Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 256 posts

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#91

Post by matwood »

Fomite wrote: post #55
otakucode wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We were VERY close with Polio... but the CIA absolutely destroyed that when they ran a fake polio vaccination scam in Pakistan to get info on Bin Laden. Now it's making a comeback and doctors get shot trying to vaccinate.

We were also very close on measles, but politics and the anti-vaxx crowd have done a number on it.

Yeah, herd immunity is an interesting concept and one the anti-vaxx people completely hose up.

For example, a measles vaccine doesn't work on a small percentage of the population. Herd immunity says though that as long as some large percentage of the population is immune, those which the vaccine do not work will be fine. The anti-vaxx people end up pushing the percentage vaccinated below what's required for herd immunity and hose the whole population. Idiots.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#92

Post by aswanson »

JCSato wrote: post #81
otakucode wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

This is why I love HN. Thanks for the resource!

Right. There's almost always someone that can do a deep dive on an interesting, esoteric technical topic. No resource on the web like it with this level of diversity and depth.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#93

Post by MechEStudent »

HIV evolves with amazing (super-villian-ic) speed. Many "cures" attack 99% of cells, or similar. Resistance is evolved during treatment, and is usually uniform within just a few months. It mutates/evolves so fast that given just virus samples, it is possible to determine sequence of infection.

I think it needs to kill more than 6-9's before it has a good chance at being a cure.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#94

Post by bad_user »

noncoml wrote: post #90
bad_user wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't sexual freedom a goal? You always have the risk of undesired pregnancy and the best cure for that is the condom, since birth control pills are basically hormone bombs, not very healthy for women in the long run, or you could undergo surgery, which is invasive and not without peril. So just use the condom already, those minty ones are actually cool. And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because t…

> And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some of them is why we've survived for so long. If that's the way you want to live your life, it is fine. But don't try to impose your ideas to other people.

Do you feel like that about vaccines and people refusing them as well? Or what about smoking in public places?

Because the way I see it, this is more than the health of the individual at risk, being about the health of the group.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#95

Post by grzm »

noncoml wrote: post #89
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.

> no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave. Are you implying that unprotected sex is bad in itself? Edit: It was an honest question.

Please default to the strongest possible interpretation of another's comment. Give them the benefit of the doubt. If you have an honest question that will move the discussion productively forward, please, by all means ask it. But if you're just looking to pick something apart, please just refrain from doing so. I find Rapoport's rules a good starting place for reflection on how to move a discussion forward, particularly on contentious topics:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#96

Post by noncoml »

bad_user wrote: post #94
noncoml wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some of them is why we've survived for so long. If that's the way you want to live your life, it is fine. But don't try to impose your ideas to other people.

Do you feel like that about vaccines and people refusing them as well? Or what about smoking in public places? Because the way I see it, this is more than the health of the individual at risk, being about the health of the group.

Yes, I do feel the same about vaccines. If nothing else a person should be a complete master of their body. But this is another conversation.

If you don't see the difference about public smoking and unprotected sex, then I don't think there is any point discussing this.

However your original comment sounded more concerned about morals than public health.

If it was the later and I misunderstood it, then please forgive me.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#97

Post by noncoml »

grzm wrote: post #95
noncoml wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave. Are you implying that unprotected sex is bad in itself? Edit: It was an honest question.

Please default to the strongest possible interpretation of another's comment. Give them the benefit of the doubt. If you have an honest question that will move the discussion productively forward, please, by all means ask it. But if you're just looking to pick something apart, please just refrain from doing so. I find Rapoport's rules a good starting place for reflection on how to move a discussion forward, particula…

> Please default to the strongest possible interpretation of another's comment. Give them the benefit of the doubt.

But... it was a question...

The topic is sensitive and you will see a lot of people hide their moral beliefs behind "health concerns".

I'd rather make a blunt and direct question rather than play hide and seek and be lured into a masqueraded conversation about morals and believes.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#98

Post by matthewmacleod »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #58
anovikov wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well hepatitis C wasn't and isn't easily curable, but i guess awareness of it was pretty low.

Is a stronger statement that hepatitis C is NOT curable, as it's a retroviral infection, thereby rewriting host DNA? [ Edit: i'd remembered incorrectly from decades ago: it's an RNA virus ]

To be clear, hepatitis C now has a 95+% cure rate with modern treatments.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#99

Post by perryprog »

perryprog wrote: post #2

Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/71neat/new_a... I like how the ID is 71 neat

Seems like I’m getting downvoted, so to be clear I just wanted to add a link to a relevant discussion. I really should’ve linked to the r/science one.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#100

Post by perryprog »

distantsounds wrote: post #67
nonbel wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you link to that discussion? Here is what I see as the "top" comments: -what about that 1%? I'd fear if it became the new super HIV --Can you not appreciate the 99%? ---He's a 1%er for sure... ----Let's git im! -----ANGRY AT OP? WANT TO JOIN THE MOB? I'VE GOT YOU COVERED! COME ON DOWN TO /r/pitchforkemporium... ------Here you go Comrade -------!redditsilver --------Here's your Reddit Silver, ZarathustraV! -…

unfortunately /r/upliftingnews isn't exactly the high-level discussion you're probably looking for. thankfully, /r/science has you covered. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/71ndtd/scientists_...

Thanks, I definitely should have linked to that.
Post reply on HN