Talk:RV 144

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject AIDS
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
 
WikiProject Thailand  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Article creation and missing topics[edit]

I just created this article and it includes most of the information that I think would be important to anyone who just heard about this trial through the international news and wanted to be able to seek out more information. Some of the things that I left out include the following: speculation about the mechanism of efficacy, the history of the vaccines, the process of engaging Thai people and officials to participate in this trial, safety issues associated with the experiment, development and manufacturing issues associated with creating the vaccine, and implications of the study results. There are published data sources that could cover all of these points, but at this point the article is at least functional even without those things. Blue Rasberry 17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is a great start for this article. Great, great work. It might be worth it to note somewhere that AIDSVAX was previously trialed in 2003, and the development and trials of the vaccine received significant coverage in the media, but the trials eventually proved unsuccessful. pubmed link. Given this I am worried about all of this being from a press release... JoeSmack Talk 18:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Related article[edit]

I like what you've done so far. I've also started an article in relation to this news at United States Military HIV Research Program. The focus of that article may be more in terms of how the research program came into being and how it survived the best effort of Rumsfeld and an Enron executive to kill it in 2001. I think we should work together to feature a Main Page news item referencing both articles. Do you agree? Mike Serfas (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of criticism of results[edit]

A user just made this edit removing some cited opinions saying that the results were not statistically significant. The user made a note that this view was outdated, but did not say what new comparable criticism exists, if any. Can anyone direct me to the latest on this? I would like to keep this article balanced. Blue Rasberry 19:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Update[edit]

Nature just published an article giving an update. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Corrections to published sources[edit]

Lisastephanie just tried to change the article by removing text in "RV 144, or the Thai trial, is the name of an HIV vaccine clinical trial combining two vaccines that failed on their own" This person said "AIDSVAX was never tested prior in an efficacy study as article stated. The new analysis by Duke incorporated subjective factors (Bayesian) and while it provides another way to analyze the data, this is not commonly accepted statistical analysis." Lisa, could you say more about what you are doing here? Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of debatable thoughts from people's heads, but rather a reflection of published literature. This information comes from a cited sources which says "The experimental vaccine — a combination of two older shots that failed to work on their own — ". Are you disputing the fact of the failure, or the fact that Nature said that there was a failure?

If you have new information, could you please cite the source from which you derived this information? If there is a debate in the sources we can include that, but whatever you share has to be published. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)