3 ms·

Also they apparently didn't use a control group, the study was terminated early, and after the 43 day test window 9 of the 28 participants are listed as having

Also they apparently didn't use a control group, the study was terminated early, and after the 43 day test window 9 of the 28 participants are listed as having the adverse event of malaria. I'm particularly confused by that last one. How is malaria considered an adverse event when testing an anti-malaria treatment? Other data in the study shows that 1 participant had malaria again with matching DNA, meaning the original infection likely came back. 6 others were reported as getting malaria again but with different DNA. So what does it mean to have 9 with the adverse event of malaria?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
refulgentis 1y ago
Think you're over-parsing a bit: adverse events ~= something we should mention, not Bad Things The Treatment Did. "What does it mean?" is a qualitative question, not a quantitative one. Taking that question more colloquially, in this case, I'd say it means "the vaccine did not prevent infections in 9 of 28 cases and / or they had an infection before the vaccine was taken" I'm sure you mean well -- since your post, the thread got cluttered up with outright know-nothing-type comments. I am being very literal in order to help teach people in despair what we expect when we read these.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  I did mean well, thanks for assuming good intent here. I still don't understand how 9 of 28 could have the adverse event of malaria, though, given that other data in the results show that 1 participant had what seemed to be a reinfection with a genetic match and 6 others were infected again with a parasite that didn't match their original infection's genetic makeup. That is 7 individuals, where do the other 2 come from? My uncertainty is that I may be misunderstanding the meaning of malaria as an adverse event entirely here - I don't get how reinfection would be an adverse event rather than a potential failure of treatment.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

refulgentis 1y ago

Think you're over-parsing a bit: adverse events ~= something we should mention, not Bad Things The Treatment Did. "What does it mean?" is a qualitative question, not a quantitative one. Taking that question more colloquially, in this case, I'd say it means "the vaccine did not prevent infections in 9 of 28 cases and / or they had an infection before the vaccine was taken" I'm sure you mean well -- since your post, the thread got cluttered up with outright know-nothing-type comments. I am being very literal in order to help teach people in despair what we expect when we read these.

_heimdall 1y ago
I did mean well, thanks for assuming good intent here. I still don't understand how 9 of 28 could have the adverse event of malaria, though, given that other data in the results show that 1 participant had what seemed to be a reinfection with a genetic match and 6 others were infected again with a parasite that didn't match their original infection's genetic makeup. That is 7 individuals, where do the other 2 come from? My uncertainty is that I may be misunderstanding the meaning of malaria as an adverse event entirely here - I don't get how reinfection would be an adverse event rather than a potential failure of treatment.