A friend of mine posted a link on her Facebook profile with the quote, “Woo Hoo! AIDS vaccine breakthrough!”
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/24/world/AP-MED-AIDS-Vaccine.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
I’m not trying to pick on her, I just feel like her enthusiasm is a result of calculator magic, not actual results.
I, like anybody, thought that sounded like a pretty awesome thing indeed. But then I read the article. Here are some key quotes:
A World First: Vaccine Helps Prevent HIV Infection
. . .
The vaccine — a combination of two previously unsuccessful vaccines — cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 percent in the world’s largest AIDS vaccine trial of more than 16,000 volunteers in Thailand, researchers announced Thursday in Bangkok.
. . .
Participants volunteered for the study and were told about the potential risks associated with receiving the experimental vaccine before agreeing to participate.
All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Any who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines. All participants continued to receive an HIV test every six months for three years after vaccinations ended.
The results: New infections occurred in 51 of the 8,197 given vaccine and in 74 of the 8,198 who received dummy shots. That worked out to a 31 percent lower risk of infection for the vaccine group. Two of the infected participants who received the placebo died.
Wow, 31% lower risk! That sounds pretty impressive! Wait. What? Let’s look at that again. Over 16,000 volunteers. Group A (8,197 people) got the vaccine. Group B (8,198 people) got a dummy or placebo. 51 infected from Group A. 74 infected from Group B. That’s a 0.6% infection rate for Group A, and a 0.9% infection rate for Group B.
Here is where the study kind of makes me mad. It’s not because they are reporting false numbers, but perhaps because they are pushing false hope. Sure, there is a 31% difference between 51 people and 74 people. But we’re talking about out of over 8,000 per group. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that 0.3% less people got infected in Group A?
I’m happy that this research might boost excitement about finding an AIDS vaccine, but I want to see these same test results repeated over and over before we start declaring a breakthrough. Isn’t it possible that Group A just did a better job of using those condoms that were handed out. Or Group B just had sex with more diseased people? There seems like so many possible variables that a 0.3% less infection rate hardly seems like anything more than luck.
Perhaps by saying they lowered risk by 31%, they can get more funding. Who knows, but the whole thing sounds like a term my buddy coined – Calculator Magic.
I think if the article had simply been titled, Vaccine Might Possibly Slightly Help Prevent HIV Infection – Hey, it’s a start! I’d be a lot less pessimistic about the whole thing.
Posted by Justin 
Posted by Justin
Posted by Justin