Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: HighSierra5
Here is an interview about Fauci in Scientific American about 12 years ago:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nih-official-fauci-hiv-vaccine/

His reasoning for terminating a clinical trial:

No efficacy at all, because it wasn't done in a large enough trial or among at-risk people, who would allow enough infection to occur to see if it would work. All it showed was safety to some degree—I mean, we didn't do a lot patients—but safety in those we looked at. And the fact that it induces an immune response, which one would argue was somewhat better than what you saw in the STEP trial.

There was some argument about that at several meetings. "Somewhat better" is what? A lot better? I didn't think it was a lot better.

If there were no other promising avenues - why would he terminate clinical trials? The possibility of "a little better" has no value to him? It just seems bizarre.

16 posted on 04/07/2020 7:02:33 PM PDT by Fido969 (In!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Fido969
A vaccine provides immunity for some length of time. We should still strive for an HIV vaccine in the age of PREP because not everyone who might be at risk can take Truvada. Is it likely? Doesn't seem like it.

A vaccine might be more likely with Covid-19 because of its design vs. HIV. HIV can be better controlled through behaviors and PREP. Covid-19 spreads quickly through the air.

37 posted on 04/07/2020 10:12:36 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Vote Giant Meteor in 2020)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson