genocide?

Could the mod wake up?

Genocide is going out and killing people. We give aid to place like Africa out of free will. While kindness does have portion to play it's mostly left wingers petitioning the government and political influence.

We if cut all aid to Africa today. It wouldn't be genocide. No one deserves to be given free money. Especially when they have wasted $500 billion+ so far. Especially when they fail to learn from their mistakes.

 

[strongmind]

Why stop Malaria? Malaria is a population controller. If you stop your taking away one more limit in the developing world. I know people don't want to hear this. But the biggest danger the developing world is facing especially my home Africa is a large population growth. In 2050 the estimated population size of Africa will be 2 billion. More then a 100% increase. Now at this moment when Africa is suffering from land erosion,a huge mix of environmental problems and an economy unable to employ most people especially the youth.

We're expected to believe that if the population doubles everything will be ok? I say end the pain now and get done with it.

Could you 3 stop hijacking this AIDS VACcINE thread and start your own about your thinly disguised genocide?

Could the mod wake up?

Genocide is going out and killing people. We give aid to place like Africa out of free will. While kindness does have portion to play it's mostly left wingers petitioning the government and political influence.

We if cut all aid to Africa today. It wouldn't be genocide. No one deserves to be given free money. Especially when they have wasted $500 billion+ so far. Especially when they fail to learn from their mistakes.

Your figures are misleading and false.

The aid money given is a hidden subsidy for U.S.companies,mostly arms suppliers owned by politicians.



Also the aid money is given to known crooks and dictators and other brutish thugs in Africa.

None of it gets to natives.

Have the greedy u.s bankers learnt anything after stealing $9 trillion of our money?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I think the non-AIDS-vaccine portion of this thread would make a good TNZ discussion.

 

[Bluesteel]

Could you 3 stop hijacking this AIDS VACcINE thread and start your own about your thinly disguised genocide?

Could the mod wake up?

Genocide is going out and killing people. We give aid to place like Africa out of free will. While kindness does have portion to play it's mostly left wingers petitioning the government and political influence.

We if cut all aid to Africa today. It wouldn't be genocide. No one deserves to be given free money. Especially when they have wasted $500 billion+ so far. Especially when they fail to learn from their mistakes.

Your figures are misleading and false.

The aid money given is a hidden subsidy for U.S.companies,mostly arms suppliers owned by politicians.



Also the aid money is given to known crooks and dictators and other brutish thugs in Africa.

None of it gets to natives.

Have the greedy u.s bankers learnt anything after stealing $9 trillion of our money?

Not all cases. Whining lefties have made all governments pledge to use about 0.7% of their gdp to help the poor. Not all countries have gone that far but still a lot of money is being sent to governments to fund schools and other stuff that would normally help people.

Only one problem. Corruption is rooted and endemic in a lot of poor countries. Everybody wants to have their cut from the fat cats to the ordinary guy.

The best way to deal with it is to give them an oar and cut their boat loose. They either make it or they fail so badly their people will overthrow them.

 

[strongmind]

Genocide is going out and killing people. We give aid to place like Africa out of free will. While kindness does have portion to play it's mostly left wingers petitioning the government and political influence.

We if cut all aid to Africa today. It wouldn't be genocide. No one deserves to be given free money. Especially when they have wasted $500 billion+ so far. Especially when they fail to learn from their mistakes.

Your figures are misleading and false.

The aid money given is a hidden subsidy for U.S.companies,mostly arms suppliers owned by politicians.



Also the aid money is given to known crooks and dictators and other brutish thugs in Africa.

None of it gets to natives.

Have the greedy u.s bankers learnt anything after stealing $9 trillion of our money?

Not all cases. Whining lefties have made all governments pledge to use about 0.7% of their gdp to help the poor. Not all countries have gone that far but still a lot of money is being sent to governments to fund schools and other stuff that would normally help people.

Only one problem. Corruption is rooted and endemic in a lot of poor countries. Everybody wants to have their cut from the fat cats to the ordinary guy.

The best way to deal with it is to give them an oar and cut their boat loose. They either make it or they fail so badly their people will overthrow them.

One to one adoption of natives via tax breaks.Cut out native's corrupt government out altogether?