If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Abc.net.au)   AIDS vaccine shown not to work, makes patients more susceptible to HIV. Fark needs a "you're doing it wrong" tag   (abc.net.au) divider line 74
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5562 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Nov 2007 at 7:31 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-11-10 10:27:21 PM
FTA: SABRA LANE: Of the people who had the HIV vaccine, 49 became infected with the virus, whereas only 33 in the placebo group became infected.

49 out of how many? 33 out of how many? Raw numbers mean nothing in these types of studies. To accurately analyze the data, one needs proportions. One of my professors has repeatedly stated that during his lectures.

/Okay, I'm a geek.
//Talking statistics on a Saturday night.
///Wasn't feeling well so called in sick to work and lost 6 hours of pay, so now I only have 4 3/4 hrs of work tomorrow and hardly any money.
 
2007-11-10 10:44:56 PM
www.crobike.de

AIDS vaccine
 
2007-11-10 10:46:08 PM
How else are the drug companies going to guarantee future profits from AIDS medications if they don't create more victims patients?

Also, 9/11 was an inside job, we never landed on the moon, and Elvis cleans my house on the weekends.

P.S. He only cleans the inside of the windows, he says the outside is someone else's job.
 
2007-11-11 06:55:55 AM
47 is the new 42: FTA: SABRA LANE: Of the people who had the HIV vaccine, 49 became infected with the virus, whereas only 33 in the placebo group became infected.


33$ vs. 49% isn't that big of an error margin for those who, obviously by being in the tests of an HIV vaccine, were at high risk anyhow for coming in contact with the virus. The skew between the placebo and active vaccine is neither here nor there as you said, without data on how much HIV contact they had, how often, what type (sexual / IV drug / blood contact) and more. Weak study. but obviously the vaccine failed anyhow, I'd not say it is enough data to say it made them MORE susceptible though.
 
2007-11-11 06:56:45 AM
rereading the article, it was 18 people.... given that low a number you cannot even account for those already infected and just not showing any viral load yet. Again, high chance there for those at risk anyhow.
 
2007-11-11 07:39:32 AM
This just proves the old saying: "Most people with AIDS were just asking for it.".
 
2007-11-11 07:40:43 AM
Hal B. Sure:
Also, 9/11 was an inside job, we never landed on the moon, and Elvis cleans my house on the weekends.

P.S. He only cleans the inside of the windows, he says the outside is someone else's job.


You have a Mexican housekeeper named Elvis too? Small world. He cleans my place on Thursdays.
 
2007-11-11 07:43:36 AM
Maybe they should stop farking around?
 
2007-11-11 07:44:55 AM
 
2007-11-11 07:52:03 AM
What I honestly wonder is if the greater number of infections stems from a bunch of idiots who went and thought to themselves that "Hey, I'm Protected now! Let's Fark anything that moves!"

I mean sure they told them not to do it, but people never do listen.

I think that there needs to be a lot more data provided for the numbers provided to mean anything.
 
2007-11-11 07:56:36 AM
OK, We're now going to find out who's in the placebo group, and who actually gets the vaccine. All prostitutes, drug addicts, adult entertainment workers, and school teachers in line one. Every one else form line two.
 
2007-11-11 07:57:27 AM
How about a "FAIL" tag?
 
2007-11-11 08:00:43 AM
In other news, a hospital refused to test me for TB even though I paid my bill last time and I was supposedly exposed.
 
2007-11-11 08:09:14 AM
FTFA: 3000 people were in the trial.
 
2007-11-11 08:17:03 AM
In trials like this there's threshold where if ANY negative results are seen they need to terminate the study.

49/1500 versus 33/1500 doesn't seem like a big difference but they also take into account the normal infection rate.
 
2007-11-11 08:20:15 AM
Everyone has AIDS! (new window)
 
2007-11-11 08:20:21 AM
It's not really a test of who the vaccine immunized, just that slightly more (16/3000, or 0.53% more of the test cases became HIV positive.)

A real test would involve immunizing and then deliberately attacking the vic--, er, subject with the HIV.

/ That's a scary kind of test to perform.
// Not volunteering.
 
2007-11-11 08:22:34 AM
I'll admit that I know relatively little about the mechanics of HIV, but wouldn't it be easier to make an inert cold virus with the protein marker tags of HIV on the cell membrane, so the body could react to that instead?

Rather than putting the whole genetic code of the virus into the body, possibly giving a few cells the recipe to pump out more active viruses, couldn't we train the immune system to look for the tags on the outside, so that if the virus does come in, the body will go "Hey, that's a bad thing," as opposed to having to wait until the cells break down and it sees the code itself.

Make it like browsing for books on a shelf, just scanning title and author, as opposed to giving someone a quote from page 253 and making them look through every title there, for instance?

Or not. I'll shut up now.
 
2007-11-11 08:27:09 AM
Idiots

nothing prevents AIDS like being a Farker
 
2007-11-11 08:27:12 AM
shoberp

The protein markers on the viral envelope of HIV constantly change once in the body which is why treatment is so difficult. Once the virus replicates in the host cell it actually takes on the protein markers of that cell when it leaves. Your body can't tell the difference between the virus and its own cells.
 
2007-11-11 08:28:23 AM
My girlfriend's ex-housemate is what's called an "elite controller". He's been HIV+ for over ten years, is unmedicated and still hasn't got AIDS. Needless to say these people are very interesting to researchers.
 
2007-11-11 08:34:03 AM
To 47 is the new 42 and robeph:

FTA:
Researchers recruited 3,000 people around the world for the trial

For the 18 people from Sydney, Australia (I'm looking in your direction, robeph), the control group and the experimental group were equally split, so let's assume that it was the same for the total population.

that means 49 of 1500 vs 33 of 1500

3.26% of the vaccine group got AIDS
2.2% of the placebo group got AIDS

Hope that helps.
 
2007-11-11 08:36:04 AM
Hellbuny: What I honestly wonder is if the greater number of infections stems from a bunch of idiots who went and thought to themselves that "Hey, I'm Protected now! Let's Fark anything that moves!"

I mean sure they told them not to do it, but people never do listen.

I think that there needs to be a lot more data provided for the numbers provided to mean anything.


I don't see it in the article, but surely it's a double-blind study. The people didn't know if they got the vaccine or not, which is supposed to control for exactly that type of behavior.
 
2007-11-11 08:37:17 AM
The best way to prevent AIDS is to avoid anal stabbings from random men and to not sell BJs for drug money. Or have sex with anyone who does.
 
2007-11-11 08:42:52 AM
i17.photobucket.com
 
2007-11-11 08:48:45 AM
No Such Agency: My girlfriend's ex-housemate is what's called an "elite controller". He's been HIV+ for over ten years, is unmedicated and still hasn't got AIDS. Needless to say these people are very interesting to researchers.

These people are the descendants of Black Plague survivors in the 1300's
 
2007-11-11 08:52:32 AM
maereth: The protein markers on the viral envelope of HIV constantly change once in the body which is why treatment is so difficult. Once the virus replicates in the host cell it actually takes on the protein markers of that cell when it leaves. Your body can't tell the difference between the virus and its own cells.

Ah, thank you. So it's like when I go to pop on some porn, and some one has replaced the DVD with My Little Pony season two, disc three. You don't notice it until it's too late, and there's nothing you can do about it. You just gotta make the best out of a bad situation.

/I appreciate the clear, concise answer. I just felt like a brief "Thank you" wouldn't be enough.
 
2007-11-11 08:55:12 AM
Cornered Beef: Everyone has AIDS! (new window)

I really love that movie.
 
2007-11-11 09:31:51 AM
Yes, I agree it's time for the fail tag. Although this one could have a SAD tag.
 
2007-11-11 09:45:35 AM
No Such Agency: My girlfriend's ex-housemate is what's called an "elite controller". He's been HIV+ for over ten years, is unmedicated and still hasn't got AIDS. Needless to say these people are very interesting to researchers.

She isn't an "elite controller" she's just not taking the drugs which are designed to go after a mouse with a nuclear bomb. If I ever became HIV+, I would NEVER touch any anti-AIDS medication.

/Remember all the famous people who died in the late 80's-early 90's from "AIDS" complications? That's AZT for you.
//I smell a conspiracy.
///Or a fart.
////Fart. By the way, www.questionaids.com
 
2007-11-11 09:54:19 AM
By the way, there's a reason why when you watch all those birth control commercials now, they have to say "(insert pill here) does not prevent the spread of STD's OR HIV.

The OR is because HIV is not an STD.

In fact, read the warning label on any HIV test and you will see (in VERY fine print) that the medication will say something like: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood."

HIV antibody tests are not standardized. This means that there is no nationally or internationally accepted criteria for what constitutes a positive result. Standards also vary from lab to lab within the same country or state, and can even differ from day to day at the same lab.

/In other words, you can be positive in Canada, but negative in the USA.
//Marketing rules.
 
2007-11-11 10:00:57 AM
img164.imageshack.us
 
2007-11-11 10:03:12 AM
AIDS is a syndrome, not a disease. It's basically a label you can slap onto anyone with a compromized immune system, though usually only people who have both a compromized immune system and HIV are said to have AIDS - rather stupid considering that there are a million different ways to kill your immune system, and even if you happen to have live HIV in your system, it could be spreading because of your compromised immune system, not acting as the cause. HIV drugs (in fact, any powerful drugs you take over a long period of time) kill your immune system too.

Personally, I think the whole AIDS / HIV thing is a big scam. Person with TB and comprimised immune system? They're dying of TB. Person with TB and HIV and compromised immune system? They're dying of AIDS. Notice a pattern here? A large percentage of deaths from AIDS actually have nothing to do with HIV, and a large percentage of the remainder are undoubtedly caused by AIDS drugs and/or depression.

If you happen to get HIV, my advice is to stay happy, eat, sleep, and exercise well. Do not take the drugs. Your survival chances are better without them.
 
2007-11-11 10:06:41 AM
Hmm, something to prevent something actually increases the likelihood of it. Doesn't the English language have a word for that, but it's often used in situations in which it shouldn't be used? Oh yeah...

img1.fark.com
 
2007-11-11 10:20:22 AM
If you do get AIDS, immediately rush to Fark and take the advice of anonymous conspiracy theorist nut jobs.

Under no circumstances take the advice of a doctor. Doctors want to kill you and take your wallet.

At all costs avoid reading any of the evidence-based literature that purports to show that modern treatments significantly lengthen the average time between HIV diagnosis and a dirt nap. It is all lies made up by evil men in white coats. Do not let it into your tender brain.
 
2007-11-11 10:27:30 AM
All of the volunteers were warned to protect themselves from exposure to AIDS.

And some of the test subjects still contracted it? Geez...
 
2007-11-11 10:37:06 AM
j0ndas: AIDS is a syndrome, not a disease. It's basically a label you can slap onto anyone with a compromized immune system, though usually only people who have both a compromized immune system and HIV are said to have AIDS - rather stupid considering that there are a million different ways to kill your immune system, and even if you happen to have live HIV in your system, it could be spreading because of your compromised immune system, not acting as the cause. HIV drugs (in fact, any powerful drugs you take over a long period of time) kill your immune system too.

Personally, I think the whole AIDS / HIV thing is a big scam. Person with TB and comprimised immune system? They're dying of TB. Person with TB and HIV and compromised immune system? They're dying of AIDS. Notice a pattern here? A large percentage of deaths from AIDS actually have nothing to do with HIV, and a large percentage of the remainder are undoubtedly caused by AIDS drugs and/or depression.

If you happen to get HIV, my advice is to stay happy, eat, sleep, and exercise well. Do not take the drugs. Your survival chances are better without them.


AIDS does not kill people. The totally suppressed immune system allows infection, random disease, etc. which kills people. Typically AIDs patients will die of pneumonia or staff infection, or other things which a normal person would shrug off.

As for the rest: you're more full of shiat than a Sunday turkey.
 
2007-11-11 10:43:45 AM
That's funny, My university is doing AIDS research right now. And findings suggest that its 90% effective at least from what I heard from one of my TA's.

Again, this vaccine isn't a cure for people with AIDS, but a vaccine to prevent people from being infected.

Michael Summers / UMBC.
 
2007-11-11 10:45:22 AM
Here is a link if you're interested in his research.

Good luck understanding it. Hope you have a very strong background in biochemistry.

http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/summers.html
 
2007-11-11 10:56:57 AM
SABRA LANE: Of the people who had the HIV vaccine, 49 became infected with the virus, whereas only 33 in the placebo group became infected.


*laughs* And we all know TA's aren't to be questioned!

Okay, can someone explain the placebo group to me? Does it make any sense that people who didn't get the "aids-inducing vaccine", came down with syndrome? I mean, unless we are to assume that EACH AND EVERY one of those people had unprotected sex/needle sharing/(no time for gradeschool rendition of communicable methods) with an infected person, even THEN those numbers still don't make sense.

The chances of contracting the HIV virus from a NEEDLE STICK is in the range of 0.3 - 3% per stick. Think of dropping a needle with infected blood on it. WTF is happening with this illness? Have we simply named a symptom of a larger underlying problem?

Yes I understand people can be stupid sometimes. But as stated above, these numbers don't make any sense without the denominators. Just KNOWING that there's a placebo group (as in any responsible medical study, you need a control), means not taking any risks in exposing yourself to the virus you're attempting to vaccinate against!

Based on inconsistent testing methods, are we sure there were no traces of the virus BEFORE the study began?

An immunology instructor once showed us maps of the first reported cases of HIV in Africa, then overlayed a map showing the locations of polio vaccination tents. There was an astounding correlation.

We don't everything about this. But it generates too much money to admit mistakes and solve overnight.
 
2007-11-11 11:07:24 AM
usera.imagecave.com
 
2007-11-11 11:11:55 AM
Wait...Wait...They gave people a shot and pretty much just told them to go out and try to get AIDS? Normally, I'm all for unscrupulous research, it gets things done...but this is just rediculous.
 
2007-11-11 11:18:33 AM
Yo, if you contract HIV, it sucks.

But it sucks way more to not get medicated against it. Modern HIV therapeutics have become much better and more effective at lower doses than the AZT bombs of yester year.

Pharma drugs you have to worry about are the ones that stimulate whole classes of human receptors (Vioxx, Phen-Fen, etc...). Modern AIDS drugs target the viral proteins (not host mechanisms) such as HIV protease, integrase and reverse transcriptase. Because the drugs inhibit the viral proteins only, they have very few side effects at low doses used to treat HIV.

HAART for teh win.
 
2007-11-11 11:28:35 AM
www.toadking.com
 
2007-11-11 11:41:23 AM
Hal B. Sure: How else are the drug companies going to guarantee future profits from AIDS medications if they don't create more victims patients?

Also, 9/11 was an inside job, we never landed on the moon, and Elvis cleans my house on the weekends.

P.S. He only cleans the inside of the windows, he says the outside is someone else's job.


This.

And all vaccines are a big scam Pharma money makers that fark with the immune system and are backed by government money and monkeyed studies.

P.S. Can you get E to dust? I can never get E to dust properly...
 
2007-11-11 11:47:44 AM
Rollo Tomasi: This just proves the old saying: "Most people with AIDS were just asking for it.".

Fark you!

/ no I do not have HIV
 
2007-11-11 11:57:30 AM
www.sfgate.com

Yes, you too are doing it wrong.
 
2007-11-11 12:39:20 PM
PHALE!
 
2007-11-11 12:43:06 PM
how 'bout this: don't fark people

gee, keeping your dick in your pants = 99.9999999% chance of being AIDS free, who'da thunk it.
 
2007-11-11 12:44:07 PM
was I the only one that read that headline as "you're doing it wrong fag"?
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report