"Thank you for reviewing this story. However I must take issue with a couple of your comments, which (not for the first time) do suggest to me a certain disinclination to acknowledge either the restrictions that news reporting has to work within, or indeed its very purpose.
The restrictions obviously have to do with time. And the purpose of news reporting is to do just that, report news -- if necessary with the details that are available to hand at the time, even if they are incomplete or if questions remain that cannot immediately be answered. This is obviously entirely different to the requirements for publishing in a medical journal. That is not somehow a failing of news -- it simply reflects its different environment and purpose.
The first accounts of this story came through on the international wires at about 5pm, an hour before the deadline for a daily paper. It might well be the case that a "minimal Google search" returns more details about the study -- that is, it might well be the case now, nearly three weeks later. I would eat my hat if any such details could in fact be Googled within one hour of the first details becoming available, contrary to your assertion.
I could be wrong but from memory, it was known at the time that the results were pertinent to a particular subtype of HIV that is prevalent in Thailand, and not necessarily for strains circulating in Africa or other countries. However I would contest your view that this information was so vital that it should have been included in the story. I'm not sure this is often appreciated, but news stories are not concertinas that can expand to accommodate any point that might be deemed interesting or important. Stories have to fit within their box on a page, and often the hardest part is deciding which points should be cut. In this case the importance of the trial was not that this particular vaccine might be useable in one country or other, but that it might be possible to make a vaccine at all.
Regard"