Weekly Science Headlines

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Zapped malaria parasite raises vaccine hopes
Maverick malaria vaccine achieves 100% protection using parasites from irradiated mosquitoes.
http://www.nature.com/news/zapped-malaria-parasite-raises-vaccine-hopes-1.13536

That's cool. I hope they continue with the testing and research.

In the phase I safety trial, reported today in Science1, the six subjects given five doses intravenously were 100% protected from later challenge by bites of infectious mosquitoes, whereas five of six unvaccinated controls developed malaria — as did three of nine people given only four doses of the vaccine.

It seems to me that a sample size of 6 is rather small to make the 100 percent claim.* It still looks promising. Even if it's 80 percent it will still have huge effects.


*I'm currently reading a book about probablility and statistics so I could be completely wrong about this. (a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and all)

Yes, you are wrong, but I see the mistake you are making and I understand why. You are reading it as the vaccine having a 100% protection rate, but what it's saying is that of the six test subjects, it had 100% effectiveness, ie. all 6 of them showed full immunity.

That's not a statistically significant enough figure to make assumptions about the efficacy of the vaccine, but it is enough to conclude that it warrants further trials.

[McGrupp]

Zapped malaria parasite raises vaccine hopes
Maverick malaria vaccine achieves 100% protection using parasites from irradiated mosquitoes.
http://www.nature.com/news/zapped-malaria-parasite-raises-vaccine-hopes-1.13536

That's cool. I hope they continue with the testing and research.

In the phase I safety trial, reported today in Science1, the six subjects given five doses intravenously were 100% protected from later challenge by bites of infectious mosquitoes, whereas five of six unvaccinated controls developed malaria — as did three of nine people given only four doses of the vaccine.

It seems to me that a sample size of 6 is rather small to make the 100 percent claim.* It still looks promising. Even if it's 80 percent it will still have huge effects.


*I'm currently reading a book about probablility and statistics so I could be completely wrong about this. (a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and all)

Yes, you are wrong, but I see the mistake you are making and I understand why. You are reading it as the vaccine having a 100% protection rate, but what it's saying is that of the six test subjects, it had 100% effectiveness, ie. all 6 of them showed full immunity.

That's not a statistically significant enough figure to make assumptions about the efficacy of the vaccine, but it is enough to conclude that it warrants further trials.

Thanks, Nigel. That makes sense.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Zapped malaria parasite raises vaccine hopes
Maverick malaria vaccine achieves 100% protection using parasites from irradiated mosquitoes.
http://www.nature.com/news/zapped-malaria-parasite-raises-vaccine-hopes-1.13536

That's cool. I hope they continue with the testing and research.

In the phase I safety trial, reported today in Science1, the six subjects given five doses intravenously were 100% protected from later challenge by bites of infectious mosquitoes, whereas five of six unvaccinated controls developed malaria — as did three of nine people given only four doses of the vaccine.

It seems to me that a sample size of 6 is rather small to make the 100 percent claim.* It still looks promising. Even if it's 80 percent it will still have huge effects.


*I'm currently reading a book about probablility and statistics so I could be completely wrong about this. (a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and all)

Yes, you are wrong, but I see the mistake you are making and I understand why. You are reading it as the vaccine having a 100% protection rate, but what it's saying is that of the six test subjects, it had 100% effectiveness, ie. all 6 of them showed full immunity.

That's not a statistically significant enough figure to make assumptions about the efficacy of the vaccine, but it is enough to conclude that it warrants further trials.

Thanks, Nigel. That makes sense.

WE'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT BIPED BEHAVIOR AROUND HERE, MY SON!  DIG THOSE HEELS IN AND HOWL!

[McGrupp]

Zapped malaria parasite raises vaccine hopes
Maverick malaria vaccine achieves 100% protection using parasites from irradiated mosquitoes.
http://www.nature.com/news/zapped-malaria-parasite-raises-vaccine-hopes-1.13536

That's cool. I hope they continue with the testing and research.

In the phase I safety trial, reported today in Science1, the six subjects given five doses intravenously were 100% protected from later challenge by bites of infectious mosquitoes, whereas five of six unvaccinated controls developed malaria — as did three of nine people given only four doses of the vaccine.

It seems to me that a sample size of 6 is rather small to make the 100 percent claim.* It still looks promising. Even if it's 80 percent it will still have huge effects.


*I'm currently reading a book about probablility and statistics so I could be completely wrong about this. (a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and all)

Yes, you are wrong, but I see the mistake you are making and I understand why. You are reading it as the vaccine having a 100% protection rate, but what it's saying is that of the six test subjects, it had 100% effectiveness, ie. all 6 of them showed full immunity.

That's not a statistically significant enough figure to make assumptions about the efficacy of the vaccine, but it is enough to conclude that it warrants further trials.

Thanks, Nigel. That makes sense.

WE'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT BIPED BEHAVIOR AROUND HERE, MY SON!  DIG THOSE HEELS IN AND HOWL!

HULK NOT WRONG! HULK READ BOOK. BOOK SAY HULK RIGHT. HULK IS AUTHORITY.
HULK NOT CARE IF HULK APPLY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE TO DATA HULK NOT COMPREHEND CORRECTLY!
PUNY HUMANS STOP TELLING HULK HULK IS WRONG. HULK READ ONE BOOK!
                              /

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Zapped malaria parasite raises vaccine hopes
Maverick malaria vaccine achieves 100% protection using parasites from irradiated mosquitoes.
http://www.nature.com/news/zapped-malaria-parasite-raises-vaccine-hopes-1.13536

That's cool. I hope they continue with the testing and research.

In the phase I safety trial, reported today in Science1, the six subjects given five doses intravenously were 100% protected from later challenge by bites of infectious mosquitoes, whereas five of six unvaccinated controls developed malaria — as did three of nine people given only four doses of the vaccine.

It seems to me that a sample size of 6 is rather small to make the 100 percent claim.* It still looks promising. Even if it's 80 percent it will still have huge effects.


*I'm currently reading a book about probablility and statistics so I could be completely wrong about this. (a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and all)

Yes, you are wrong, but I see the mistake you are making and I understand why. You are reading it as the vaccine having a 100% protection rate, but what it's saying is that of the six test subjects, it had 100% effectiveness, ie. all 6 of them showed full immunity.

That's not a statistically significant enough figure to make assumptions about the efficacy of the vaccine, but it is enough to conclude that it warrants further trials.

Thanks, Nigel. That makes sense.

WE'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT BIPED BEHAVIOR AROUND HERE, MY SON!  DIG THOSE HEELS IN AND HOWL!

HULK NOT WRONG! HULK READ BOOK. BOOK SAY HULK RIGHT. HULK IS AUTHORITY.
HULK NOT CARE IF HULK APPLY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE TO DATA HULK NOT COMPREHEND CORRECTLY!
PUNY HUMANS STOP TELLING HULK HULK IS WRONG. HULK READ ONE BOOK!
                              /

That's more like it.

But I'll be watching you.

[Telarus]

Yup, always good to have more sources as well. The NY Times story mentions another control group of 9 who got 4 doses (6 of which were immune to further exposure). Also...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/health/a-malaria-vaccine-works-with-limits.html?_r=0

"This is a scientific advance rather than a practical one," said Dr. William Schaffner, the head of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University's medical school. "But any vaccine that provides even a glimmer of hope opens a door, so we have to pursue it."

Sanaria's vaccine is made by irradiating mosquitoes that have fed on malaria-infected blood and removing their salivary glands by hand. The radiation-weakened parasites in the saliva are then purified.

In earlier trials, the vaccine failed when injected into the skin, so this time researchers from the Army, Navy and National Institutes of Health gave it by IV drip. Six volunteers who got five intravenous doses did not get malaria when bitten by infected mosquitoes. Six of nine volunteers who got four doses were protected.

Because the vaccine is made in small batches by hand, it is impractical for poor countries, where malaria sickens more than 200 million people a year and kills about 660,000, most of them infants and pregnant women.

Giving multiple IV doses of any vaccine is also impractical because it requires sterile conditions, trained medical personnel and follow-up. IV drips are particularly hard to administer to children. "They've been known to squirm," Dr. Schaffner noted.

The initial target markets for the vaccine are the military and wealthy travelers.

[Junkenstein]

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/a-tokyo-design-firm-made-us-artificial-organs-for-the-post-apocalypse

The future is highly water intensive. Plan appropriately.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Zapped malaria parasite raises vaccine hopes
Maverick malaria vaccine achieves 100% protection using parasites from irradiated mosquitoes.
http://www.nature.com/news/zapped-malaria-parasite-raises-vaccine-hopes-1.13536

That's cool. I hope they continue with the testing and research.

In the phase I safety trial, reported today in Science1, the six subjects given five doses intravenously were 100% protected from later challenge by bites of infectious mosquitoes, whereas five of six unvaccinated controls developed malaria — as did three of nine people given only four doses of the vaccine.

It seems to me that a sample size of 6 is rather small to make the 100 percent claim.* It still looks promising. Even if it's 80 percent it will still have huge effects.


*I'm currently reading a book about probablility and statistics so I could be completely wrong about this. (a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and all)

Yes, you are wrong, but I see the mistake you are making and I understand why. You are reading it as the vaccine having a 100% protection rate, but what it's saying is that of the six test subjects, it had 100% effectiveness, ie. all 6 of them showed full immunity.

That's not a statistically significant enough figure to make assumptions about the efficacy of the vaccine, but it is enough to conclude that it warrants further trials.

Thanks, Nigel. That makes sense.

WE'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT BIPED BEHAVIOR AROUND HERE, MY SON!  DIG THOSE HEELS IN AND HOWL!

HULK NOT WRONG! HULK READ BOOK. BOOK SAY HULK RIGHT. HULK IS AUTHORITY.
HULK NOT CARE IF HULK APPLY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE TO DATA HULK NOT COMPREHEND CORRECTLY!
PUNY HUMANS STOP TELLING HULK HULK IS WRONG. HULK READ ONE BOOK!
                              /

That's more like it.

But I'll be watching you.

You two.

[McGrupp]

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/a-tokyo-design-firm-made-us-artificial-organs-for-the-post-apocalypse

The future is highly water intensive. Plan appropriately.

"Renal Fecular Dehydrator."

I wish that wasn't exactly what it sounds like. Nasal cavity inserts seem noninvasive now.

edit: This is actually pretty neat. If it came down to survival I'd get fake organs to survive the harsh landscape.

[Cainad (dec.)]

I guess it's less bulky than having a face mask system to recapture exhaled moisture, or a portable water-recycling system for waste.

Having a more efficient renal system would definitely be great.

[Kai]

Last week's "Missing Links" from Ed Yong of Not Exactly Rocket Science.

[Kai]

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/24/ive-got-your-missing-links-23-august-2013/

Ed Yong's 'Missing Links' from last week.

[Telarus]

New Element 115, Ununpentium, May Join Periodic Table
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/element-115-ununpentium-periodic-table_n_3823566.html

[Ixxie]

you guys read slashdot right?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

you guys read slashdot right?

YEAH WE ALL FUCKING READ SLASHDOT

NO

WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE ALL READ SLASHDOT

UNIFORMLY LIKE SOME KIND OF ADOLESCENT HIVEMIND THAT HAS TIME FOR THAT KIND OF BULLSHIT

YOU ARE STARTING TO IRRITATE ME SHUT THE FUCK UP.