Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → "Partially" effective HIV vaccine discovered
"Partially" effective HIV vaccine discovered
2009-09-24, 12:20 PM #1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/24/hiv-infection-vaccine-aids-breakthrough

Apparently will reduce risk of infection by a third. Even "just" a third makes this discovery HUGE, as most of you probably figured out. Also, as the article states:

"The world's largest HIV/Aids vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers was the first in which infection has been prevented, according to the US army, which sponsored the trial with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases."

I will also add that as yet again the article states, the results of this discovery right now only apply to HIV strains that are local to Thailand, so it's unknown as to whether it will be effective against other strains in different parts of the world. At any rate, this is a wonderful lead to follow in the effort of ultimately defeating the virus.
Looks like we're not going down after all, so nevermind.
2009-09-24, 1:06 PM #2
How the hell do they test this? Inject a bunch of people and then expose them to HIV?

Obviously not. So how do they know infection was prevented by this vaccine?
2009-09-24, 1:10 PM #3
Statistics. A large group of people given the vaccine got less aids then a large group given a dummy vaccine. The amount was lower enough to be statistically significant, meaning its very unlikely to be because of chance.

Though I agree that it does sound rather far-fetched when dealing with aids.
It took a while for you to find me; I was hiding in the lime tree.
2009-09-24, 1:26 PM #4
Originally posted by UltimatePotato:
Statistics. A large group of people given the vaccine got less aids then a large group given a dummy vaccine. The amount was lower enough to be statistically significant, meaning its very unlikely to be because of chance.

Though I agree that it does sound rather far-fetched when dealing with aids.


This is correct, and also in accordance with the article. Why does it sound far-fetched with viruses, though? (Sincere question, I don't know much about microbiology.)
Looks like we're not going down after all, so nevermind.
2009-09-24, 3:27 PM #5
What if the group that received less AIDS was exposed to less AIDS? Maybe they weren't going around all willy-nilly with their peckers out while the group that got tons of AIDS went from port to port, ****ing every hooker in sight?
TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE
2009-09-24, 3:39 PM #6
Originally posted by Roger Spruce:
What if the group that received less AIDS was exposed to less AIDS? Maybe they weren't going around all willy-nilly with their peckers out while the group that got tons of AIDS went from port to port, ****ing every hooker in sight?


That's why they do statistical analysis, you ignorant moron.
:master::master::master:
2009-09-24, 3:49 PM #7
Yes sir, I only had sex with two hookers this month. They did not have the HIV, I swear.
TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE
2009-09-24, 4:43 PM #8
Well, this proves that progress is being made.
And that is fantastic.
2009-09-24, 4:55 PM #9
Originally posted by Roger Spruce:
Yes sir, I only had sex with two hookers this month. They did not have the HIV, I swear.


They have a test for HIV. I suggest you try it out, you wretch.
:master::master::master:
2009-09-24, 5:10 PM #10
I'd rather not know if I have it. I can sleep easier, thanks.
TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE
2009-09-24, 5:19 PM #11
Originally posted by Roger Spruce:
What if the group that received less AIDS was exposed to less AIDS? Maybe they weren't going around all willy-nilly with their peckers out while the group that got tons of AIDS went from port to port, ****ing every hooker in sight?


Confidence interval.
2009-09-24, 7:00 PM #12
Originally posted by Roger Spruce:
I'd rather not know if I have it. I can sleep easier, thanks.


You can sleep easier not knowing whether or not you have an incurable disease? :confused:

2009-09-24, 7:43 PM #13
Perhaps he meant "sleep (with other people)" easier.
2009-09-24, 9:53 PM #14
Originally posted by JM:
How the hell do they test this? Inject a bunch of people and then expose them to HIV?

Obviously not. So how do they know infection was prevented by this vaccine?

they probably used blood samples to test it...or an animal
I'm proud of my life and the things that I have done, proud of myself and the loner I've become.
2009-09-24, 11:05 PM #15
Originally posted by andreawesome:
they probably used blood samples to test it...or an animal


They did not do that. Did you read the article, or this thread?
:master::master::master:
2009-09-25, 4:57 AM #16
was there food?
TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE
2009-09-25, 7:34 AM #17
Originally posted by Roger Spruce:
was there food?


The uncooked flesh of apes and monkeys. Don't worry about the effect on the population; they only culled the most sickly ones.
Why do the heathens rage behind the firehouse?

↑ Up to the top!