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

201–210 of 256 posts

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#201

Post by otakucode »

afarrell wrote: post #88
otakucode wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gardasil gives immunity to a few different strands of HPV, notably the most dangerous ones in terms of causing cancer risk. I do not know if it is reasonable to expect we will ever be able to totally eradicate all strains of HPV. Luckily most strains are, like most strains of herpes, innocuous. That's how they manage to infect the vast majority of the populace in the first place.

As of a few years ago, a new variety of Gardasil, called Gardasil-9 was approved by the FDA and it induces immunity against more varieties.

That's excellent! I had not heard of the newer version, thanks for the info! I was very happy when I saw that they finally started recommending parents vaccinate boys as well as girls. I never understood the initial hesitance. Sure boys might not have to worry about cervical cancer, but HPV is the #1 cause of oral cancer in males. And that's on top of just the general 'if you can protect your child from a prevalent disease with minimal risk, why wouldn't you?'

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#202

Post by otakucode »

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…

Just to add a tad, the number needed for herd immunity differs by disease. For polio, you only need to get around 80 - 85% of the population immune before everyone is effectively protected. For measles, on the other hand, you have to get to 95%. That's one of the reasons polio is expected to be eradicated before measles, every % point higher is harder to get, so 95 is a tough goal to reach.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#203

Post by otakucode »

allendoerfer wrote: post #117
otakucode wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Given the variety and abundance of studies, along with my reading on evolutionary biology, human biological history, and sexuality in general, I think it's a simple matter of 'we are built to be profoundly sexual creatures.' Just look at the facts of orgasm and I personally think it becomes clear that it has to be a critical bodily function. If you refuse to do anything to elicit one intentionally, your body will eventually take over and force one to occur in your sleep. That is not something the body does generally with other things except critical ones. There is certainly an argument that perhaps the purpose is to improve sperm quality in males, but females have nocturnal orgasms as well (though the mess after puberty makes it quite a bit easier for males to recognize it has happened).

We could have evolved to have a 'mating season' as almost all animals have. We could have evolved for females to give visible indication of fertility. We could have saved "wasting" the positively monumental amount of energy we pour into pursuing sex. We could have evolved so that sex was not even pleasurable but driven by instinct. We didn't have to evolve women going through menopause (and living a substantial amount of time afterward). Almost every single facet of human sexuality, if viewed through the lens of "sex is for reproduction", looks nonsensical if not evolutionarily suicidal. But through the lens of "sex is primarily for pleasure and social bonding," every bit of it makes sense. It explains why we stuck together in groups, the only thing that let weak, slow, stupid chimps without fangs, claws, venom, natural armor, or other similar natural advantages (except maybe endurance) survive long enough to have our social environment provide pressure for brain development and development of speech. We stuck together to preserve access to sexual partners, because it was pleasurable, and it made us the most powerful species on the planet. It makes sense that those who 'needed' it more were the ones to pass on their genes the most often.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#204

Post by quickthrower2 »

perryprog wrote: post #99
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.

If it's any consolation, that link made me laugh hard.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#205

Post by perryprog »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #204
perryprog wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it's any consolation, that link made me laugh hard.

haha, thanks!

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#206

Post by ttflee »

api_or_ipa wrote: post #149
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.

Reminds me of a lesson about misleading statistics I tell my nephews. We've all see the hand sanitizers that advertize killing 99.99% of germs, but what does that actually mean? 99.99% equates to 1/10,000 survivors and assuming for each generation the population doubles means it takes just 14 generations for the original colony to be back at full strength again. For extra creepy effect, e coli can reproduce in optima…

> e coli can reproduce in optimal conditions

Then avoid dipping your hand into beef stew for too long. Most of time, germs grow like sigmoid function.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#207

Post by selimthegrim »

otakucode wrote: post #50
hashmal wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"sexual responsibility" is quite an odd concept, it should be defined more precisely.

Children are the property of their fathers. Preserving the value of that property through preserving the virginal status of females is the responsibility of both sons and daughters. For a son to have sex with the daughter of another man, both the daughter and that boy have committed a property crime against the girls father. If she gets pregnant, he will never be able to get as big of a dowry when he sells her into m…

You mean bride price, dowry is what the bride's family gives

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#208

Post by tertius »

tryingagainbro wrote: post #187
tertius wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drugs are cheaper and largely subsidized by governments with high incidence of HIV. *I'm South African, antiretrovirals are free.

Drugs are cheaper and largely subsidized by governments with high incidence of HIV. I'm South African, antiretrovirals are free.* Almost got it right: Drugs elsewhere are cheaper and largely subsidized by USA citizens. Those drugs cost a fortune to make and the companies make their money in USA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pharmaceuticals-usa-compa...

> Almost got it right: Drugs elsewhere are cheaper and largely subsidized by USA citizens.

* Correction, by U.S. government (through law).

> Those drugs cost a fortune to make and the companies make their money in USA.

Yes R&D is expensive, but pharma is extremely profitable. Here in the U.S. and abroad.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#209

Post by tertius »

nkkollaw wrote: post #196
tertius wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drugs are cheaper and largely subsidized by governments with high incidence of HIV. *I'm South African, antiretrovirals are free.

Even poorer countries..? South Africa is not exactly was I was referring to. More like Congo, Senegal, etc.

South Africa has the highest population of AIDS sufferers. That's why they're a good example.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#210

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

chimeracoder wrote: post #184
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're designed such that, for the virus to adapt to one, it has to make itself more susceptible to one of the other two. That's not really accurate. HAART works because the 3 drugs are taken simultaneously , and it's extremely unlikely for a virus to get random mutations that confer resistance to all three in one generation.

> That's not really accurate. HAART works because the 3 drugs are taken simultaneously , and it's extremely unlikely for a virus to get random mutations that confer resistance to all three in one generation. That is literally exactly what I said. The drugs are taken simultaneously, and it is very difficult to develop resistance to all three simultaneously, because becoming more resistant to one means becoming more su…

Not sure if it's just miscommunication, or you misunderstand how HAART works, because you said "That is literally exactly what I said", and then in your next sentence repeat the statement that is false, "becoming more resistant to one means becoming more susceptible to another."

For example, suppose you take ATripla, which is a combination of efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir. If a viral particle has a random mutation that confers resistance to, say, efavirenz, that mutation does not make the virus more susceptible to emtricabine or tenofovir. The fact is the virus was already susceptible to those two drugs (that's why you take tests that specify your viral strain's pre-existing resistances to determine the best drugs for you before you start HAART), so it still is unable to replicate.

It's just a matter of statistics, not that resistance-granting mutations naturally make the virus more susceptible to other drugs.

Post reply on HN