Talk:HVTN 505

AIDS Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Meaning of results

Two sources, NPR and MedPage Today, suggested that the cause of failure for the prior STEP study may be the cause of failure for the current HVTN 505 study. Neither of these sources meet Wikipedia's standard for inclusion of medical content into articles; that standard is at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). The problem is that these statements were made by journalists with no check on the accuracy of the statements rather than by scientists who would have professional authority to make such statements.

However, these are major news sources and their statements did circulate on the Internet. Because of this, I feel that these articles should be included in the reaction section. I also feel that these statements should be balanced by a response from the science community, so I got one from an HVTN representative. She said, "This is completely unfounded, and any news reports could only be speculation. There has been absolutely no analysis of 505 data yet to determine the role of Ad5 in the lack of efficacy that has been seen. It is also somewhat misleading to immediately make a comparison to Step, since these were different vaccines tested in different populations in different parts of the world." I included that in the article. Unfortunately I have no published source to cite.

I feel like this article is better for including the published speculation because people would find that speculation elsewhere on the Internet and expect to see it addressed here. Unfortunately, I know of no published response to this speculation, so the only response available is the semi-private response I shared above. Thoughts from anyone? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine specifics

What was the vaccine used in the trial? This page seems to be very explicit about the trial design, but I cann't find any specifics about the vaccine itself, other than it used an adenovirus booster. Was it different from the STEP trial vaccine? Can somebody with expert knowledge help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.143.201 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HVTN 505. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]