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.

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”?