Talk:HIV vaccine development

message: 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 67.173.159.51 (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" 

message: 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 --168.171.206.4 18:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microbicides 

message: 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)
thread_title: Missing Text on This Page

message: 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)
thread_title:  Severe cutdown of the section on HAART 

message: There is an interesting review about HIV vaccines in this week's NEJM that could be useful for this article:
--WS 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEJM article 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for taking care of that. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: 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)
replies: text: another one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8272113.stm --UltraMagnus (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

text: Sorry I missed this and thanks for replacing the link. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding this Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current Related Tag 

message: Factoid just broke today:
*Scientists: HIV Study Results May Have Been a Fluke
*Data Call Into Question HIV Study Results
*AIDS study announcement questioned
--Firefly322 (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: See response below, where you made the same comment.  -- Scray (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions raised by U.S. Army researchers 

message: 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: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19843557  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.174.4.216 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The peer review status of the Thai vac trial 

message: "The HVTN expected to finish the study in 2009..." - Results are now published in PNAS. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: V520/HVTN study

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't have the same NEJM as you, please quote the whole sentence and the citation.  In http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19843557 the word "successful" does not appear.--Infinitesimus (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  BBC reference and the word "successful" 

message: 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 http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Genetic_mutation_could_lead_to_HIV_treatment-6986.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wojcz (talk • contribs) 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)
thread_title:  New agent SB-728-T 

message: 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  78.135.12.4 (talk • contribs) 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)
thread_title:  Etiology of AIDS 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just to avoid a forked discussion, this is also being discussed here.  -- Scray (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to "free book" 

message: Or, since you can get HIV from sex, they should put the vaccine in a condom.. 12.196.0.50 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would it likely be injected? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent insertion: "Classification of all theoretically possible HIV vaccines" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Man "Cured" of Aids 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update article with information on new vaccine: 

message: I believe this press release is significant, given the uniqueness of the vaccine and approval for human trials: http://www.schulich.uwo.ca/schulichhome/articles/2011/12/20/hiv-aids-vaccine-developed-at-the-university-of-western-ontario-proceeding-to-human-clinical-trials  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpcmurray (talk • contribs) 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Vaccine 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, agree.  -- Scray (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  HVTN 505 in lede - not protective or "slightly higher" rate? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reducing the number of external links 

message: Nice layman overview of concept -
*
Overview of how HIV vaccines affect immunity
*
*
A theory on how HIV vaccines might be developed -
*
A theory of vaccine development, including for HIV -
*
 Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? 

message: Phase one to be completed July 2023 Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There it is.  Bluerasberry (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read: NIH launches clinical trial of three mRNA HIV vaccines, 14 March 2022 nih.gov 

message: Have a look at the first sentence of the last paragraph in: clinical trials, phase one. Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence is not clear