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

101–110 of 256 posts

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#101

Post by wickawic »

MechEStudent wrote: post #93

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.

I'm sure that it is much more complicated than this, but I wonder how long the virus can remain immune to all previous '99%' cures? Maybe eventually we could come up with enough of these and then administer them all at once.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#102

Post by grzm »

noncoml wrote: post #97
grzm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But... it was a question...

Which is why I addressed this in the next sentence:

> If you have an honest question that will move the discussion productively forward, please, by all means ask it.

Does it move the discussion productively forward? What is the motivation for your question? Where do you expect the discussion to go from here? This isn't a question like "Where's the post office?" where the expected response is likely the effective end of the conversation. You're asking about morality. Do you think your parent has the same values as you? Are you looking to tease out some difference so you can argue about them? Show them that they're wrong? Find some points of agreement? Solve some underlying common issue? HN really isn't the place for general ideological debates. They're by definition off-topic. And regardless of what another has commented, we can show restraint and not continue a thread that is wandering off into incendiary weeds.

Edit (in reply to your addendum above): It does seem clear that you're looking for some kind of argument. Please don't. Let the thread die on the vine.

I don't intend to continue this any further. I do encourage you to review the link I provided, and perhaps review the recently updated HN guidelines, which includes similar points.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#103

Post by carlisle_ »

wickawic wrote: post #101
MechEStudent wrote: post #93

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.

I'm sure that it is much more complicated than this, but I wonder how long the virus can remain immune to all previous '99%' cures? Maybe eventually we could come up with enough of these and then administer them all at once.

I believe that's actually somewhat how AIDs treatments have worked. I'm not sure if all are like that but it's pretty much the exact logic.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#104

Post by noncoml »

grzm wrote: post #102
noncoml wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> But... it was a question... Which is why I addressed this in the next sentence: > If you have an honest question that will move the discussion productively forward, please, by all means ask it. Does it move the discussion productively forward ? What is the motivation for your question? Where do you expect the discussion to go from here? This isn't a question like "Where's the post office?" where the expected respon…

> Does it move the discussion productively forward?

Yes.

> What is the motivation for your question?

To know if we are discussing about public health issues or moral believes. If it is the later, then there is no point continuing the discussion.

> Where do you expect the discussion to go from here?

If the motivation behind his comment was morals, then I don't expect the discussion to go anywhere. It is a dead end.

If it is about public health, we can continue the discussion.

You are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of. It would be a good time to follow your advice: "Please default to the strongest possible interpretation of another's comment. Give them the benefit of the doubt."

As I mentioned all I wanted to know is if he is trying to have a discussion about morals or public health. Because if it is the first then I don't want to be part of the discussion.

(Edit in response to your edit) You are starting an argument on my post, and when I reply to your argument you make a passive aggressive edit to your post accusing me of not dropping the argument. And you drop it, by making a non-reply reply?

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#105

Post by yeukhon »

otakucode wrote: post #57
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.

The infecting other people is mostly theoretical. As far as I know there is no actual instance of transmission from a person with an undetectable viral load on antiretroviral drugs to an uninfected person.

> an undetectable viral load on antiretroviral drugs to an uninfected person

Can you please put this into simpler terms? I am pretty confused. Because HIV transmission is not a theoretical and is not a myth. My understanding is, OP meant to say "transmission of HIV via known risky activities."

--EDIT--

Thank you for those clarifying. Often the unfamiliar technical terms can throw me off.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#106

Post by maxerickson »

yeukhon wrote: post #105
otakucode wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The infecting other people is mostly theoretical. As far as I know there is no actual instance of transmission from a person with an undetectable viral load on antiretroviral drugs to an uninfected person.

> an undetectable viral load on antiretroviral drugs to an uninfected person Can you please put this into simpler terms? I am pretty confused. Because HIV transmission is not a theoretical and is not a myth. My understanding is, OP meant to say "transmission of HIV via known risky activities." --EDIT-- Thank you for those clarifying. Often the unfamiliar technical terms can throw me off.

They are responding to The problem is that you need to take expensive medication for the rest of your life. And that you can infect other people.

They are saying that there are no recorded instances of someone that is taking antiretroviral drugs and has an undetectable viral load actually transmitting the virus.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#107

Post by [deleted] »

noncoml wrote: post #96
bad_user wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#108

Post by BuckRogers »

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.

I didn't see you "imposing" your views on anyone. People can adopt what they will. I don't advocate for laws against free choice, but I am for social pressures against unprotected sex. It's a good thing, saves a lot of pain and lives and there's absolutely no need to apologize if someone wants to take that out of context. As if you're advocating for the police to round up sexually active teens.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#109

Post by noncoml »

BuckRogers wrote: post #108
bad_user wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't see you "imposing" your views on anyone. People can adopt what they will. I don't advocate for laws against free choice, but I am for social pressures against unprotected sex. It's a good thing, saves a lot of pain and lives and there's absolutely no need to apologize if someone wants to take that out of context. As if you're advocating for the police to round up sexually active teens.

> I am for social pressures against unprotected sex

What is this if not trying to make other people live their lives following your way of thinking?

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#110

Post by c3534l »

wickawic wrote: post #101
MechEStudent wrote: post #93

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.

I'm sure that it is much more complicated than this, but I wonder how long the virus can remain immune to all previous '99%' cures? Maybe eventually we could come up with enough of these and then administer them all at once.

Probably for longer than we can keep coming up with chemicals that selectively kill it. After all, if we're not killed by the chemical, then that means it's possible to survive it.
Post reply on HN