This past week, the world was rocked by news of the discovery of the first vaccine that prevents HIV. This development was certainly newsworthy, getting the attention of everything from our local Philippine Daily Inquirer, to the Associated Press. I was hearing about it as well, from everyone from fellow pozzies to friendly neggies. Everyone was excited.
How about me? Was I excited? I’ll be honest. Not really.
I apologize, but really, I was skeptical to begin with. I’d never read about any even minute developments towards a vaccine against HIV. It was just too out of the blue and too sudden to be a success, I thought. I know, my pessimism got ahead of me. I just needed to read all about it myself.
Modesty aside, I consider myself a scientist. It’s probably just my personality, reinforced by my educational background. Whether by induction or deduction, I run on reason. I run on questioning. I run on proof. I run on logic. Let’s find me some logic.
Before anything else, we must point out that the article talked about a vaccine, not a cure. So this is not something for us who already have the virus. This was something that would primarily benefit those who are not infected with HIV. With that taken into consideration, I’d be happy for those who are negative.
I think the most prominent phrase in the article is the part that says that “the vaccine cut the risk of becoming infected with HIV by more than 31 percent.” I’m sure most people will initially think Wow! upon hearing that, but something just struck me about the statement. Let’s see.
Vaccines supposedly prevent infection by a pathogen, which in this case is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Note, the word is prevent, not just reduce. Preventing infection, for me, means having zero chances of getting infected after vaccination. Zero. Zilch. Zip. None. Nada. So to merely cut the risk just doesn’t cut it. Ergo, I believe it should not have been called a “vaccine” in the first place.
Calling it a “vaccine” would just throw people into a false sense of security that with the so-called “vaccine”, they would be completely safe from catching HIV. It might just cause unprotected sex and other risky practices to break free from the word of caution that we’ve been trying to point out.
Okay, fine. The article did say benefits were modest. But anyone who hears of a lowering of the risk of HIV infection “by more than 31%” would be impressed. So how did they get “31%”? Let’s study the data.
Of the 8,198 who got the “placebo” or dummy shots, 74 got infected with HIV, amounting to 0.903%. While of the 8,197 who got the “vaccine”, 51 still got infected with HIV, amounting to 0.622%. The difference between the two is around 0.281%, which indeed accounts for 31.073% of 0.903%.
But really, how significantly far away is a 0.622% chance of getting infected from a 0.903% chance? With the “vaccine”, approximately 6 in every 1,000 people got infected. But even without the “vaccine”, the chances of getting infected were still small. Just 9 in every 1,000 people. The difference? For me, minute.
And then there are other peculiarities that I tend to notice. First, it is noted that the efficacy of the “vaccine” was tested against particular strains commonly found in Thailand. But then, of course, I’m not in Thailand. And around the world, there are different types of HIV, with each type having different strains. So it is a strain-specific “vaccine” to say the least. And along with that should burst the bubble of safe, carefree, unprotected sex.
“All were given condoms, counseling and treatment for any sexually transmitted infections, and were tested every six months for HIV. Anyone who became infected were given free treatment with antiviral medicines.”
Whoa! Wait a minute. Back it up. So it wasn’t just a battle between a “vaccine” and a placebo. Condoms were in the mix?! That’s a whole other factor which fucks up all the results, doesn’t it? You wouldn’t know if it was the “vaccine” that was working, or just the use of condoms. Hmm.
So there, I rest my case. Fine, it may be a breakthrough in the field of medicine. But wasn’t it a tad overrated? Tell me really, knowing that this “vaccine” reduces the rate of HIV infections from 9 to 6 out of 1,000, only for specific strains of HIV, and even with condoms playing an unknown factor... Would you still be willing to take the risk with this “vaccine”?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Examine the Vaccine
This past week, the world was rocked by news of the discovery of the first vaccine that prevents HIV. This development was certainly newsworthy, getting the attention of everything from our local Philippine Daily Inquirer, to the Associated Press. I was hearing about it as well, from everyone from fellow pozzies to friendly neggies. Everyone was excited.
How about me? Was I excited? I’ll be honest. Not really.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Vaccine Alert!
Pardon me, but having been busy with the recent passing of my aunt and godmother, I haven't really been taking the time to blog.
But I got a number of alerts this week, mostly from fellow pozzies, about news of an HIV vaccine that had been developed. And this new vaccine news, was my cue to make a comeback.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
HIV & (Miss) U
Yeah, sure. I enjoy watching beauty pageants. There’s nothing wrong with that. I remember, even when I was younger, I’d e fascinated by the national costumes and long gowns of each candidate, list down my bets, and check them against the ones the judges would pick. Was it because I was gay? Oh, please... only heaven knows which came first.
But this year, more than because I'm gay, nor nor because I was a beauty titlist myself... oi, that’s a whole other story... I discovered one other reason to love beauty pageants: HIV. HIV?!
Tamara Tunie: According to the world health organization, there’s an urgent need for HIV testing across the globe. Do you believe that HIV testing should be made mandatory?
Miss Dominican Republic: Good night Bahamas! I definitely do believe that the necessary tests should be made so that people can prevent aids. Because definitely, by just being not careful in just one minute, we may lose our own lives. And that is very costly for us. Thank you so much.
Okay fine. “Good night, Bahamas!” initially threw me off. And though Miss Dominican Republic didn’t actually answer the question as it was stated, I’m just glad she didn’t phrase it in a way that says it should be mandatory. I just think everyone getting tested because it's mandatory is totally different from everyone getting tested because they understand the need to know their status. What she said made sense. The necessary tests should be made. And everyone understanding the need to know their HIV status is indeed the necessary thing.
What did you think of her answer?
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Papi Firsts
Papi and I planned to go on a date Saturday. I was dead set on watching KimmyDora, and I was dead set on watching it with him. Yes, it was a date, and it would be our first. It was made clear that it was to be a date-date, not a sex-date... a conviction that would force me to beat my meat beforehand, just to make sure I won’t be cum-brained during the date. I’d also be leaving my condoms home, just to drive the point further. Does it sound boring already?
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Why I Cry
I’d mentioned before that my aunt – my mom’s sister and my godmother – was diagnosed with cancer. She had a hysterectomy in May, and had undergone three rounds of chemotherapy. I’d never seen her since before she got diagnosed.
Not until yesterday.
