> doesn't the quote from the original article refer to the testing model itself Yes, it does, precisely because the trial is about a human challenge model that

> doesn't the quote from the original article refer to the testing model itself Yes, it does, precisely because the trial is about a human challenge model that uses an attenuated virus. It may or may not be representative of efficacy against natural infections by wildtype viruses, hence the second statement by the authors that "the true efficacy of TV003 can only be established by performing a phase 3 trial in endemic areas." > it doesn't seem like Wired has editorialized/misrepresented at least the headline much relative to the original article I believe the inclusion of "in a human challenge model" in the original title is quite significant to its interpretation, but it's precisely the kind of detail that would get overlooked by people unfamiliar with vaccine trials. A researcher in the field would know that human challenge models may or may not be representative of protection against natural infections, but the Wired title ignores that distinction and instead sows confusion by saying the vaccine simply "proves 100% effective". > millions/year You're right, I meant hospitalizations; sorry about that. Dengue hemorrhagic fever is a life-threatening condition that warrants hospitalization, and dengue fever in more vulnerable patients also can result in hospitalization.