Wednesday, February 15, 2012

NPR: Experimental Malaria Vaccine Slashes Infection Risk By Half

A while back I was listening to NPR and they did a story about an experimental malaria vaccine.  Although I thought the news was impressive, I must admit it had slipped my mind until I came across the print version of the article recently.

Obviously this vaccine is experimental at this point, and it is far too early to determine the impact, but the article states "malaria researchers say the new vaccine could prevent malaria in tens of millions of children and save hundreds of thousands of lives per year". 

Think about that for a second - we have an experimental vaccine which only reduces the infection rate for malaria by about half rather than completely eliminates it, but even with only a 50% to 55% reduction it can still save hundreds of thousands of lives per year.  Yet antivaccinationists continually try to convince us that vaccines do not work and that they cause more harm than good.  Apparently this is yet another example of a study they will need to ignore as they try to claim there is no science proving vaccines are beneficial.

Let us be clear - this vaccine is a prime example of how science is making the world a better place.  Note the results from the study showed a clear benefit to the vaccine and this benefit cannot be attributed to anything else.  There were no environmental factors that differed between the two study groups, the population was stable, sanitation and pest control programs were not modified, and the test groups were co-mingled within all test sites.  Therefore the results appear very promising, although scientists and researchers admit more work needs to be done to improve the vaccine efficacy.

It is also worthy to note that the funding to develop this vaccine came from the vaccine's sponsor GlaxoSmithKline (who contributed around $300M) and from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (who contributed around $200M). Antivaccinationists will be quick to point out that GlaxoSmithKline is a vaccine manufacturer who stands to profit if this vaccine is available for sale, but GSK puts their minds at ease by openly stating they will make no profit from this endeavor. 

It is nice to know there are organizations out there that are trying to save lives and improve living conditions even when they can't personally profit from it, and you will also note that GSK or the Gates Foundation didn't charge these children massive amounts of money to be in their clinical trial... a tactic we have seen employed elsewhere.  When it comes to life saving vaccines that could help eradicate a disease thankfully it is usually about the people - not the profit.

The NPR article (which contains a link to the original audio broadcast) can be found on the NPR website

The actual results of the phase 3 clinical trial can be found within The New England Journal of Medicine.


  1. Wow. I don't have the patience to read through all of the comments, but it appears this is just another example of how Mr. Hubbs is presented with the facts and refuses to acknowledge that he is wrong. And wrong he most certainly is.

    His ignorance in terms of chemistry is almost comical, but this serves as a visible example of how antivaxers will never be willing to change their views even when presented with facts that prove them to be incorrect. I'd say this is merely par for the course as sad as that may be.

  2. I haven't even looked at this dumb blog in weeks, and so being you couldn't get a comment, you resort to underhanded garbage like that. More false tabloid news by two pigeon head sore losers helping each other out; imagine that. Why would anyone expect that to stop. Evil always looks for helpers and she found you, an equally as big loser that wouldn't know real science is nor how to understand it and the validity of it if it hit him or her in the head. So actually get it up where anyone can see it, and lets see you prove your said point Costner. Just talk, is cheap, and has no one ever told you that?

    You are still so obviously scared to debate the actual facts and science with me Costner. If you weren't, you would actually do it. But you know as well as I do that you never could. Where is all the science you claim to Costner? You sure don't see much of it here nor over at Gorski's blog. Just chasing links through Gorski's opinion pages, is his science!

    When you get the time Costner you can send it over to me at my blog and you can debate it there.

  3. Mr. Hubbs I have told you in the past I don't care if you ever visit this blog again. In fact here is my personal invitation for you to go away and never post another comment here... I would actually prefer to not see your nonsense plugging up my spam inbox every other day.

    As to the rest of your rant I find it comical you whine about a lack of science, and the very blog post you commented on includes the results of a Phase 3 clinical trial. You seem to think your friend Burzynski has all the answers even when he never bothers to publish any Phase 3 trials and when he never actually completes any Phase 2 trials. You also apparently have ignored the multiple medical studies and published peer-reviewed journal articles that have been referred to by this blog numerous times in the past.

    I guess consistency isn't really your thing is it Mr. Hubbs. Then again, logic, honesty, and rational thought aren't high on your list either. Hypocrisy is though - which probably explains why you continue to attack conventional medicine while actually having appointments with conventional MDs. What's that Mr. Hubbs... a chiropractor mixed with a raw diet just isn't enough to cure all of your ailments??? How shocking!

    Finally Mr. Hubbs I'm sure you know by now that I don't visit any of your various blogs or websites. I see no value in reading the opinions of a mentally unstable conspiracy theorist, and since you are not involved in the scientific community whatsoever nor do you have any education or training to speak about the subject matter in my opinion you add nothing to the discussion. Needless to say you won't find me commenting on your nonsense anytime soon.

    To paraphrase Vince Neil: Don't go away mad Mr. Hubbs... just go away.

  4. Not another mad and angry rant, Costner; imagine that.

    What, doing to a doctor to get a cut hand stitched up is a problem for you. Who was following me around that day; I thought you said the stalkers weren't real. Do you even realize how much information you have here comes from them. I don't know, those people. Do you have a copy of my medical records too? Really, how? I thought you couldn't look any worse, than there you go. You wont find any prescriptions in my possession, and it wouldn't even matter if you did, because each situation must be evaluated on its own merits of benefits verses the risks. However so many people do not know what the real risks are of the things they are talking. Pharma covers it up. Truth is a problem for you seem to intentionally get so many things mixed up as to the real issues. That's called hate, Costner; you are full of it. Look at the level of disconnectedness in your just published reply rant. Amazing. Hateful of fact and real science, attacking; no identity. How can it get better than that?

  5. For a guy who doesn't like this blog you sure comment a lot Mr. Hubbs.

    For the record Lowell, nobody that I know of is following you around. You made a comment elsewhere bragging about some little discussion you had with a doctor when you were there for a visit. Therefore aside from the hypocrisy from using a traditional MD when you seem to think they are the equivalent of Satan, you also tend to have a wild imagination.

    I've never seen your medical records Mr. Hubbs, but I don't need to see your records to know you are suffering from a severe case of paranoia.

  6. "You never did explain that first reply you made? What does that have to do with me again?"

    Well technically Mr. Hubbs, the first comment was removed, so the comment you are reading is the second comment. The person who posted the first comment asked me to remove it and I obliged.

    Essentially it just directed me to the recent Argus Leader story that you have decided to try to control with your dozens upon dozens upon dozens of comments. I don't have any desire to debate the issues mentioned there since you seem to be doing an excellent job of getting your rear handed to you without my assistance, but as always you continue to believe thee who posts the most comments somehow "wins"... so have fun.

  7. The only one repeatedly getting their rear handed to them, is you. The only one so lying and delusional as to believe otherwise, is YOU, and people like you! The same shit is happening with people such as Seth Mnookin, and Orac. If what I have is so darn easily refuted and the information so easily shown to be false, with the promotion of your facts and science,then why do they and have they left my reply posts in the unmoderated status, because they can not deal with the level of truth in the reply. Print one, and not the other? That, if it does not contain to much truth and real science?

    Thats right, and they on the article were asking the questions. They obviously as well could not deal with as said, the answered reply. Just plain old facts, common sense, and science. I told you, none of you can deal with it and with the facts and science, on a direct level, point for point. You can not debate me directly because you all know you will and would lose! Prove me wrong, misinformer! Get started!

    1. You will have to ask others why your posts are left in the "unmoderated status", but if you post elsewhere like you post here it is probably because half of your posts are nothing more than cut and paste hack jobs from your website and/or simply a link dump with no connection to the topic.

      I've yet to see you ever convince anyone of your viewpoints, and as such I'm not sure how you think you have ever "won" a debate or handed anyone their rear, but if that helps you sleep at night you are free to believe whatever you wish.


All comments are moderated and comments from obvious sockpuppet accounts as well as spam accounts that do not add anything of value to the discussion will not be published.