Speaking of Vaccines: HIV

aShogunNamedMarcus · 10-22-2009, 11:59 PM

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...confirmed.html

gerewh0re · 10-23-2009, 12:45 AM

" 51 of 8197 vaccinated individuals became infected with HIV compared with 74 of 8198 unvaccinated people, a difference of just 23"

no sale

Adam West · 10-23-2009, 12:47 AM

1/3 is kinda significant no?

gerewh0re · 10-23-2009, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam West

1/3 is kinda significant no?

nope

gerewh0re · 10-23-2009, 12:53 AM

it would be interesting to see if the %'s stay at 80,000

i feel like we are dealing with a sample size of one here.

stew44 · 10-23-2009, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerewh0re

" 51 of 8197 vaccinated individuals became infected with HIV compared with 74 of 8198 unvaccinated people, a difference of just 23"

no sale

Shit, I would not like to be part of that trial.

eeyun · 10-23-2009, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam West

1/3 is kinda significant no?

According the the Chi-squares test, yes, it is a significant difference.

Table Analyzed HIV Vaccine

Chi-square
Chi-square, df 3.899, 1
P value 0.0483
P value summary *
One- or two-sided Two-sided
Statistically significant? (alpha<0.05) Yes

Data analyzed With Vaccine Without Vaccine Total
with HIV 51 74 125
Without HIV 8146 8124 16270
Total 8197 8198 16395

eeyun · 10-23-2009, 04:36 AM

I think that the important thing to note here, is that this is the first time that they've had any kind of success - whether you think it's significant or not.

That's something to smile about

thatgirl · 10-23-2009, 06:25 PM

I actually thought in my conspiratorial mind that they had unofficially given up and were using HIV as a form of population control. Glad I was wrong.

Rainmaker · 10-23-2009, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatgirl

I actually thought in my conspiratorial mind that they had unofficially given up and were using HIV as a form of population control. Glad I was wrong.

Use an STD/STI for population control?! Who would do that? That would never ever happen........oh wait, shit..

wishiwasridin · 10-23-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thatgirl

I actually thought in my conspiratorial mind that they had unofficially given up and were using H1N1 as a form of population control.

Fixed it

clarklewis · 10-24-2009, 03:34 AM

one possible interpretation of the study does suggest significance, and the media jizzed all over it.

however, as with all things pharmaceutical, the outcomes of that study varied wildly depending on how the numbers were manipulated. most biomedical statisticians who have reviewed the results have agreed that there was little to no statistical significance in the numbers.

regardless, it might be better than nothing, and could be a step in the right direction, which is cool. after all, no one like aids.

eeyun · 10-24-2009, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarklewis

one possible interpretation of the study does suggest significance, and the media jizzed all over it.

however, as with all things pharmaceutical, the outcomes of that study varied wildly depending on how the numbers were manipulated. most biomedical statisticians who have reviewed the results have agreed that there was little to no statistical significance in the numbers.

regardless, it might be better than nothing, and could be a step in the right direction, which is cool. after all, no one like aids.

I agree with your take on it, I mean, haven't some past trials actually increased risk of infection? Even if they rushed the results out a bit, I still think it's pretty positive.

10-23-2009, 12:45 AM	#2
gerewh0re cam's boss Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 5,760 Rep Power: 2289248	" 51 of 8197 vaccinated individuals became infected with HIV compared with 74 of 8198 unvaccinated people, a difference of just 23" no sale __________________ this space is intentionally blank, other than this note about it being blank.

10-23-2009, 12:53 AM	#5
gerewh0re cam's boss Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 5,760 Rep Power: 2289248	it would be interesting to see if the %'s stay at 80,000 i feel like we are dealing with a sample size of one here. __________________ this space is intentionally blank, other than this note about it being blank.

10-23-2009, 04:36 AM	#8
eeyun zombie dragon Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: powerful in life, unstoppable in death Posts: 2,859 Rep Power: 251524	I think that the important thing to note here, is that this is the first time that they've had any kind of success - whether you think it's significant or not. That's something to smile about __________________ the teh

10-23-2009, 06:25 PM	#9
thatgirl ... Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: a house Posts: 1,563 Rep Power: 145978	I actually thought in my conspiratorial mind that they had unofficially given up and were using HIV as a form of population control. Glad I was wrong. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

10-23-2009, 12:47 AM	#3
Adam West I voted for Kodos Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: not sooke Posts: 20,701 Rep Power: 21474850	1/3 is kinda significant no?

10-24-2009, 03:34 AM	#12
clarklewis beast Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: whistler Posts: 2,063 Rep Power: 2774230	one possible interpretation of the study does suggest significance, and the media jizzed all over it. however, as with all things pharmaceutical, the outcomes of that study varied wildly depending on how the numbers were manipulated. most biomedical statisticians who have reviewed the results have agreed that there was little to no statistical significance in the numbers. regardless, it might be better than nothing, and could be a step in the right direction, which is cool. after all, no one like aids.