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

111–120 of 256 posts

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#111

Post by kentosi »

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.

If you're getting treatment, the amount of HIV in your blood is regularly measured as your "viral load".

It's possible, with treatment, for people with HIV to have a viral load labelled undetectable.

To date, from an article I read, there have been no recorded transmissions from people with an undetectable viral load.

https://www.preventionaccess.org/faq

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#112

Post by geofft »

bad_user wrote: post #83
jMyles wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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…

> birth control pills are basically hormone bombs, not very healthy for women in the long run

I've heard this a few times but I'm curious for sources on the fact that they're not healthy. They're certainly not natural, but, like, living until you're 80 years old isn't particularly natural either. Do you mind expanding on this?

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#113

Post by fatjokes »

mfoy_ wrote: post #30
jessriedel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The passing of the sentence was quick, the execution of it was painful and slow.

So exactly like an American death sentence.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#114

Post by kens »

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 ]

>hepatitis C is NOT curable, as it's a retroviral infection

Hepatitis C isn't a retrovirus, so I don't understand what you're saying.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#115

Post by kentosi »

hashmal wrote: post #27
joshstrange wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that I've had friends on Truvada (PrEP) that use condoms less because they know they won't get HIV.

Why is that a bad thing? I don't know for the US, but in other countries you have mandatory tests (hepatitis, gonorrhea, many others) to do every 3 months in order to get the treatment. This alone makes you more protected than people who only use condoms as protection and think they don't need tests.

The concept doesn't exist in the States, sadly.

Americans please correct me, but here it's more symptomatic with sexual health: You have a rash/etc, so you go see the doctor. There's no early-detection system where you are reminded to get into a clinic every 2-3 months and get a full test (blood test, swabs, etc) for all the usual suspects: HIV, herpes, chlamydia, etc.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#116

Post by henrikschroder »

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 ]

There's a cure for Hepatitis C since 2015.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#117

Post by allendoerfer »

otakucode wrote: post #43
soneca wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I (annedoctally) heard several times stories about how today's youth (~20yo) doing more unprotected sex than my generation (~35yo) only because HIV "does not kill anymore" . If AIDS is actually curable, I would bet that all other STD would explode in the short term

There is also a sort-of vaccine for HIV called PrEP or something like that. I'm not sure how you get it but I've seen mention of people using it prophylactically (which is what its designed for). And really without HIV, there isn't too much to be afraid of. HPV has a vaccine for many of the dangerous strains, and the other strains infect the vast majority of the populace anyway so even calling them a 'disease' is arg…

> One of my favorites was a study of ALL men, across all ages, socioeconomic groups, everything, of an entire town I believe somewhere in northern Scotland (maybe Ireland?)... those who had the most frequent orgasms had a 50% lower chance of having died of any cause over the 15 year period of their study. They also had very significantly reduced incidence of heart disease, cancer, and other health problems. But, of course, such things get reported as 'health benefits of sex' and not 'health dangers of abstinence' because they assume people are abstinent by default which is ludicrous. We'll know if public sentiment is changing when the headlines change.

There seems to be a causality, but to me it is not obvious, what its direction is. The most healthy men, are probably also the most attractive.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#118

Post by sethrin »

matwood wrote: post #91
Fomite wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 immu…

I was thinking that we need a stronger term than idiot, but it occurs to me that this behavior is actually criminal. It causes grievous harm to one's society, which is the criterion for criminal behavior. Therefore if social pressure is not sufficient to correct this behavior, legal means will need to be employed.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#119

Post by vkou »

kentosi wrote: post #111
yeukhon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you're getting treatment, the amount of HIV in your blood is regularly measured as your "viral load". It's possible, with treatment, for people with HIV to have a viral load labelled undetectable. To date, from an article I read, there have been no recorded transmissions from people with an undetectable viral load. https://www.preventionaccess.org/faq

Two questions arise:

How many people taking retrovirals have undetectable levels of HIV?

Are those people using condoms?

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#120

Post by dna_polymerase »

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.

If this is produced by Pfizer or some other company he is invested in, sure. Otherwise he will fall back to talking bs all day long like he does with Malaria.

For those downvoting: His foundation made sure the WHO subcontracts all studies to companies he has a stake in. He isn't a saint, he is a capitalist.

Post reply on HN