AIDSMAP: Controversial vaccine trial produces results

Aidsmap has two stories this morning on a vaccine trial using two types of vaccine that has produced a one-third reduction in HIV infection in a truly massive sample (over 16,000 participants). The study was conducted in Thailand and went forward against the advice of numerous scientists because one of the components of the trial produced a jump in infections in an earlier trial. Aidsmap outlines the controversy in An unpopular vaccine study produces surprising result.

Aidsmap also has a short write-up on the details of this first modestly effective vaccine trial in Vaccine reduces risk of HIV infection by one-third in large trial. The authors of the trial rightly call this an historic event in the course of HIV/AIDS.

UPDATE: Aidsmap has more reactions: Vaccine trial “is the beginning” of a new path of research, says US health chief.

About David Wilton

fronterizo, public defender, intactivist, gay
This entry was posted in Medicine and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to AIDSMAP: Controversial vaccine trial produces results

  1. KOTFrank says:

    This is great news. It really points out that male circumcision may soon be outdated and is surely not warranted for a lifetime. Much bigger hopes of course rest on the TWO newly discovered antigens that will be made into the holy grail of a broad spectrum vaccine that should be applicable around the world to all types of HIV.

  2. Joseph says:

    It’s all over the news!
    2009-09-24 News24 – Vaccine Cuts Risk by 31%
    2009-09-24 BBC – HIV Vaccine Cuts Infection
    2009-09-24 NYTimes – AIDS Vaccine Shows Success
    2009-09-24 Washington Post – AIDS Vaccine Yields Positive Results Post
    2009-09-24 – CNN Vaccine Reduces HIV Infection
    In that last CNN one it says:
    “He cautioned that a lot more research was necessary, because the vaccine did not prevent everyone from being infected.
    Fifty-one people in the vaccine group eventually contracted HIV, compared with 74 in the placebo group.”
    I wonder, is there a reason why it was important to emphasize this fact for THIS study, but NOT the circumcision study?
    Is it possibly because this is an actual study on an actual vaccine?

Comments are closed.