The article "Vaccine protects against HIV virus" by Elie Dolgin, addresses a 3 year study funded by the United States in Thailand where they tested the validity of two vaccines working together against HIV infections. Though the vaccine is only 30% effective, it is the farthest step in the history of HIV to creating a vaccine (Dolgin, 2009). To be released to the public the vaccine would have to be at least 70% effective (Dolgin, 2009). However the scientific community is very cautious about declaring a vaccine to HIV for various reasons (Dolgin, 2009). No one knows how the two medicines together were 30% effective when both fail miserably alone, in the study an extremely small amount of people were infected with HIV in both the control group and the vaccine group, and the study has only been done once (Dolgin, 2009). The article finishes noting that the study needs to be more closely scrutinized, and repeated (Dolgin, 2009).
1) The article makes three claims about the vaccine: (1) the vaccine is only 30% effective, (2) the study did not address how the vaccine worked, (3) Most of the scientific community is skeptical, though hopeful. The study and the news article did not really conflict. In fact the news article was probably more realistic than the study. The study assumed that the vaccines when put together could eventually become the vaccine used around the world, when really the entire experiment was a shot in the dark, with little reasoning behind it.
2) The author of the new article did not address the all the conclusions of the technical paper merely that the vaccine had some affect in sexually active adults. The news article did not address the support that the vaccine maybe used in infants to prevent transmission of AIDS from mother to child, such as in breast feeding.
3)The technical paper did not give a degree of uncertainty, which made me question their results. They merely stated that the results were statistically significant, rather than discussing other reasons why the results were statistically significant.
4) The reporter did not really have to make an HIV vaccine seem more important than it already is. I am fairly sure that an HIV vaccine is almost as eye catching as a house on fire.
5)The news study only lists a few failures of other extensive vaccine trials, however it does address that this vaccine is the combination of two vaccines that failed when separately used.
6) The journalist was right on par, by making it seem as if the weight of the evidence was leaning against the new vaccine, when really it was just skeptical people (and rightfully so) that had not done the research, not had a full idea of the methods, or did not have support other than the two vaccines failing when separate. The news article really represented the summary of the data of the vaccine study well, when it ended in a statement that the study should be more closely scrutinized.