
First New HIV Strain in 19 Years Identified - mrburton
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-new-hiv-strain-in-19-years-identified/
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
>But Michael Worobey, head of the department of ecology and evolutionary
biology at the University of Arizona, who was also not involved in the recent
study, is more sanguine. Worobey says it is not a surprise that there are a
diverse number of HIV strains in Central Africa, which is where the disease
originated. Identifying a new one does not add much to the knowledge of HIV,
he says.

> “It’s actually misleading to describe genetic diversity from the [Democratic
> Republic of the] Congo as a new subtype,” Worobey says, “because the only
> useful meaning of the term ‘subtype’” would come from identification of a
> lineage of the virus that has spread significantly beyond Central Africa.
> Guidelines for classifying new strains of HIV were established in 2000. The
> recently discovered subtype belongs to the most common form of HIV, group M,
> which accounts for more than 90 percent of all HIV cases, Rodgers says.

The amount of press that this has gotten, seems to me like a submarine
marketing job by Abbott.

~~~
xenadu02
Indeed, and HIV is a “natural reservoir” disease that will continue to
generate new strains even if we managed to eradicate it from the human
population. The simian variant is just too compatible with us to ever really
go away.

~~~
asveikau
If we eradicate it in humans and also people stop eating bushmeat (or
including chimpanzees or whatever in that category) then it seems to me like
it would be unlikely to make the jump back to humans.

This actually raises an interesting question about potential diseases lurking
in food sources. We now have 20/20 hindsight that eating an ape caused this
and is therefore a bad idea. They obviously didn't know that when they chose
to eat apes. There could be other such food sources that we don't know to be
problematic yet. I am reminded of prions and mad cow, kind of a similar story.

~~~
dmix
Much like how they found the bushmeat apes as a source and with madcow prions,
when a whole bunch of people are getting sick it's usually pretty easy to use
statistics to determine a common food or infection source.

The implications of food on longer term stuff like cancer will always be a
hard thing to nail down but for serious diseases like this I don't think its
currently a huge barrier.

~~~
asveikau
I think the long incubation times of some of these is a counterexample.

Someone eats a monkey in rural Cameroon or Congo, and 10 years later they and
their sexual partners have their immune system collapse. Will they know the
connection?

Some sources say that happened circa 1910. It wasn't identified until the 80s.
In the meantime there were some bunk theories tied to homosexuality, drug use,
or poverty as the root cause.

I have heard that prion diseases can have even longer periods before they
surface after exposure.

~~~
dmix
> It wasn't identified until the 80s.

We didn't identify _any_ retroviruses until the late 70s, we didn't know to
look for them. That's different.

The first peer reviewed paper on human retroviruses wasn't until 1984.

[https://retrovirology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/174...](https://retrovirology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4690-6-40)

~~~
asveikau
They gave it a name, AIDS, in 1982. In my read of your comment, the claim is
they should have, through statistics, been able to draw it back to the food
source contamination that is now believed to have been a problem about 70
years prior.

In other words, it can take _a long time_ to notice the correlation. I don't
think it's much of a stretch to guess that there could be other such
correlations, present and future, that have not been discovered or will take
some time to discover.

------
ianmobbs
Here's a link to the actual study[0]. I wonder how this new strain is affected
by HIV prevention meds like PReP.

[0]
[https://journals.lww.com/jaids/Abstract/publishahead/Complet...](https://journals.lww.com/jaids/Abstract/publishahead/Complete_genome_sequence_of_CG_0018a_01.96307.aspx)

~~~
azinman2
This is exactly what worries me about PReP. Overall is seems to be making a
dent in the spread of HIV, but the reality is it lulls many into a false sense
of security and implicitly blesses dangerous behavior. The history of humanity
is plagued by virus epidemics — HIV is not a cure-all.

~~~
chaosbutters314
Yup, Prep just encourages everyone into not using protection

~~~
gugagore
I don't mean to nitpick, because any reductive statement ("just"), is _just_
wrong.

but there are many people who would and do not use protection anyway. And
taking PrEP means that's a less risky option than otherwise.

~~~
klipt
I guess the question is, is the PrEP-protected infection rate among people
having unprotected sex while on PrEP, lower or higher than the not-protected
infection rate among those who would have unprotected sex even without PrEP?

~~~
digitallogic
It's lower. You're safer having unprotected sex with someone who is confirmed
to have HIV but is taking PrEP, than you are when having unprotected sex with
someone whose status is unknown.

~~~
woofyman
> You're safer having unprotected sex with someone who is confirmed to have
> HIV but is taking PrEP, than you are when having unprotected sex with
> someone whose status is unknown.

PrEP is for hiv negative people.

If you’re virus level is undetectable from treatment, then you’re not
contagious.

~~~
foldr
>PrEP is for hiv negative people.

It's a rather academic distinction given that it's the same drugs in either
case. Definitionally, it's PrEP only if those drugs are being taken as a
preventative measure.

~~~
jt0
This is an actual distinction. At present PrEP only means Truvada. Truvada is
not effective alone for treating HIV. It would be taken in combination with
another drug. Also, There's a newer alternative to Truvada that is
preferred/less toxic for HIV treatment, but is not yet approved for PrEP. To
be clear there are many more drugs used for HIV treatment that are not used
for PrEP.

~~~
ingenium
Descovy was approved for PrEP about 2 month ago. At least in the US.

------
odyssey7
I was expecting to read that this was newly evolved, but it was actually newly
discovered. I’m curious about what factors led to it existing for so long
without being discovered.

“The most recent of the three samples used to identify HIV-1 group M subtype L
has been sitting in an Abbott freezer since 2001. ... Abbott researchers found
two additional examples of the strain—in samples from 1983 and 1990”

I admire the foresight of having kept these samples where they could be
studied with future techniques.

------
MuffinFlavored
Where did HIV come from? Like, how did it first come into existence?

~~~
benjohnson
It's thought to be closely related to a virus that monkeys have - earliest
known human infection was back in 1959. Here's what's generally known about
it:

[https://www.theaidsinstitute.org/education/aids-101/where-
di...](https://www.theaidsinstitute.org/education/aids-101/where-did-hiv-
come-0)

~~~
MuffinFlavored
Is that to say, a human had sex with a monkey, acquired the disease, then
spread it by having sex with other humans?

~~~
klipt
More likely bushmeat.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmeat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmeat)

Someone had a cut on their hand while butchering a monkey. No sex necessary.

~~~
flukus
That's the common theory, but it's not like sex with other primates or even
more distant relatives is unheard of (warning graphic and tragic):
[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7829159/the-horrifying-
story-o...](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7829159/the-horrifying-story-of-a-
prostitute-orangutan-who-was-chained-to-a-bed-shaved-daily-and-forced-to-
perform-sex-acts-on-men-twice-her-size/)

~~~
n0rbwah
Ah, The Sun. Such a reputable source, they wouldn't ever make up outrageous
stories just to sell more papers.

~~~
barry-cotter
> For instance, a study by Dr. Hani Miletski surveyed 93 zoophiles (82 males
> and 11 females). Only 12% of her sample said they engaged in sex with
> animals because there were no human partners available, and only 7% said it
> was because they were too shy to have sex with humans. For the females, the
> main reasons for having sex with animals was because they were sexually
> attracted to the animal (100%), had love and affection for the animal (67%)
> and/or because they said the animal wanted sex with them (67%). Most of
> Miletski’s sample preferred sex with dogs (87% males; 100% females) and/or
> horses (81% males; 73% females). Only 8% of males wanted to stop having sex
> with animals and none of the females. Unlike case study reports of zoophilia
> published prior to 2000, the studies published over the last 15 years using
> non-clinical samples report the vast majority of zoophiles do not appear to
> be suffering any significant clinical significant distress or impairment as
> a consequence of their behaviour.

[https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/why-
would-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/why-would-anyone-
want-to-have-sex-with-an-animal-the-psychology-of-
bestiality-10201158.html?amp)

------
rolltiide
For a virus that relies on rapid mutation its more surprising this is a
headline

