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

Antibody Kills 91% of HIV Strains

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 54 posts

Re: Antibody Kills 91% of HIV Strains

#11

Post by sliverstorm »

bradleyland wrote: post #3

What happens if we manage to kill 91% of the HIV strains? Won't the remaining 9% of the strains continue to spread and mutate? Then we're back to square one.

At the very least, it could buy a second chance for a lot of people, even if it's not all of them. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who are not career druggies or sluts who had one stupid or unlucky night that is going to ruin the rest of their lives, and could use a second chance.

EDIT: sorry, I worded this terribly. What I meant was there are many people who would not catch HIV again, and thus would benefit from a cure to only 91% of HIV. The people who will continue being reckless and catch it again will, of course, not benefit from an antibody protecting them from only 91% of HIV, and that was what I was talking about when I referenced druggies. I'd be more than happy to give hardcore druggies a cure.

The whole point was not that some people deserve it and some don't, but that some will gain huge benefits even if it's only 91%, and that is why even though it's not 100% coverage it's still a plus. (of course, not everyone will, because some people will go and catch the other 9% right away, so for them it's not really a benefit, but SOME WILL BENEFIT)

EDIT2: to those of you still downvoting, are you trying to say you think every single person on the planet with AIDS would not catch it again if they were cured, but still vulnerable to some strains? That seems kind of unlikely.

Re: Antibody Kills 91% of HIV Strains

#12

Post by BrandonM »

sliverstorm wrote: post #11
bradleyland wrote: post #3

What happens if we manage to kill 91% of the HIV strains? Won't the remaining 9% of the strains continue to spread and mutate? Then we're back to square one.

At the very least, it could buy a second chance for a lot of people, even if it's not all of them. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who are not career druggies or sluts who had one stupid or unlucky night that is going to ruin the rest of their lives, and could use a second chance. EDIT: sorry, I worded this terribly. What I meant was there are many people who would not catch HIV again, and thus would bene…

You seem to be implying that "druggies" and "sluts" don't deserve a second chance

edit: feel free to re-word it if you like, as long as you leave a note that you edited it.

Re: Antibody Kills 91% of HIV Strains

#13

Post by [deleted] »

sliverstorm wrote: post #11
bradleyland wrote: post #3

What happens if we manage to kill 91% of the HIV strains? Won't the remaining 9% of the strains continue to spread and mutate? Then we're back to square one.

At the very least, it could buy a second chance for a lot of people, even if it's not all of them. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who are not career druggies or sluts who had one stupid or unlucky night that is going to ruin the rest of their lives, and could use a second chance. EDIT: sorry, I worded this terribly. What I meant was there are many people who would not catch HIV again, and thus would bene…

[deleted]

Re: Antibody Kills 91% of HIV Strains

#14

Post by shasta »

alanh wrote: post #5

This is fantastic, but I can only imagine that 91% will become 9.1% within a decade, as the unaffected strains become dominant (just like superbugs).

I doubt that infection with one strain of HIV is preventing infection with another strain, except to the extent that some of the people engaging in the most risky behavior are getting "taken out of the system" by AIDS. Something like this could lead to exponential decline among certain subnetworks of society.

Re: Antibody Kills 91% of HIV Strains

#15

Post by halo »

sliverstorm wrote: post #11
bradleyland wrote: post #3

What happens if we manage to kill 91% of the HIV strains? Won't the remaining 9% of the strains continue to spread and mutate? Then we're back to square one.

At the very least, it could buy a second chance for a lot of people, even if it's not all of them. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who are not career druggies or sluts who had one stupid or unlucky night that is going to ruin the rest of their lives, and could use a second chance. EDIT: sorry, I worded this terribly. What I meant was there are many people who would not catch HIV again, and thus would bene…

>I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who are not career druggies or sluts

That reminds me a lot of Good AIDS vs Bad AIDS from the British documentary satire Brass Eye (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFNs2mOkKzc)

Re: Antibody Kills 91% of HIV Strains

#16

Post by bkudria »

sliverstorm wrote: post #4

It's really a testament to nature and Darwin's theories that after all the time, effort and money we've been spending on AIDS research, the most successful antibody so far was not created by man, but by his DNA.

But it was created by a man!

Seriously: Is the distinction that relevant?

Re: Antibody Kills 91% of HIV Strains

#17

Post by hugh3 »

bkudria wrote: post #16
sliverstorm wrote: post #4

It's really a testament to nature and Darwin's theories that after all the time, effort and money we've been spending on AIDS research, the most successful antibody so far was not created by man, but by his DNA.

But it was created by a man! Seriously: Is the distinction that relevant?

Well, on one hand, the antibody would have been created whether or not we'd been spending all this money on research.

On the other hand, the antibody would never have been noticed if we hadn't been spending all this money on research.

Re: Antibody Kills 91% of HIV Strains

#18

Post by hugh3 »

someone_here wrote: post #6
alanh wrote: post #5

This is fantastic, but I can only imagine that 91% will become 9.1% within a decade, as the unaffected strains become dominant (just like superbugs).

But only 10% of the current number of people infected will be infected by that point.

But how many AIDS patients have multiple strains?

Re: Antibody Kills 91% of HIV Strains

#19

Post by profitoftruth85 »

I remember reading in "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell how STDs like HIV can be effectively stopped before they become epidemics. If this antibody can be administered and eliminate a large chunk of people with weaker strains of HIV, then assuming the stronger strains of HIV are in the same geographic area, a strong campaign of eliminating HIV spreading behavior in those areas could really reduce the spread of the disease. But like another poster said we don't know which strains are most prevalent, so it could be that a stronger strain is more widespread.

Re: Antibody Kills 91% of HIV Strains

#20

Post by sliverstorm »

hugh3 wrote: post #17
bkudria wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it was created by a man! Seriously: Is the distinction that relevant?

Well, on one hand, the antibody would have been created whether or not we'd been spending all this money on research. On the other hand, the antibody would never have been noticed if we hadn't been spending all this money on research.

> On the other hand, the antibody would never have been noticed if we hadn't been spending all this money on research.

Indeed. But, even though he is a homosexual man, the gene would likely be passed along eventually, and run its course through the human race (if we believe Darwin). We just don't want to wait that long.

note: it would be passed one of a few ways:

1) his ancestors also had the gene, and he's not the only one to get it. He has heterosexual relatives who will pass it along, and they simply weren't found for one reason or another.

2) he wavers in his homosexuality, and passes his gene along to a few women OR he is bisexual

3) he donates sperm

4) it happens again in a heterosexual person. This gene arose in something like 30-40 years (I'm not really sure just how many) since the beginning of AIDS, which is an evolutionary blink. I think it's not unreasonable to figure it would arise again, and that it wouldn't take a bajillion years

Post reply on HN