Talk:HIV vaccine development

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The text above was taken from the NIAID document "HIV Vaccine Development Status Report May 2000" taken from which, as a work of a US Federal Government agency without any other copyright notice, should be in the public domain


It might be appropriate to remove the "controversy" section from this article. Three reasons:

-It falsely makes conservatives look bad (in that they aren't interested in preventing a deadly disease. -Dr. Finger's term expired over two years ago. -Dr. Finger supports the development and administration of life saving vaccinations (see his Wikipedia article). The paragraph in this article seems to distort his view.

There's no reason to have a "controversy" section if no actual controversy exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can someone add to the AIDS catagory microbicides? They are usually intervaginal substances (gels, cremes, sprays) that disable the HIV virus. It is an interesting new avenue towards fighting aids.

they are always looking for new ways to protect themselves from death even if it involves -- 18:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--ShaunMacPherson 23:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Missing Text on This Page[edit]

The paragraph that begins "The availability of several recombinant canarypox..." is incomplete. It ends with a dependent clause and ends with a comma. Something is missing here. DanMS 00:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) A vaccine has been proved to be safe and effective in Nigeria

I found the original (June 2003!) and replaced the missing piece. No clue if it belongs there, but at least it is whole and no longer a fragment. 12-Jun-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vaccine development[edit] (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 07, 2009 - human blood stem cells can be engineered into cells that can target and kill HIV-infected cells. Taking CD8 cytotoxic T lymphocytes — the "killer" T cells that help fight infection — from an HIV-infected individual, the researchers identified the molecule known as the T-cell receptor, which guides the T cell in recognizing and killing HIV-infected cells. These cells, while able to destroy HIV-infected cells, do not exist in enough quantities to clear the virus from the body. So the researchers cloned the receptor and genetically engineered human blood stem cells, then placed the stem cells into human thymus tissue that had been implanted in mice, allowing them to study the reaction in a living organism. This approach could be used to combat a variety of chronic viral diseases.

Reference: Investigators: Scott G. Kitchen, Jerome A. Zack, Michael Bennett, Zoran Galic, Joanne Kim, Qing Xu, Alan Young, Alexis Lieberman, Hwee Ng and Otto Yang, all of UCLA, and Aviva Joseph and Harris Goldstein of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An explanation of the study and results is given by Scott Kitchen in "Could Stem Cells Cure AIDS?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wojcz (talkcontribs) 20:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Novel approaches, including modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA), adeno-associated virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis (VEE) replicons, and codon-optimized DNA have proven to be strong inducers of CTL in macaque models, and have provided at least partial protection in some models. Most of these approaches are in, or will soon enter, clinical studies.
September 3, 2009 New Antibodies Found: PG9 and PG16 were discovered by researchers at and associated with the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), at The Scripps Research Institute, and at the biotechnology companies Theraclone Sciences and Monogram Biosciences
Broadly neutralizing antibodies to HIV are produced by a minority of HIV-infected individuals and are distinct from other antibodies to HIV in that they neutralize a high percentage of the many types of HIV in circulation worldwide. It is widely believed that to prevent HIV infection an AIDS vaccine would need to teach the body to produce these powerful antibodies before exposure to the virus. Animal experiments suggest that conceptually such a vaccine would work. Before this finding only four antibodies to HIV had been discovered that were widely agreed to be broadly neutralizing.
In november 2009 another innovative approach emerged - hiv treatment that would conceal HIV virus from T cells, therefore preventing hteir infection. This treatment has been tested on monkeys and proven highly effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As this passage notes, broad neutralization has been observed in at least 4 previously-discovered monoclonal antibodies, so this is (potentially important) incremental work. Certainly, there's no need for a new section on it. In addition, this text lacks reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will search for more references, seen them around, just not had them at hand. wanted to share anyway already, so that others might add up other references.
Another approach which is still more teoretical than practical is using nano robots that would destroy the virus material or the infected cells.
Current research is performed in:
Other references: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those topics are interesting, but probably do not belong in a Wikipedia article. Please note:
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal where theoretical possibilities are examined.
  • The articles here rely on reliable sources, which do NOT include generally include university web pages, commercial web sites, blogs, or other news outlets.
  • There is a prohibition of speculation, even when based on excellent scientific principles. It's worth looking at our guidelines regarding synthesis and original research.
I'm not saying that you've engaged in these in article space - just cautioning to ensure you're aware. Also, this may be useful:
  • Talk page indentation guidelines, which make this page much easier to follow than it would be otherwise. -- Scray (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THe following is an rather outdated view on the field: A recent article [1] paints a gloomy picture, quote: "Many experts admit that despite intensive global efforts, an HIV/AIDS vaccine remains elusive, and might never be found." --Vsion 07:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"However, the classical vaccination approaches that have been successful in the control of various viral diseases by priming the adaptive immunity to recognise the viral envelope proteins have failed in the case of HIV-1, as the epitopes of the viral envelope are too variable. Furthermore, the functionally important epitopes of the gp120 protein are masked by glycosylation, trimerisation and receptor-induced conformational changes making it difficult to block with neutralising antibodies."

While very well written, this paragraph is not very lucid to the lay reader such as my self, I would like to see it expanded if someone with the appropriate knowledge would take the time.

There is every reason to believe that a Nigerian Medical doctor (Dr J.O. Abalaka) has developed a vaccine against HIV.Please reference the journal 'VACCINE' of July 2004:pp 3819-28. It does appear to me that The UN Director on HIV Dr Peter Piott has succeded in cajoling every government agency to believe in the US multinationals believe that HIV vaccine can only be developed in the West. This type of stereotype cannot help in finding solution to the problem of HIV vaccine development.US and other drug companies have succeded in taking over and controlling the UN agency on HIV including the Director who appears to be on their payroll.There is the need to address the issue of involvement of drug companies in UN works particularly on the issue of HIV. Elijah

Severe cutdown of the section on HAART[edit]

Is there any reason we need to spend two paragraphs discussing HAART in the introduction? Would anybody mind if I gave this a serious trim-down?

Furthermore, does this article really need to use so much medical terminology? Think of your readership...--Robert Merkel 01:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

economics section[edit]

A June 2005 study estimates that $682 million is spent on AIDS vaccine research annually.

It would be useful to the section to contrast this with drug company profits from AIDS drugs, if such data can be found or if someone can be quoted with an estimate. This obviously must be done in an NPOV way; my goal is not to cast drug companies as villains in a drama (and I personally have no idea which way the comparison even goes). Tempshill 23:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course (!?) an AIDS vaccine would reduce or destroy profits from AIDS drugs.... Rich Farmbrough, 13:58 16 October 2006 (GMT).

What's with the numbers in the text? It looks like copy&paste without copying the footnotes.

POV and omniscience (crystal ball)[edit]

Theres a bit of this in the article, about what is "needed" an "demanded", and what the consequences of various hypothetical discoveries will be. I've changed a bit but I think there's more. Rich Farmbrough, 13:58 16 October 2006 (GMT).

NEJM article[edit]

There is an interesting review about HIV vaccines in this week's NEJM that could be useful for this article: Johnston MI, Fauci AS (2007). "An HIV vaccine--evolving concepts". N. Engl. J. Med. 356 (20): 2073–81. doi:10.1056/NEJMra066267. PMID 17507706. --WS 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

User:UltraMagnus has suggested that Subunit HIV vaccine be merged with this article. Since most current HIV vaccine trials are subunit vaccines, it seems appropriate to me to do this merge. Any other thoughts? Blue Rasberry 15:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support - I'm for the merger, assuming it is well cited and perhaps rewritten to add more information and readability. Spiral5800 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This merge does not appear to be controversial, and looking at Subunit HIV vaccine it was just a stub with no content that would improve HIV vaccine, so I just redirected. -- Scray (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expanding this Article[edit]

I'm assuming by now most if not all of you have heard the news concerning the vaccine in thailand that provided ~30% protection against HIV infection. That's something that definitely belongs in the article. I'd add it myself if I had the time right this moment - but I'll be back to help. I'm assuming folks agree that that deserves to be in the article, right? Here are some preliminary citations: HIV Vaccine on CNN, HIV Vaccine on Fox News - link might die soon. Spiral5800 (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

another one --UltraMagnus (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went ahead and expanded the article to reflect the new trial results. I just went ahead and added it in the opening summary. I think it's appropriate to include such important information that really gets at the heart of feasibility and cutting-edge developments in the opening paragraphs.--LTsereteli (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just created an article titled RV 144. I agree with UltraMagnus and LTsereteli that this trial should be mentioned in this article, but until more researchers give more public statements about the significance of this trial, I am not in favor of saying too much about it within this article. Blue Rasberry 17:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, we were discussing it a bit below. Great work on RV 144 btw, looks good. JoeSmack Talk 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometime in the past few months the link to the RV 144 article was removed but the description of the trial remained on this page, calling it a trial in Thailand. I reinserted the name and put the link back. Blue Rasberry 04:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I missed this and thanks for replacing the link. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results due to Chance?[edit]

I understand that the Thai vaccine trial results (RV 144) are statistically significant - the p value is 0.36. I therefore suggest that the line that the results might be due to chance should be removed.Bridget Haire (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry but upon reviewing my statistics book from college (and re-reading what the user posted - I thought she had said .036, not .36, for the p-value) I have to disagree with Bridget Haire (and I hope you don't mind that I took your "clarification" and turned it into a section, in anticipation of any further debate on this issue.) This p value clearly shows the results to be consistent with the null hypothesis. A p-value of .05 or less is generally considered in statistics to indicate a result not-due-to-chance, and if the p-value is indeed .36 (I haven't done the math), that means that this study's results definitely could be due to chance. Check out the article p value if you don't believe me! :) The line that the results may be due to chance deserves to be reinstated. I will put it back. If someone wishes to remove the line based on further evidence, discussion here would be very appreciated. Thanks! Spiral5800 (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just want to point out that in contrast to comments above the p-value for the 31% reduction was 0.039 (not 0.36), and that p values less than 0.05 are generally considered significant (the p value represents the likelihood that the results are due to chance, so the lower the better). The results could still be due to chance, but the chance of that is less than 4%. --Scray (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why I love wikipedia. So I should undo my undo? I found this site: [HIV Vaccine results] , and that individual states that the p-value =.048 . I feel tempted to do my own calculation now, but you all are so good at doing the work for me lol :) Ok, I will undo my undo and the line will be removed unless something changes. I suggest, however, that someone a little better with statistics address this issue in the article and perhaps add at least a couple lines regarding the p-value of this trial and the likelihood (<4% according to your calculations) that the results are due to chance. Thank you very much for pointing this out Scray - I should have independently verified the p-value before changing anything. Spiral5800 (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My 2 cents, for what it's worth. I've been watching HIV and AIDS articles for years. This kind of 'news' happens like every 3-4 months, and later nothing comes of it or it was muddled in the trial with confounds, etc. What makes this one different and not specious like the rest before it? CNN, Fox and BBC all jump on sensationalist bandwagons as they always have, where is the pubmed action? JoeSmack Talk 06:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I share some of your skepticism, and wish this were peer-reviewed rather than just press-released (this is adding to the confusion about which p value is correct because there is no definitive source yet), but this really is the FIRST randomized placebo-controlled HIV vaccine trial in humans that has shown evidence of protection. Of course it requires peer-review and validation, but it appears to be a truly novel finding. --Scray (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not even peer-reviewed? Uuuugh, unfortunately 'as far we know' means nada until I can see how they did it in a journal, sigh. Can we PLEASE take this story out of the lead then, and note as such further down in the article when it comes up? Previous studies from Thailand like AIDSVAX haven't had the best luck. JoeSmack Talk 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that the part stating that the transmission difference could to be attributed to chance should be added back. Even if the probability is just a few percentage points, that's still well within the realm of possibility. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken the BBC article states as much, which takes precedence over independent research. Also, I appreciate JoeSmack's skepticism as well, however the fact that the trail was conducted in Thailand is irrelevant. It IS relevant, however, that the AIDSVAX was one of the two major components used in the new vaccine that was supposedly effective. If the other component was a vaccine that didn't have a good trial track record, then... well... that's not good at all. I don't have any medical training, but it's hard to imagine a combination of 2 useless vaccines creating a somewhat effective vaccine. I'm going to change the article to restate that the difference could be attributed to chance and also that the trial results have yet to be peer reviewed. As far as removing the information entirely, I don't think that's appropriate. An article about an HIV vaccine ought to include the most up-to-date information about the process. As far as I know this is the only "successful" clinical HIV vaccine trial in history and I think that the current events tab at the top of the page is explicit enough about taking the new developments in the field with a grain of salt. I think that explicitly stating the lack of peer reviewing and the possibility that the results were attributed to chance, along with the current events tab covers our asses sufficiently well, no?--LTsereteli (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flawed logic. One dose of hepatitis B vaccine does not work consistently. Three doses generally do. Prime-boost designs have been show to generate synergistic (more-than-additive) effects. The fact that AIDSVAX was unsuccessful alone does not indicate it will not be useful in combination. --Scray (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you say so. You're clearly more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. I'm just saying that if one dead horse can't pull a carriage, it's hard to imagine two dead horses pulling it.--LTsereteli (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, dead horses won't do any pulling, but maybe that's just a terribly skewed analogy with no parallels to the current situation. Alternatively, we could imagine one person might not be able to move that carriage, but a few people could. In the case of AIDSVAX, though it had been shown that it could generate an immune response against HIV (e.g. PMID 15272397), it just wasn't potent enough to prevent HIV infection on its own. Whether it did in the trial we're now discussing must be determined in further analysis. --Scray (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was really happy to hear the news, but when I saw, that less than 1% of the tested people really got HIV[2], I changed my mind... I made a simulation, which answered a question "assuming, that this vaccine doesn't work, what is the probablitity, that there will be at least 30% more infected in control group than in the group which got not-working vaccine". If the probability of getting HIV is (74+51)/16395 - then, out of 10000 simulations, 715 of them showed at least 30% better results in vaccinated group...
So, if there are 20 similar trials around the world, probably at least one of them will have "good results"... julekmen (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mistake. Before, I counted cases when non-vaccinated people got at least 30% more infections. After correction (I count cases when vaccinated people got at least 30% less infections) - and the result is 240 (not 715).
Even though this is OR I think it's worth clarifying: your result was 240/10 000 trials = 0.024 or 2.4%, consistent with the reported results. In other words (I think you're acknowledging this but it should be crystal-clear): your results support the contention that this result was very unlikely to be due to chance. It's also worth acknowledging that ALL clinical trial results (even the best-accepted vaccines or treatments) have p values that are greater than zero. Of course this trial needs thorough peer review, and validation, but the available evidence suggests that there is a real protective effect. --Scray (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, considering all the discussion everyone has put into this, I think I agree that it's appropriate that it has been returned to the article that there is a possibility that these results are due to chance. It is true that a p value so close to .05 (though still less than .05) is suspicious. And while p<.05 is the number we use in everything from drug studies to geology (really anything that involves statistical analysis) to determine statistical significance, there is a point to be made that saying a result is statistically significant is very different from saying the results are reproducable. They might have just gotten lucky; forthcoming studies will clear that question up. I hope, for the sake of all of us, that this is not the case. Spiral5800 (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unindent). Fully ageed. Let me just say that I thoroughly enjoy that Wikipedia holds stronger ethic on important research material than all of these mainstream news outlets! CNN and Fox I can believe, but BBC? Come on BBC! JoeSmack Talk 16:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yahtzee! LA Times pulls through. Also, I found this. A journalist for the Sunday Times (London) did investigative reporting on all the fray back in 2003 with AIDSVAX, Brian Deer. It looks like some of his career has been spent towards flaying criticism against certain vaccines though, so maybe he's a hammer and everything looks like a nail. JoeSmack Talk 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's good that the LATimes picked up the story and actually let everybody know the future difficulties involved. First and foremost, these results must be duplicated. That alone will take years. Furthermore, identifying a mechanism for the drug's effectiveness (assuming that it actually IS effective and that this was not a fluke) is similarly difficult. Still, I don't see anything in the article that is particularly enlightening. I mean... of course another (presumably larger) trial must be conducted and of course it's going to be difficult finding out which mechanisms were involved in providing immunity (or partial immunity) to the people in the experimental group. Now, if virtually nobody in the experimental group had contracted the disease... that would be another story entirely, no? Le sigh...--LTsereteli (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)-- (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current Related Tag[edit]

I believe it is more than appropriate for the "Current Related" tag to be up at the top of this article at the present time. The tag does not state that another article is undergoing serious revision, it merely states that this article is related to something that has just happened (these vaccine results becoming public) - though the article is not ABOUT that particular study, it is certainly related to it. Also, it states that information may change quickly as events develop further, which they abosolutely may! This may turn out to be a hoax, or more information concerning how the vaccine works might be published, or problems with the study might come to light, and so on ad infinitum. Do people agree or disagree? In my case, consider my opinion to be:

  • Keep - the tag is appropriate at the current time, stating the current situation accurately. Spiral5800 (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is unremarkable that an article is about a changing topic, or in the news. The tag is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely is in the news, or often has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with zero added consequence to the reader or the article. The tag was created and intended for those few occasions where some article is receiving massive editing attention, as in hundreds of edits a day, and another article is related. An example of such is a major earthquake, with massive edits being received, and the related article about a city where the earthquake is located. This is clearly not the case for this article. It is merely news. See also WP:NOTNEWS for further background. I have accordingly removed the {{current related}} tag. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thank you for the clarification, Yellowdesk. One learns the most when one is mistaken, as one (in this case, me) can be corrected. Though the day I added the tag, the article was receiving massive attention and a lot of edits - but certainly no longer, and as you have pointed out the tag was most likely not appropriate even then. Cheers! Spiral5800 (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions raised by U.S. Army researchers[edit]

Factoid just broke today:

--Firefly322 (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those three links all point to essentially the same announcement, and all are based on the same report. Note that they indicate that the earlier announcement was of the Intention to treat analysis results, which are generally less susceptible to bias than the Per-protocol analysis referred to in this new report. We just need to wait until all of the data are available, and the scientific community has had a chance to reach consensus, but I don't think this news item contains enough information to warrant any action for now. -- Scray (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this old, or is there something I don't know about NEJM: "the Thai study has yet to undergo peer review"? Here is the journal link: (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See response below, where you made the same comment. -- Scray (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The peer review status of the Thai vac trial[edit]

Is this old, or is there something I don't know about NEJM: "the Thai study has yet to undergo peer review"? Here is the journal link: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that the date on that Pubmed entry is 19 Nov 2009, i.e. 2 days ago. I've updated the article now. -- Scray (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

V520/HVTN study[edit]

"The HVTN expected to finish the study in 2009..." - Results are now published in PNAS. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of V1 references[edit]

In this edit I removed two references for the following reasons:

  1. The Metadilogkul reference is a meeting abstract, clearly not a reliable source in this context.
  2. The Bourinbaiar reference suffers from multiple flaws relevant to citation here. It is worth noting that WP:MEDRS recommends assessing the quality of evidence, particularly for primary references in journals that are less than highest-quality (the journal in question is not highest-quality according to WP:MEDRS). First, the study in question was not randomized. The cited effect was a rise of CD4 count in V1 recipients (from a mean of 540 to a mean of 583, p = 0.01) whereas the control group also experienced an increase (from mean of 535 to 561, p > 0.05). Note, however, that the V1 recipients numbered 29 and the control group numbered 18, raising a question of statistical power difference. In addition, the increase of CD4 from 540 to 583 is not clinically significant. Finally, such a change is within the measurement error of CD4 testing (PMID 15879025). While this paper did pass peer review, that does not mean a primary reference warrants inclusion here.

I hope this explains this removal. -- Scray (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition, in this edit I removed text citing two additional references (PMID 12531330 and PMID 18989372) that were written by company employees, were phase II trials involving a small number of participants, and were not randomized. If there were reliable secondary sources from authors lacking a conflict of interest, this story might be more compelling. -- Scray (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scray, in fairness, can you please consider how very few drug development clinical trials are published by people other than the researchers within the company developing the drug? I think the product is clearly important, given the number of people exposed to it to date and the fact that it is still being sold, and I hope you consider providing at least the basic clinical trial references that are on Pubmed, not even considering publications that are on other scientific literature servers.
Note: Dr Metadilogkul was not paid by Immunitor for conduct of the study, as stated in the citation. --Infinitesimus (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dr. Metadilogkul was the only author on that paper not employed by the company in question. While it's true that many, if not most, primary references on a product during development are written by company employees, that bias is one of the reasons primary references are considered less-reliable sources. Does that make sense? I realize that you're prevented from responding for the next day or so due to a 3-RR violation. -- Scray (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that User:Infinitesimus has reverted the edit I explained above. I don't know the rules about this sort of thing when the user is under a 3RR ban, but I'd feel better if someone else looked at that edit, in the context of the discussion above. -- Scray (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone MUST inform the community of their answers to the following questions before deleting ALL reference, even an edited reference, to the V-1 HIV vaccine:
1. is it reasonable to expect an encyclopedic summary of HIV vaccines to include a reference to a vaccine, however it is published or unpublished, that has been used by thousands of HIV patients? Most people would argue yes, with the major opinions recorded in favor and contrary. Such a reference to V-1 is even more supported given that it is widely known to have been used by over 60,000 people.
2. is it reasonable to expect also at least a reference to ANY HIV vaccine that is being marketed anywhere in the world? Many would argue yes, with some information on where it is being marketed and why it is not marketed in other jurisdictions.
3. is it reasonable to expect a reference to an HIV vaccine for which there are a number of publications? Again, the standards that have been used to date to delete V1 from the HIV vaccine page are not applied to most of the other product candidates in this entry and other biomedical entries.
In summary, either wikipedia remains an open edit wiki where one can expect that reasonably important items are mentioned, or it becomes the private turf of User:Keepcalmandcarryon and such, who do not read before they delete.--Infinitesimus (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome back. I'm sorry that you are resuming your editing here with such an antagonistic tone. The only thing we MUST do while editing here is follow accepted guidance for WP editing. Your edits, almost entirely restricted to insertions of marginally-sourced information on this particular vaccine product, do not suggest a neutral POV on this subject. I'm not aware of any randomized, controlled, double-blind study showing that V-1 is effective by any prospectively-selected measure. There are a half-dozen publications that consistently include a company employee as an author, usually as the senior/corresponding author. I'm not aware of a peer-reviewed secondary source supporting this as an important vaccine candidate. Let's see if any others weigh in. -- Scray (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgive the antagonistic tone, if you will. Four points (a list again, sorry for having to be pedantic on this):
1. If every reference to a biomedical product or finding required RDBPC clinical trials (as you appear to suggest?), and furthermore required that these be magically published by those not involved in the trial in the case of all company-sponsored trials, there would be little left for people to read about on Wikipedia.
2. If something is important by virtue of the shear amount of data published, the number of people affected, the amount of press coverage, and/or the likely long term impact on the branch of science or art, does it really have to follow the mainstream thinking to be an important addition to Wikipedia? Does a drug have to have and FDA IND or NDA status to be referred to in Wikipedia? The fact that peer-reviewed publications are still appearing on Immunitor's products in the medical literature might indicate that V-1 is an "important vaccine candidate" that should be at least referenced in wikipedia.
3. An addition to Wikipedia, particularly one with full citations from peer-review journals, should never be simply deleted without considering other options such as discussion, possible shortening of the writing, switching to a different article (such as was properly done with one of my writings), etc. Wanton deletions are unacceptable and will discourage better contributors.
4. Accusations of "spam" and non-neutrality are unfounded, and are of course antagonistic in themselves. Check my contribution record any time you wish.
If anyone wishes to abbreviate, edit, or expand on the V-1 Immunitor entry, please be encouraged to do so. Supported contrary statements are welcome. Check the literature on mucosal vaccines. --Infinitesimus (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Number 1, biomed articles without proper reliable sources should not make others acceptable somehow. Number 2 can be solved simply by a thorough reading of WP:MEDRS. Number 3 can be cleared up by reading Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Talking_and_editing; basically Wikipedia doesn't have any deadlines (no rush!), so revert/discussion is perfectly fine (and I believe Scary's points are quite valid here). Number 4, no one called this spam. Discussing the neutrality of an edit is so so so common, no one means to be antagonistic by it, honestly. This should not be a personalized issue. JoeSmack Talk 08:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stop the edit warring Keepcalm. V-1 is a fact, and is currently being used by many HIV/AIDS patients and clinicians globally as you sit at your computer. Write a critical review if you wish and add it in, but as a Phase 2 HIV Vaccine, V-1 Immunitor is on the record, in "reliable" peer-reviewed journals including a Nature journal, and its publication record continues as further work is done. Interesting how editors wish to bury their heads in the sand sometimes. 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitesimus (talkcontribs)
This should not be a personalized issue, let's keep cool. :) Did my run through of your four points help illuminate anything? JoeSmack Talk 19:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one has challenged the fact that V-1 has been used by more patients in more countries than any other HIV vaccine.
NOTE TO EDITORS: Imagine what would happen if a few editors started deleting text based on the same absent, or flawed at best, arguments made by those who continue to delete any trace of reference to the world's first HIV mucosal vaccine?--Infinitesimus (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place to soapbox (WP:SOAP), not a place to make a point (WP:POINT), and not a place to publish original research (WP:OR). Let us, please, keep this to discussing constructive edits without edit warring. JoeSmack Talk 23:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a place to publish original research? Should we delete all reference to the recent Thailand combination vaccine trial? That was original research, and it was unsuccessful. Where and how do you draw the line?--Infinitesimus (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:OR refers to the inclusion in WP of research that is not published in a reliable source - e.g. one's own original research or thoughts. It does not apply to primary references themselves, like the one for the Thai vaccine trial - those are published research findings. -- Scray (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have once again removed the v1 reference per consensus. The research on v1 is by one group, mostly with low numbers. The review on v1 added by Infinitesimus is by this same group. With recent behaviour by Infinitesimus resulting in a 1RR imposition and successive blocks, the question is inescapable: why the edit-warring to add this information against consensus? Is Infinitesimus being neutral in adding this information while providing highly negative opinions of other vaccines, here and below? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BBC reference and the word "successful"[edit]

First, how many editors think that a sound byte from BBC is worth mentioning? Second, why tell people that BBC called the vaccine trial "successful" when they didn't mention the word? How was the trial successful?--Infinitesimus (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with your removal of that statement. Regarding your question about "success": a "modest" protective effect of the vaccine was one of the major conclusions of the paper, and it was published in one of the most reliable sources we recognize. -- Scray (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modest? Statistically and medically insignificant. No vaccine would ever get on the market with anywhere near such a low efficacy. Call a spade a spade. It was unsuccessful.--Infinitesimus (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not editorializing - I took the word from the Conclusions section of the abstract of a paper in the NEJM. -- Scray (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have the same NEJM as you, please quote the whole sentence and the citation. In the word "successful" does not appear.--Infinitesimus (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exact same reference, last sentence: Although the results show only a modest benefit, they offer insight for future research (my emphasis). The word you asked about was "Modest". I did not use the word "successful" in this exchange, and I agreed with your removal of "successful" - though I would call it a modest success. -- Scray (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was unsuccessful trial, unfortunately, and the second review of the trial made that clear. Calling it a modest success is negating the lack of significance, either statistical or medical.--Infinitesimus (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New agent SB-728-T[edit]

July 2009 New agent SB-728-T is being tested as a possible cure and/or vaccine against HIV. The agent transforms normal T cells into mutated ones, that have delta-32 mutation. The surface of T cells changes, making infection with HIV virus impossible. In people with HIV it could strengthen the immune system and possibly kill disease, in people without HIV it might temporary prevent HIV infection. Tests on 16 humans are in progress in University of Pennsylvania, results expected in 2010, report is expected in 2011. Reference: Genetic mutation could lead to HIV treatment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wojcz (talkcontribs) 06:04, 7 January 2010

Thanks for pointing this out, but it's not enough to go on. Once there's a reliable source on this it will be easier to determine whether it is sufficiently notable and reliable for inclusion. -- Scray (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etiology of AIDS[edit]

This page has been the subject of controversy as people are using biased language to suggest "HIV" is the only cause of Aids. HIV has been shown by scientists to cause immune deficiency but other conditions and factors are also relevant.

The idea that "AIDS includes being HIV positive as a diagnostic criterion" is a little stupid as AIDS is a syndrome definable by severe immunodeficiency leading to certain opportunistic infections. The fact that HIV is ONE of the Aids causes should be mentioned on this page, but it has been constantly removed by POV-pushing orthodoxy. Science should be about discovering things and being able to reappraise a theory if the data doesn't fit.

Another problem is the constant use of "denialism" across the AIDS Wiki Project to refer to those not believing in a strict narrow theory where HIV is the only cause of Aids and the only factor that predicts whether it will develop. Reappraisalism, rethinking or dissidency is so much better!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:05, 19 February 2010

However AIDS might be "definable", it is defined thus: "AIDS stands for 'acquired immunodeficiency syndrome' and is a surveillance definition based on signs, symptoms, infections, and cancers associated with the deficiency of the immune system that stems from infection with HIV." (quoted from the United Nations' document "Fast facts about HIV". Thus, all people with AIDS are infected with HIV. Other immunodeficiencies, not related to HIV, are called by other names. The scientific consensus is quite strong on this point, as has been discussed and established many times on this talk page. If you have current reliable sources that provide compelling evidence to the contrary, you can propose edits. -- Scray (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External link to "free book"[edit]

I removed the link in question -- and the same link from related articles such as protease inhibitor (pharmacology) and HIV test -- for several reasons. First, the book credits itself to Bernd Sebastian Kamps, whose notability is suspect. There are no independent references to him, to the International Amedeo Literature Service which he founded, or to any of the books put out by him and his institute including "HIV Book 2009": all references point back to themselves. That, right there, brings into question the link's reliability and verifiability.

Second, the website for the publisher makes it clear that anyone with information they wish to contribute may do so, and that the book is a compilation of this information. In other words, the book is compiled from a blog, which by definition does not meet the standards of reliability and verifiability. This format also means that this book's content -- in fact, the content of every book edited by this organization -- have not undergone peer review, which reinforces the lack of reliability and verifiability.

Third, the fact that the links were all put in by the same person in within a short period of time, and the fact that the editor who added the links has done nothing before or since, makes me suspicious of conflict of interest, specifically: using the Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion. For brevity, this was the issue I raised in my edit summaries.

Lastly is the policy on external links itself, specifically guideline 2 under Links normally to be avoided: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting. Because the factual accuracy of the linked material cannot be ascertained, it seems reasonable to err (if my reasoning is in error) on the side of caution. The articles where this link was placed have been repeatedly subjected to edit wars by promoters of pseudo-science. Until the questions raised above have been resolved, I believe it best that the link not be allowed to stand.

TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to avoid a forked discussion, this is also being discussed here. -- Scray (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it likely be injected?[edit]

Or, since you can get HIV from sex, they should put the vaccine in a condom.. (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent insertion: "Classification of all theoretically possible HIV vaccines"[edit]

In this edit a user has inserted a large amount of material that is not well-integrated into the rest of the article. This material appears to represent synthesis and/or original research, unless the framework outline reflects the cited book (which I don't have at hand). The outline basically recapitulates the viral life cycle, and as such doesn't really represent a special insight regarding a vaccine that must stop that life cycle. I suggest removal, but I have not reviewed the cited reference and seek input from other editors. I think there could be some useful content in this, but the edit needs to be planned and executed a bit more gracefully. -- Scray (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are talking about user:Bmtanygin's addition. I also do not have the cited book at hand so I am not going to say anything about WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but it is not obvious to me how this information is different than other parts of the article. I agree that it is, as Scray stated, "not well-integrated into the rest of the article." I reverted this for now because the language in the addition was from some book using words in a technical way which is not congruent with the way those words are typically used. If this information is to be added, I would request that the original poster propose how to better fit this information into the rest of the article. I do not see the use of what was added at this time. Blue Rasberry 01:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Man "Cured" of Aids[edit]

Hey folks, I've been watching this article for some time and the vaccine portion is indeed overdue for an update. Moreover, I'm wondering if the article is overlooking a December 2010 announcement that a Berlin Leukemia/AIDS patient was "cured" using stem cell transplantation. Google it, it's everywhere. For credibility, "here's a medically reviewed journal on the subject". Worthy of inclusion or is it too unrelated to the vaccine development? Discuss.LactoseIntolerant (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely out of scope for a vaccine article - no vaccine was involved. Agree that the consensus is building that this was a cure - but not a generalizable one. It's covered on WP here and elsewhere no doubt. -- Scray (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update article with information on new vaccine:[edit]

On Sept 28th, 2011, Spanish researchers unveiled information on a new HIV vaccine. Here are some sources to update the article:

Most Powerful HIV Vaccine Being Tested In Spain - Fox News"
Most Powerful HIV Vaccine Being Tested In Spain - Gawker
Vaccine could reduce HIV to 'minor infection' - Daily Mail
--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canadian Vaccine[edit]

I believe this press release is significant, given the uniqueness of the vaccine and approval for human trials: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpcmurray (talkcontribs) 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HVTN 505 in lede - not protective or "slightly higher" rate?[edit]

I'm concerned that this is not yet peer-reviewed (i.e. WP:NOTNEWS), and also that we might be giving too much weight to the insignificantly higher rate of HIV infection among vaccine recipients. More prudent, perhaps, to simply state that the vaccine was not protective? To be clear: "not statistically significant" means that it could be due to chance alone, in which case we should avoid misleading readers to think that the vaccine clearly enhances susceptibility. -- Scray (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both trials have been described in reporting in that way, but the lede is not the place to tease controversy. I removed the text as this is, as you say, more prudent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, agree. -- Scray (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reducing the number of external links[edit]

I think the article's External Links section needs some trimming: many of the links are marginal, or better suited for use as references than additional links; and, there are some formatting problems. Before I start hacking away, I'll give a chance for people to weigh in. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 19:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nice layman overview of concept -

Overview of how HIV vaccines affect immunity

  • Corey, L.; Gilbert, P. B.; Tomaras, G. D.; Haynes, B. F.; Pantaleo, G.; Fauci, A. S. (2015). "Immune correlates of vaccine protection against HIV-1 acquisition". Science Translational Medicine. 7 (310): 310rv7–310rv7. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aac7732. ISSN 1946-6234.
  • Phimister, Elizabeth G.; Ackerman, Margaret; Alter, Galit (2013). "Mapping the Journey to an HIV Vaccine". New England Journal of Medicine. 369 (4): 389–391. doi:10.1056/NEJMcibr1304437. ISSN 0028-4793.

A theory on how HIV vaccines might be developed -

  • Liao, Hua-Xin; Lynch, Rebecca; Zhou, Tongqing; Gao, Feng; Alam, S. Munir; Boyd, Scott D.; Fire, Andrew Z.; Roskin, Krishna M.; Schramm, Chaim A.; Zhang, Zhenhai; Zhu, Jiang; Shapiro, Lawrence; Becker, Jesse; Benjamin, Betty; Blakesley, Robert; Bouffard, Gerry; Brooks, Shelise; Coleman, Holly; Dekhtyar, Mila; Gregory, Michael; Guan, Xiaobin; Gupta, Jyoti; Han, Joel; Hargrove, April; Ho, Shi-ling; Johnson, Taccara; Legaspi, Richelle; Lovett, Sean; Maduro, Quino; Masiello, Cathy; Maskeri, Baishali; McDowell, Jenny; Montemayor, Casandra; Mullikin, James; Park, Morgan; Riebow, Nancy; Schandler, Karen; Schmidt, Brian; Sison, Christina; Stantripop, Mal; Thomas, James; Thomas, Pam; Vemulapalli, Meg; Young, Alice; Mullikin, James C.; Gnanakaran, S.; Hraber, Peter; Wiehe, Kevin; Kelsoe, Garnett; Yang, Guang; Xia, Shi-Mao; Montefiori, David C.; Parks, Robert; Lloyd, Krissey E.; Scearce, Richard M.; Soderberg, Kelly A.; Cohen, Myron; Kamanga, Gift; Louder, Mark K.; Tran, Lillian M.; Chen, Yue; Cai, Fangping; Chen, Sheri; Moquin, Stephanie; Du, Xiulian; Joyce, M. Gordon; Srivatsan, Sanjay; Zhang, Baoshan; Zheng, Anqi; Shaw, George M.; Hahn, Beatrice H.; Kepler, Thomas B.; Korber, Bette T. M.; Kwong, Peter D.; Mascola, John R.; Haynes, Barton F. (2013). "Co-evolution of a broadly neutralizing HIV-1 antibody and founder virus". Nature. 496 (7446): 469–476. doi:10.1038/nature12053. ISSN 0028-0836.

A theory of vaccine development, including for HIV -

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wired just published this.

One counterpoint is this older study.

  • Shearer, Gene; Boasso, Adriano (1 June 2011). "Alloantigen-based AIDS vaccine: revisiting a "rightfully" discarded promising strategy". F1000 Medicine Reports. 3. doi:10.3410/M3-12.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?[edit]

If people disagree with vaccines then they may find this article pushing towards the use of vaccines. Although, it is the scientific right and regulation to develop vaccine in an effort for public health, there are individuals who disagree with vaccine development in general. Rhijazi00 (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read: NIH launches clinical trial of three mRNA HIV vaccines, 14 March 2022[edit]

Phase one to be completed July 2023 Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There it is. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sentence is not clear[edit]

Have a look at the first sentence of the last paragraph in: clinical trials, phase one. Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: English 1302-243[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jvillarreal243, Jtorres243 (article contribs).