• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Breakthrough: Indevus gel protects women from AIDS virus

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
unfortunately those not at risk for AIDS will think this a GODSEND, and those at risk not trust it.

Too many worry about AIDS when HERPES and other STD's are much easier to catch.
 
Originally posted by: alkemyst
unfortunately those not at risk for AIDS will think this a GODSEND, and those at risk not trust it.

Too many worry about AIDS when HERPES and other STD's are much easier to catch.
Click to expand...

That just might have something to do with the slight difference in possible results (as in AIDS will likely lead to death), don't you think? Besides anyone who worries about AIDS and takes precautions for it are probably protecting themselves from other STDs as well.
 
Originally posted by: sdifox
may have protected? what is the infection rate of HIV?
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point. Did they even take that into consideration? Likewise as gets pointed out later, they handed out condoms and safe-sex pamphlets, which I'm going to assume had an impact.

So, what was this study actually accomplishing?

 
Originally posted by: SunnyD
And this didn't have anything at all to do with the results by chance? :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, do you want to intentionally expose people to HIV to test? Of course some precautions had to be taken for 'humanitarian' reasons.

However, if you know that probability that a woman in Zambia will contract HIV and you know the probability that a woman in Zambia with access to free condoms and safer-sex information will contract HIV, you can use those numbers to determine correlation if you have the probability of a woman in Zambia with access to free condoms, Safer-sex information, AND the gel contracting HIV.

The study isn't conclusive (i.e., there's not definitive causation) but they can infer correlation with what they have.

Edited to add:
Let's say that 1 in every 2 women in Zambia contracts HIV. That's a 50% rate.

Now, what if 1 in 4 women with access to free condoms and safer-sex education contracts HIV. That's a 25% rate. You can infer that the condoms and education were responsible for the improvement, and you can prove it given the proper controls in your study.

What if 1 in 10 women with free condoms, education, and the gel contract HIV. Well, you could infer that the gel caused the rate to drop from 25% to 10%. That's what's happening here. They're inferring it, due to the correlation. There's not yet enough info to prove causality. That will require further study.
 
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: sao123
seems a little arrogant to be exposing patients intentionally to the virus to see if the transmission can be prevented.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand how this works do you? They take a group of high risk people and put some of them on a drug or in this case a gel.

Then they evaluate the results. It takes HUGE sample size but it works. No one was purposely exposed. It was just high risk individuals engaging in high risk behavior.
Click to expand...

if its not a random population test, then i doubt the study has any results worth considering.
if you only take people having "high risk" behavior, then how do you know that they didnt contract through intraveinous needle use? or some other unforseen variable.
The group would have to be composed of low mid and high risk people for the control group to be of any effectiveness.

EDIT: A regional based test may also provide other biases... IE some population segments may be more or less suceptible to the disease than others.
The study included 3,100 women and was conducted at seven clinical centers in Malawi, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Zambia and the U.S..
Click to expand...
will skew the results moreso than if it had just been a random sample.
 
Originally posted by: sao123
seems a little arrogant to be exposing patients intentionally to the virus to see if the transmission can be prevented.
Click to expand...

:laugh:


Well good news and bad news Miss Miller.
First, the good news. You provided accurate results for our testing procedures, and helped determine the effectiveness of the new test preparation.
Bad news? You now have AIDS.

Better luck next time. 😉
 
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Originally posted by: sdifox
may have protected? what is the infection rate of HIV?
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point. Did they even take that into consideration? Likewise as gets pointed out later, they handed out condoms and safe-sex pamphlets, which I'm going to assume had an impact.

So, what was this study actually accomplishing?
Click to expand...

Drug Company PR Campaign. Make it look like they are making progress.
 
Originally posted by: Codewiz
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
Originally posted by: chuckywang
What a slap in the face of God
Click to expand...

^ What an ignorant thing to say. Do you WANT people to have AIDS? If you are argueing the whole "gods will be done" thing then its gods will to have things to prevent it. Religious zealots FTL
Click to expand...

I am willing to bet that comment was laced with lots of sarcasm......
Click to expand...
Poe's Law.

 
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Originally posted by: alkemyst
unfortunately those not at risk for AIDS will think this a GODSEND, and those at risk not trust it.

Too many worry about AIDS when HERPES and other STD's are much easier to catch.
Click to expand...

That just might have something to do with the slight difference in possible results (as in AIDS will likely lead to death), don't you think? Besides anyone who worries about AIDS and takes precautions for it are probably protecting themselves from other STDs as well.
Click to expand...

not really since those using dental dams and condoms during oral sex is practically nil.

Most are really not protecting themselves properly.
 
Originally posted by: sao123
seems a little arrogant to be exposing patients intentionally to the virus to see if the transmission can be prevented.
Click to expand...

yea i was thinking about this - how do you run human trials on this??
 
Originally posted by: Kev
Originally posted by: SunnyD
Originally posted by: Crono
More info:
http://www.bizjournals.com/bos...2009/02/09/daily5.html

The National Institutes of Health has finished a study that found that women who received a vaginal microbial gel called PRO 200, made by Indevus, were 30 percent less likely to contract HIV than women who did not receive the gel. This is the first trial to suggest that any microbicide may prevent male-to-female transmission of HIV, according to Lexington-based Indevus. The study included 3,100 women and was conducted at seven clinical centers in Malawi, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Zambia and the U.S.. The women in the study were also given access to free condoms and safer-sex information. A second study, involving 10,000 women, is expected to be completed later this year.

?We are extremely excited with the results of this trial?, Indevus CEO Glenn Cooper said in a statement. ?Though not conclusive, these results provide encouragement that PRO 2000 may offer a female-controlled method that can be used to protect against the sexual transmission of HIV.?

Indevus is a pharmaceutical company specializing in products to treat conditions in urology and endocrinology. The company currently has five products on the market, including drugs for overactive bladder and prostate cancer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And this didn't have anything at all to do with the results by chance? :roll:
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Why is it that every study I read that gets posted here is always riddled with the most obvious gaps in logic.
Click to expand...

Seems you failed logic: ALL the women in the study were given access to condoms. Some were given access to the real gel, and some a fake gel.

The problem with the culture they are working in that the researchers understand and few here seem to understand is that in Africa often times the choice to have sex, much less use a condom is most often NOT up to the woman.

So while prevention efforts using condoms are somewhat successful, you still have failure if the male refuses to wear one and still forces sex upon the woman.

Would it be nice to change this abusive culture? Yes, but it would be easier to try and stop the spread of HIV than to change an entire culture who was, just a few short years ago, resistant to ANY outside advice on sex.
 
Originally posted by: Fritzo
If they won't use condoms, why would they use this?
Click to expand...

Because this gives the WOMEN choice.

The comments in this thread display an obvious and woeful, but understandable ignorance about the culture in many African countries.

Sex there is not like sex here. Women are not respected as they are here and often have NO choices when it comes to sex. A product such as this was developed directly in response to the culture that exists there.

Until women can be empowered in Africa, this can fill that gap and give them some protection.

This gel, along with the sexual culture in Africa is discussed in the 2006 PBS documentary "The Age of AIDS" I posted.

I strongly suggest some of you watch that documentary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top