
New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains - hexrcs
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41351159
======
MechEStudent
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.

~~~
api_or_ipa
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 optimal conditions as fast as every 20 minutes
which buys you only a couple hours of hygiene[0].

Given this drug kills 99/100 HIV virus units, then this really only helps you
for log2(100) or ~7 generations

The math is pretty easy, but the results are something that always surprise
me: it turns out humans are pretty bad at estimating exponential growth.

0: real life conditions are probably slower than this, I concede.

~~~
smitherfield
The idea is that it kills 99% of them, and then your immune system is up to
the task of killing the remaining 1%.

~~~
DrScump
But it's not a simple, linear battle.

That most virulent 1% then multiplies and infects systemwide... and adds new
mutations all the time.

~~~
smitherfield
It's not the most virulent 1%, it's 1% which have unusual mutations that cause
them to be resistant to this treatment, but which usually reduce their fitness
in other respects. (This can be seen in humans as well, e.g. malaria
resistance->sickle-cell). The fastest-multiplying viruses are also (obviously)
going to be the most common, in the absence of treatment.

~~~
jondubois
This is really fascinating how being really good at something often correlates
with being less good at other things (in this case antibiotic resistance seems
to be inversely proportional to the potency of the bacteria).

This is true not just for bacteria but also for other living creatures; for
example animals that have lots of children have very short average lifespans.

It makes me think that every living species must be at the absolute cutting
edge of its capabilities genetically-speaking.

~~~
46886532558
Natural selection tends to work on traits that are relevant till the ability
to reproduce ends. If the trait can dominate by rapid reproduction, life span
does not matter and robustness is not selected for. Generally it is not an
inherent trade-off between certain traits, apart from energy consumption.

------
nkkollaw
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.

~~~
chasil
Antibody manufacture is not cheap. The antibodies are made by fusing the
b-memory cells with mouse cancer, then putting the result in a bioreactor and
filtering out the desired product, which must then be refrigerated. Drugs that
use this technique commonly end in -MAB (for monoclonal antibody).

~~~
L_Rahman
Given the entrenched nature of the American pharmaceutical industry, I'm
unconvinced that any of them have actually tried to solve the problem of cheap
antibody manufacturing at scale.

~~~
refurb
Why wouldn't they? Any reduction in cost is pure profit for them.

~~~
Kalium
Reflexive paranoia rather than calm business analysis tends to rule the day
when pharmaceutical companies are under consideration.

------
joshuahedlund
Can someone knowledgeable provide more details about the "tri-specific" nature
of the attack and what effects this might have on the selective resistance of
the remaining strains? (e.g. is it something that would take three
simultaneous mutations to overcome, thus being much less likely than any
resistance that only takes one, due to HIV's incredibly high mutation rate,
though those that do achieve all three would still be resistant?)

~~~
otakucode
I cannot personally do so, but I know who can and almost certainly will. The
'This Week In Virology' podcast. It's run by the head of the Columbia
University virology department and a few other respected researchers in the
field and is an absolutely phenomenal resource whenever there is news about
virology. It doesn't look like they've covered this yet (too new) but I expect
it to feature large in their next episode. If you're interested in a real
technical dive into the topic, that is the place to go.

[http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/](http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/)

(Related personal anecdote and why I recommend them so highly: I'd been
listening to them for awhile, then a research paper came out showing a
possible link between Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and XMRV in mice. People online
had taken the paper and went crazy with it and some people were finding
sources for murine (mouse) cancer drugs and dosing themselves with it in hopes
of curing their CFS. They went through the paper and recognized the researcher
and lab who wrote it. And noted that the lab had previously published XMRV
research. XMRV is apparently remarkably difficult to eliminate contamination
from. Basically if a lab has ever worked with it, you have to burn down the
lab and build anew if you want to be sure it isn't around. So they advocated
skepticism and said wait for independent verification before getting too
worked up. A couple months later, the original paper was retracted as the
researchers announced no other lab could reproduce their findings and it was
down to XMRV contamination of their samples. That is the kind of thing you
only get when you're listening to bona fide experts in their field and it blew
my mind.

~~~
JCSato
This is why I love HN. Thanks for the resource!

~~~
aswanson
Right. There's almost always someone that can do a deep dive on an
interesting, esoteric technical topic. No resource on the web like it with
this level of diversity and depth.

------
amelius
What else does it attack?

~~~
epmaybe
The study looked at SHIV, so they did it in monkeys. A little different. I
haven't looked at most of the study but I would imagine that as an antibody it
would have some sort of specificity.

------
jampekka
HIV must be the most almost cured disease ever.

~~~
vkou
In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence.

In the 2010s, getting HIV means that you are likely to live until... Your 70s.
(Assuming you have access to medication.)

The problem is that you need to take expensive medication for the rest of your
life. And that you can infect other people.

~~~
otakucode
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.

~~~
yeukhon
> 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.

~~~
kentosi
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](https://www.preventionaccess.org/faq)

~~~
vkou
Two questions arise:

How many people taking retrovirals have undetectable levels of HIV?

Are those people using condoms?

~~~
VeryAnonymous
Not a professional, but my wife has HIV (and I don't), so I have a personal
interest in the subject.

> How many people taking retrovirals have undetectable levels of HIV?

According to my wife's doctor, most of them. And if that changes, they attempt
to adjust treatment to return to that state.

BTW, undetectable appears to mean 20 copies of viral DNA per ml of blood.

> Are those people using condoms?

Well, we were, for many years. But we wanted children, and so after her doctor
actually encouraged us we conceived them the old-fashioned way. I really,
really enjoyed sex without a condom after so many years, I must say.

Now we have all the children we want, and we ought to go back to condoms, but
I find myself wondering about the risk vs. reward. I suppose we'll go back to
condoms, but I yearn to forgo them -- it's just less intimate. I wonder how
other couples feel.

~~~
wellboy
There was a study a few days ago that found out that below threshold viral
load means that the patient isn't infectious anymore.

[https://www.intomore.com/impact/cdc-acknowledges-that-
undete...](https://www.intomore.com/impact/cdc-acknowledges-that-undetectable-
people-dont-transmit-hiv)

Don't take my word for it though, would check with doctors.

------
anovikov
Well, 99% means eradication of the virus very quickly. 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.

~~~
jMyles
> 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
unprotected sex wave."

Isn't sexual freedom a goal?

~~~
bad_user
> _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 there are really
good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some
of them is why we've survived for so long.

~~~
noncoml
> And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really
> good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that
> some of them is why we've survived for so long.

If that's the way you want to live your life, it is fine. But don't try to
impose your ideas to other people.

~~~
bad_user
Do you feel like that about vaccines and people refusing them as well? Or what
about smoking in public places?

Because the way I see it, this is more than the health of the individual at
risk, being about the health of the group.

~~~
BuckRogers
I didn't see you "imposing" your views on anyone. People can adopt what they
will. I don't advocate for laws against free choice, but I am for social
pressures against unprotected sex. It's a good thing, saves a lot of pain and
lives and there's absolutely no need to apologize if someone wants to take
that out of context. As if you're advocating for the police to round up
sexually active teens.

~~~
noncoml
> I am for social pressures against unprotected sex

What is this if not trying to make other people live their lives following
your way of thinking?

~~~
BuckRogers
I'm more than willing to bet you are happy to voice your opinion on any given
subject, including this one as you try to snuff my viewpoint out with claims
about my attempt at oppression. Why can't I add my own opinion and voice? Just
because you don't like what I think.

This is the same misguided logic you tried to use on bad_user. You really
don't get it and honestly I don't care if you ever do or not.

~~~
vidarh
I find you comical that you are for social pressure to avoid behavior you
don't like, but are complaining when others apply social pressure.

Free speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

~~~
BuckRogers
You can find it as comical as you want but you're making the same mistake
noncoml did. He said bad_user was trying to _impose_ his view on others and
that I'm trying to _make_ people think my way.

bad_user and myself are both _influencing_ others. We're not imposing anything
at all. He's fine to criticize if he wants, that wasn't the issue at all. He
didn't understand the difference between social pressure (which I'm advocating
along with bad_user) and imposing. They aren't the same thing.

He's trying to split hairs with everyone on HN and not be intellectually
honest so it's not worth discussing. Very easy to see what bad_user and myself
meant. But the downvotes on noncoml's post speak for itself, most people are
getting it.

~~~
noncoml
I don’t know man. I am just presenting my arguments. You are the one who is
taking it personal, counting votes, and have to resort to personal
attacks(“splitting hairs with everyone”, “not be intellectually honest”)

Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean you have the
intellectual honestly and he doesn’t.

Also, if it’s not worth discussing, just stop discussing. What’s with this
passive aggressive statement?

Btw, since downvotes seem to be important to you: every single reply of yours
in this thread is negative.

~~~
BuckRogers
I did stop discussing, especially with you but here you are again. You just
can't resist, which shows how you are. You're welcome to disagree, but you
didn't just disagree, you said we were trying to force our will on others.
That's called intellectual dishonesty and someone not worth spending time on.
Meaning, you just want to argue. Go look through your post history and check
the downvotes, not good. I'll leave you to it, good luck bud.

~~~
noncoml
> I did stop discussing, especially with you but here you are again

You mentioned my name. What did you expect?

Furthermore I never said I stopped discussing, unlike you.

Finally, you are the one who is trying to split a hair: “Imposing your
opinion” might be a bit strong, but it’s closer to “social pressure” than
“influencing” is.

Discussing with you can be considered influencing.

“Social pressure” can be a whole town marginalizing you and your family
because you are gay.

I don’t think I am trying to split hair. They are very different things.

------
y-c-o-m-b
This is also good news for people with elevated risks of acquiring HIV (such
as people with Herpes). Hopefully they can use similar tactics to eradicate
HSV and HPV next.

~~~
notadoc
From a medical standpoint, HSV and HPV are largely cosmetic and very low
priority. HPV is/was perhaps a slightly higher priority because it can rarely
lead to certain cancers, but the vaccine Gardasil aims at those types of HPV.

~~~
DrScump
Only four strains, not all strains. Others kill up to _nine_ different
strains, but that's still not _all_ potentially carcinogenic strains.

------
notadoc
The clinical trials should be interesting. Hopefully it maintains efficacy.

------
r-w
I wonder if we can do the same thing with the common cold…

------
jokoon
If a vaccine becomes available, I wonder if somebody will pay to help poor
countries fight it.

I mean does the UN have existing programs that offer vaccines in the third
world?

I mean it would be a shame to have a vaccine and not see it being used.

------
jlebrech
is 99% good enough? I thought cancer hides and comes back, so that 1% can grow
again, so you still have to take the drug the rest of you life.

------
coretx
So does chloride.

------
RaiO
Now that they're on a roll we need to get them on the cure for cancer!

------
perryprog
Reddit discussion:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/71neat/new_a...](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/71neat/new_antibody_attacks_99_of_hiv_strains/)

I like how the ID is 71 __neat __

~~~
nonbel
Why would you link to that discussion? Here is what I see as the "top"
comments:

    
    
      -what about that 1%? I'd fear if it became the new super HIV
      --Can you not appreciate the 99%?
      ---He's a 1%er for sure...
      ----Let's git im!
      -----ANGRY AT OP? WANT TO JOIN THE MOB? I'VE GOT YOU COVERED! COME ON DOWN TO /r/pitchforkemporium...
      ------Here you go Comrade
      -------!redditsilver
      --------Here's your Reddit Silver, ZarathustraV!
      ---------Good bot

~~~
distantsounds
unfortunately /r/upliftingnews isn't exactly the high-level discussion you're
probably looking for.

thankfully, /r/science has you covered.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/71ndtd/scientists_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/71ndtd/scientists_have_engineered_an_antibody_that/)

~~~
perryprog
Thanks, I definitely should have linked to that.

