The results from a very-hyped AIDS vaccine trial, the largest one yet done, wre released early a few weeks ago because, according to the researchers highly-publicized data, the vaccine showed a "31 %" success rate after 3 years, which would make this the first AIDS vaccine trial to show any positive result.
The researchers said at the time that they didn't really understand why they got such good results, seeing as they were using a combination of two vaccines that had failed to show positive results on their own.
But a few days later, it also came out that the researchers had "massaged" the data to show the results in their best light, and that with different – but euqally-valid – calculations, teh results weren't nearly as good; in fact, some people calculated that based on the new way of looking at the numbers, the results could be explained entirely by chance.
Now, the reseach has been presented formally at a conference and the results seem to be somewhere in between those poles – not spectacular, but probably not due to chance alone.
So, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
The good part of this is that for the first time in a very long time, there is real hope and optimism in the AIDS vaccine community that the goal of finding an AIDS vaccine may not be impossible, after all.
The bad news, I think, is that this kind of vaccine with these kind of results (even at the high-end) would really have no utility for the public for the main reason that it doesn't offer enough protection to enough people?
Se desperately need a workable AIDS vaccine, but this isn't yet the one.
Comments