

HIV Mutates to Death With New Drug - amichail
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/02/09/hiv-mutation.html

======
markessien
So a bunch of test subjects right now have heavily mutated HIV of a strain
that apparently did not get affected by this drug, and could possibly be
spreading it. The approach is wrong - if half the clinical patients show no
difference, but they now have a randomized sequence of deadly DNA, then this
is not a cure, it's a new disease.

~~~
JulianMorrison
I recall hearing in a documentary that only the un-mutated form of HIV is any
good at slipping though the gap in human defenses it uses. So as a
consequence, once it gets to mutating, those changed viruses only work inside
the current victim. Sorry my memory is not more precise.

Consider, it _already_ mutates a lot, and hasn't turned itself into something
more deadly.

~~~
MoeDrippins
Yet...

I'm probably overly paranoid and certainly under-educated (possibly even to
the point of the level of believing in "magic"), but accelerating the mutation
rate of something like this just scares me. As I said though, that's an
emotionally based feeling and not logical. I'd be VERY happy to have someone
scientifically show me I'm full of #$!#.

~~~
Aassssspqq
I can't tell if Hollywood is just freaking us out as a culture or if this is
another KILLER BEES scare... I Am Legend vs. Y2K fear.

~~~
arien
I would get ready for anything. Reality surpases fiction :)

------
zitterbewegung
Actually according to the article they HOPE that it will mutate to death...

~~~
Retric
Yea, I am normally extremely pro science, but this just seems like a REALLY
bad idea. Setting aside the idea that it would become more deadly, IMO the
odds of destroying enough HIV DNA to make a difference without altering human
cells seems unlikely.

PS: There are 10's of million's of people with HIV, so randomly mutating
trillions strands of viral HIV inside people as they are reproducing and not
creating a worse strain seems unlikely.

~~~
SapphireSun
In genetics, introducing random changes is one of the worst ways to find
useful results. Admittedly, across such a large population, the virus might
get worse, but if by worse you mean more deadly, then like ebola, it will
restrict its growth by not transferring to as many people. If by worse you
mean find another receptor that is hard to attack, then I'm not really sure
what to do...

