New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

Post by JCSato » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 7:57 PM UTC

otakucode wrote: post #70

joshuahedlund wrote: post #41

Can someone knowledgeable provide more details about the "tri-specific" nature of the attack and what effects this might have on the selective resistance of the remaining strains? (e.g. is it something that would take three simultaneous mutations to overcome, thus being much less likely than any resistance that only takes one, due to HIV's incredibly high mutation rate, though those that do achieve all three would st…

I cannot personally do so, but I know who can and almost certainly will. The 'This Week In Virology' podcast. It's run by the head of the Columbia University virology department and a few other respected researchers in the field and is an absolutely phenomenal resource whenever there is news about virology. It doesn't look like they've covered this yet (too new) but I expect it to feature large in their next episode.…

Post by bad_user » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 8:00 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #28

anovikov wrote: post #4

Well, 99% means eradication of the virus very quickly. People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.

> People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave. The way you've phrased this, it sounds like you are casting "other hard to cure STDs" as a protective measure against the "threat of 1960s style of unprote…

Post by stan_rogers » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 8:03 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #24

vkou wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. In the 2010s, getting HIV means that you are likely to live until... Your 70s. (Assuming you have access to medication.) The problem is that you need to take expensive medication for the rest of your life. And that you can infect other people.

> In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. It has never been quick. > Without treatment, average survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Prognosis You may be thinking of the ~1 year survival times after an AIDS diagnosis, but HIV is usually latent for a decade after initial infection.

Post by tertius » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 8:10 PM UTC

joshstrange wrote: post #60

nkkollaw wrote: post #37

Hopefully it's cheap and/or Bill Gates starts throwing money into producing it if it passes clinical trials. I have a feeling that Africa is where AIDS does the most damage, and I doubt they can afford the $1000/mo. it will certainly cost in the States.

Not that it helps Africa but in the US for a drug like Truvada (PrEP) it costs ~$1500/mo on insurance but they offer a copay card that covers $3600/yr which is enough to hit my deductible at least so after 2 months I only pay $30/mo but in practice I don't pay a dime because the copay card covers it all.

Post by noncoml » Fri, Sep 22, 2017, 8:11 PM UTC

anovikov wrote: post #4

Well, 99% means eradication of the virus very quickly. People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.