Vaccine Failure Means Setback in AIDS Fight

FOXNews.com ^ | Friday, March 21, 2008 | FOXNews.com

[metmom]

The two-decade search for an AIDS vaccine is in crisis after two field tests of the most promising contender not only did not protect people from the virus but may actually have put them at increased risk of becoming infected, The Washington Post reported.

Experts are questioning the overall strategy and scientific premises of the nearly $500 million in AIDS vaccine research funded annually by the government after the two field tests were halted last September and seven other trials of AIDS vaccines have either been stopped or put off indefinitely.

The recently closed studies, STEP and Phambili, were halted when it became clear the STEP study was futile and possibly harmful.

[Judith Anne]

Given that this thread has a bunch of people essentially celebrating the failure of a medical advance that could have saved the lives of millions, why should I cool it?

Which posts were those, celebrating the HIV deaths? Can you point them out, so we can decide why you feel that way?

[Judith Anne]

I do note that garbanzo’s little tantrum and flame-fest took the onus off AlterKaker’s inaccurate WHO figures.

[trisham]

This is interesting. From a CDC report:

Certain subpopulations remain at increased risk. MSM account for approximately 45% of newly reported HIV/AIDS diagnoses and nearly 54% of cumulative AIDS diagnoses (10,11). A recent survey indicated that in several large U.S. cities, approximately one in four MSM surveyed in social venues is infected with HIV, and nearly 50% of MSM are unaware of their HIV infections

MSM=Men having sex with men.

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a1.htm

[garbanzo]

Note that I said all but celebrating the failure of an HIV vaccine...not the deaths...just the failure of a vaccine.
< p>
By my count:
posts #4,#21,#31,#36,#40,#44,#53,#63,#95,#98,#123,#153,#230,#241.

[Judith Anne]

If I’m not mistaken, IV drug abusers, male and female, are the next largest group.

[Judith Anne]

Okay, I went and looked at the first one on your list of posters "celebrading the failure of an HIV vaccine"

Here it is:

It might also be harmful because even the hope of having a vacinne might encourage high-risk behaviour.

4 posted on 03/21/2008 5:46:52 AM PDT by BlackVeil [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

That is NOT "celebrating the failure of an HIV vaccine."

Are you sure you want to continue to call attention to yourself? Because I'm not going to check anymore of your "celebration" post examples. You are being disingenuous.

[trisham]

I think so.

[trisham]

Again: Hardly a "celebration".

To: AD from SpringBay

There will never be a cure for this virus only treatment of symptoms, they are throwing money down a rat hole looking for a vaccine.

21 posted on 03/21/2008 9:06:44 AM EDT by boomop1

[garbanzo]

Fine...the facts speak for themselves...if you have people who can’t find any sense of disappointment in the failure of a medical advance, then there’s no sense in continuing this discussion.

Since I have more useful things to do this afternoon than argue with bigoted retards, you win, let this be my last post on this thread.

[Judith Anne]

The facts do INDEED speak for themselves. Have a blessed day.

[Judith Anne]

...if you have people who can’t find any sense of disappointment in the failure of a medical advance,

Whoa! How did we get from "can't find any sense of disappointment" to "celebrating the failure"?

Typical liberal. I guess that's the same way that conservatives "slash spending" on HIV, when in reality, the increased spending just wasn't as big as the GLBT lobby thought it should be.

[metmom]

AK Post 43 Really? How would you frame a disease that has already killed 25 million people, the equivalent of two of Hitler's Holocausts. Somewhere around 40 million people are currently infected -- most will die of the disease -- and 12 million children in sub-Saharan Africa alone are orphans because their parents have died of AIDS.

OK, mis-recalled the post. 40 million infected in sub-Saharan Africa alone does not equate to 40 million children infected in sub-Saharan Africa alone.

However, a review of your posts shows you throwing around statistics and names of countries at random, making several implications.

The 40 million believed to be infected is the number believed to be infected WORLDWIDE, not in sub-Sahara Africa alone as your post states but your post 262 shows....

I cited a 40 million figure, which was what a 2006 study suggested. In looking into your question, I discovered that the latest research (The 2007 AIDS Epidemic Update published December, 2007) jointly by UNAIDS and the World Health Organization estimated that 33.2 million people worldwide are HIV+. The Update is the closets thing we have to an authoritative source, and its figures are used and cited by the White House, the CDC, the NIH, etc. Source. The same study breaks down HIV/AIDS cases by region and country -- of those 33.2 million, 15.4 million are women, and 2.5 million are children under the age of 15. The study found that AIDS is the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa.

So how does this equate to those numbers being sub-Sahara Africa? Which is it then? World wide or sub-Sahara Africa?

So why all the focus on sub-Sahara Africa? If there are 40 million worldwide, why imply that it's sub-Sahara Africa alone? Why ignore the rest of the world? Don't they count too? Or are we just playing the *What about the poor starving children in Africa* card for the sake of vilifying others as being heartless when they don't want $$$$$'s being wasted?

In addition, the figure of 25 million is estimated deaths worldwide since 1981, not per year.

Now the constant obfuscation of data, indeed the contradiction of data, (as in posts 43 and 262) can only suggest an deliberate attempt to mislead and confuse.

Also noted are the tems in the source you site of *fairly rough estimate, with numbers differing depending on the source*,*estimated*,*The Update is the closets >>>as in coming out of?<<< thing we have to an authoritative source*... Not terms that inspire a high level of confidence.

[metmom]

ping to post 312

[metmom]

Why should he? They can’t get their figures right themselves.

[metmom]

Given that this thread has a bunch of people essentially celebrating the failure of a medical advance that could have saved the lives of millions, why should I cool it?

Who's celebrating this?

Why are you painting people with the broad brush again, as you did about conservatives earlier in the thread. Sweeping generalizations are just liberal hysteria tools.

[metmom]

Courtesy pinging all those who you failed to ping whom you are slandering.

Since when did expecting personal responsibility and accountability translate into celebrating the failure of finding a vaccine? Those infected with AIDS/HIV could stop this epidemic in one generation for free if they so choose.

BTW, what country are you from? I see no flag on your home page either.

[metmom]

He’s outright lying.

[Alter Kaker]

Somewhere around 40 million people are currently infected -- most will die of the disease -- and 12 million children in sub-Saharan Africa alone are orphans because their parents have died of AIDS.

You're obviously confused and my syntax may be partially to blame for the confusion.

In the sentence italicized above, I cited two figures: the number of AIDS orphans in sub-Saharan Africa, and the number of people infected with HIV worldwide. I would have cited worldwide AIDS orphan statistics (instead of just limiting them to sub-Saharan Africa), but I couldn't find worldwide stats.

I did not claim that there were 40 million people in Africa infected with HIV, but rereading the sentence I understand how that may not have been totally clear.

If there are 40 million worldwide, why imply that it's sub-Sahara Africa alone? Why ignore the rest of the world? Don't they count too?

Again, the statistics I had were only for orphans in Africa. If you can find worldwide statistics, I would love to see them. I'm sorry you think I have an ulterior motive here, but I really don't.

In addition, the figure of 25 million is estimated deaths worldwide since 1981, not per year.

All AIDS figures are estimates, although not necessarily ill-informed ones, because we're talking about a worldwide pandemic and not all countries have rigorous public health reporting systems. Also, I never claimed that 25 million people die each year from AIDS -- I've said all along that that's the total death toll.

Not terms that inspire a high level of confidence.

You find better sources and I'll use them. The AIDS pandemic is nearly 30 years old, and spans every continent. Are you surprised that coming up with accurate statistics is not always cut and dry? My underlying point remains the same: that regardless of whether there are 40 million or 32 million HIV+ people in the world, that all the public health experts agree that AIDS is the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa, that beyond the moral question, there is an additional geopolitical component, as the United States and the developed world have to deal with the fact that entire nations are being depopulated.

There are lots of demographic consequences we have to look at.

One example: In many parts of Africa, Muslims contract HIV at a lower rate than their non-Muslim neighbors. The reasons are not obvious (two hypotheses are that Muslims may be more likely to be circumcised and they may be less promiscuous).

In any event, they have lower infection rates, and as non-Muslims die off, we will see Muslims becoming increasingly prominent in areas were they hadn't been before. That's a change that will clearly affect the political and demographic climate of the region.

[rottndog]

Thanks.

[rottndog]

While I don’t ‘celebrate’ the failure of the HIV vaccine, I am not going to be unrealistic and wait for a successful one. I don’t think they will ever find a ‘cure’ for HIV, which is why I think the world would be better served [read-fewer people will die] if the spread of HIV is fought through behavior modification.

And in actuality, a vaccine, or even the hope of a vaccine, will result in MORE high risk behavior, and more incidences of infection. Just as airbags resulted in more aggressive driving habits. So you could say, we’re better off without the vaccine.