I believe this is horrible hype. The VERY low rate of infection in either arm means that the ABSOLUTE risk is very low, less than 1%. The difference of 32% thus is based on differences at the level of less than 1%, meaning 99% of people would receive a vaccine and see no benefit.

There are further issues.
1) Why is the incidence of HIV so low (less than 1%) in the placebo group if it is higher generally (or in specific populations like) in Thailand?

2) According to this article:
http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/FC15FEF3-3CA0-41F5-A4BF-72C145D583A2.asp
...but the confidence intervals for the estimate in the reduction in risk were wide (p=0.039, 95% confidence interval 1.1% - 51.1%).
—If there were some differences in baseline randomization with a few more higher risk individuals in the placebo arm, for example, the lower bound of the CI would go negative, wiping out the weak statistical significance.

3) We will not know about adverse events over the longer term.

My biggest worry is that the Pentagon is trying to justify wasting $150 million after many told them they thought this was a waste of time, money and lives. It may mean further investigation in these type of vaccines while more promising versions languish—based on lies produced by statistics ignoring the limited clinical relevance of such tiny absolute risk reduction.

Once again, the media have failed us. And the war against HIV is potentially derailed. The one bit of GOOD news is that the overall incidence WAS low—to my mind indicating that the trial design itself may have contributed substantially to a lower HIV incidence…i.e., access to condoms, clean needles, and ROBUST EDUCATION serve as more effective and safer means to reduce the spread of HIV disease.