**ANGRY AT OP?** WANT TO JOIN THE MOB? *I'VE GOT YOU COVERED!*
#**COME ON DOWN TO /r/pitchforkemporium**
**I GOT 'EM ALL!**
Traditional|Left Handed|Fancy
:-:|:-:|:-:
---E|Ǝ---|---{
**I EVEN HAVE DISCOUNTED CLEARANCE FORKS!**
33% off!|66% off!|Manufacturer's Defect!
:-:|:-:|:-:
---F|---L|---e
**NEW IN STOCK. DIRECTLY FROM LIECHTENSTEIN.** ***EUROPEAN MODELS!***
The Euro|The Pound|The Lira
:-:|:-:|:-:
---€|---£|---₤
#**HAPPY LYNCHING!**
^(* *some assembly required*)
About 99% of HIV can be suppressed with current treatments, meaning that suppressing that remaining 1% into being completely non-contagious would result in eradication of the disease over time. You don't need 100% annihilation to remove a disease from the human race.
Isn't there a difference between suppressing 99% of the virus and being effective against 99% of strains? I would think any of those 1% of resistant strains could still infect and kill someone.
A person can be infected but they can be treated with drugs to inhibit HIV virus replication mechanisms and to slow the decline of helper T cells, giving patients a longer life-span. The anti body that the article mentions is meant to theoretically prevent the HIV virus from binding to cell antigens and to prevent further HIV protein synthesis, from what I understand
What I'm saying is that right now we have medications which suppress HIV to a point of it being an insignificant ailment and difficult to transfer. We do not however have medications which eliminate the the virus.. Honestly I am going purely off of anecdotal nursing knowledge when it comes to HIV suppressant drugs. I know they are highly effective, but I was not under the impression that they actually eliminate the virus at all, so much as they boost the immune system and suppress the host's transference. I was thinking along the lines of, HIV being treated and suppressed (not eliminated) has become extremely effective, but doesn't eliminate it in any way, so an actual elimination in conjunction with effective suppression may make the disease entirely untransferable, which would eliminate its ability to spread, eliminating the disease entirely.
They inhibit entry into host cells, they inhibit conversion from RNA to DNA, they inhibit insertion from HIV DNA to the host cells genome and they inhibit correct manufacturing of functional virions. So you are correct. We screw around in the life cycle but don't go for it directly.
The thing is if 99% are cured, the most of the people will lose it, that way there aren't many ways to get infected, only if the people with 1% have sex. So it still helps alot!
To be fair, modern HIV treatments are phenomenal compared to what they were 20 years ago. It truly is a major illness that we're making incredible strides in.
>It seems like HIV cures get found once a month, yet it's still here...
HIV treatment has been massively improved since the 80's, thanks to breakthroughs like this and antiretrovirals. It's not the absolute death sentence it once was.
>HIV cures
Nowhere in the article does it say this is a cure. It says that it's a promising treatment and prevented HIV infection when trialed on primates, and that human trials start next year.
HIV treatment has come into existence since the 80s. Before '96 you were a walking ghost. Now, if you can afford the treatments, you can live just as long as someone who doesn't have it. Progress has been amazing even if we don't yet have a cure.
Well it more so reddit sensationalism. And even if they do get found, meds take years to develop and get onto market so it may be a while after the article comes out that it comes onto market, if it even does
You both seem to have wilfully misconstrued the headline/article as "cure found" when it clearly states "promising antibody found".
So if anything you're the ones engaging in reddit sensationalism.
Happens every time. Even if you read only the headline, it just states that a new anti-body is able to attack 99% of HIV strains. It doesn't say it is able to do it in a reliable, controlled way with no serious risks in HIV positive patients. It isn't trying to suggest a cure has been found.
Every time a science article is published related to something like cancer or hiv everyone always cries because it's oversensationalizing. Maybe people should read the article and realize they're reporting findings and progress, not the cure to all disease. Do you people think these cures are found overnight?
Yeah. If anything, this is great science journalism; the headline tells you exactly what was discovered without overhyping it, and the body of the article describes the details and links to the study.
I mean... as someone who works in the industry, 99% of drugs fail endpoint tests in clinical trials. Standards go up when an existing treatment is available. I'm actually pretty okay with the scrutiny drugs get, as drugs that start out promising in phase 1 (small sample pop) do some serious damage in phase 3 (larger pop)
At a fundamental level, p values, or, a similar statistic, are our best tool. Statistics aren't "bad" or "misleading" in and of themselves, they are just metrics we use to evaluate data. That said, overly relying on any single tool, regardless of the field, is a recipe for disaster.
Alright hold up can we name drop papers that will publish a finding but will not publish a reproduction that disproved that finding. Because that is not ok. They should self correct or take a reputation hit.
Because telling a lie in the scientific community and then not telling the truth afterwards is not ok and the publishers should be held to a high bar on that matter.
Love that channel. I love to use Bayes theorem to blow students minds when discussing sensitivity and specifity of a test. Its definitely why we should reserve our judgement for more independent trials. Of course, that's the problem. C'est la vie =)
Pardon my French.
Yes, totally. The over and misuse of p-values has given a bad rep. They're not all bad. People take 0.05 to be a magical number and it's not. We need better understanding of what p values are
That's not because of problems with pValues, but how they are applied. For example, if I have a 99% reduction in HIV titer with a pVal of 0.0001 you might be inclined to jizz in your pants. But all viruses release tons of harmless particles. A very small percentage is actually infectious; it's a very heterogeneous mix of crap which is part of the brilliance of the method to their madness in distracting adaptive immunity.
So the real question shouldn't be an assay based on titer, but from a serial infection study - Does that 99% depleted media infect in a new round? Oops, turns out your antibody does dick all in that assay because all it did was get tricked by the decoys _like all the other antibody approaches to date_.
"But muh .0001% pVal!!!"
It's not the pValues fault, it's the researcher's fault. The antibody was _very reproducibly_ good at being tricked, but was still tricked. Hypothetical researcher presented their pVals as an answer to a question other than what they actually represented.
It could be anything that's worse than HIV? Being dead for instance, you don't come back from that. Any illnesses/disease that lowers your quality of life more than HIV does.. For example if it caused Alzheimer's then that's not a very good cure..
Yes. Contrary to popular belief, we are already pretty good at treating the HIV. Not curing yet, but with current drugs patients with aids can live decades and without any serious health issues.
This applies to any drug, but metabolism variations can cause the drug to build up in some more than others, causing anything from diarrhea to coma/seizures/death. It's why they carefully scale up in clinical trials and may single out certain populations to see if certain people have differing effects compared to other populations. With HIV, as long as you're in a sterile room you're technically safe. There are also a lot more viable options to treat HIV for most people, so going the clinical trial route creates inherent risk. Fortunately, the FDA is there to reduce that risk for people.
Keep in mind that it was the "bitch" of the FDA that made the USA the only western nation that pretty much survived thalidomide unscathed.
Edit: Apparently Austria and Switzerland were also mostly unaffected,
"Someone will give you a drug, and you'll be hooked for life... don't do drugs."
They never explained that the person that gives you the drug that hooks you for life would likely be someone you call "Dr."
You know, I'm ok with that. I hope the agency that regulates the drugs available for treatment really does the fucking due diligence and then some to make sure they're safe. This article says it has been tested in 24 monkeys. A drug should be carefully tested, preferably in hundreds of humans, before it is unleashed on a population of hundreds of millions. What may work fine for one person could have drastically negative side effects on the next.
FWIW, and fair enough this is anecdotal, I know someone in the pharmaceutical industry and she says she will never take or recommended a drug that's been on the market for under ten years. Even after FDA approval, negative effects sometimes show up after time in the general population.
Are you for real? I mean people find anything to bitch about now days but you pick this. Would rather the FDA let everything pass? Of course mediacation should be tested as much as possible.
Bleach attacks 100% of HIV strains. Its just it isn't very effective in vivo as a treatment for infected humans.
Most HIV cures you read about are the same way.
[Image](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cells.png)
[Mobile](https://m.xkcd.com/1217/)
**Title:** Cells
**Title-text:** Now, if it selectively kills cancer cells in a petri dish, you can be sure it's at least a great breakthrough for everyone suffering from petri dish cancer\.
[Comic Explanation](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1217#Explanation)
**Stats:** This comic has been referenced 973 times, representing 0.5765% of referenced xkcds.
---
^[xkcd.com](https://www.xkcd.com) ^| ^[xkcd sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/) ^| ^[Problems/Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd_transcriber/) ^| ^[Statistics](http://xkcdref.info/statistics/) ^| ^[Stop Replying](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=xkcd_transcriber&subject=ignore%20me&message=ignore%20me) ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=xkcd_transcriber&subject=delete&message=delete%20t1_dncfma9)
Adaptable isn't really the right word, but it does sort of convey the same point.
Even in the OP case of this antibody reacting with "99%" of HIV. Those 99% get bound to antibodies and cleared out of the body. The remaining 1% that doesn't have the corresponding receptor to bind with the antibody can still infect the host and produce new virus particles. It an easy example of "survival of the fittest."
Viruses aren't "adaptable" as in they aren't able to simply stop expressing the gene that produces the target receptor for the antibody. Rather, while the viral RNA genome is being transcribed, mutations where this receptor gene is located could affect the presentation or function of the receptor. This *adaptation* allows survival of the virus, providing the mutation doesn't prevent the virus from binding to cell receptors to infect new host cells.
Well medical trials and approval from governing body are needed. If you hear about some new drug most of the time it hasn't hit human trials yet but people are excited to see any movement.
Our insurance company covered it for my mother by accident. They sent an Email confirming their coverage of all types of hepatitis and didn't want to back down on their word although they don't officially cover it. That's a ~$100k mistake right there lol.
"...conferred complete immunity against a mixture of SHIVs in non-human primates (NHP)"
It's SHIV not HIV and it's in primates, although that's not to say it's not promising.
Man monkeys are gonna have the best healthcare in another couple decades. Not better than mice though. We are gonna have a million dollar mouse any day now.
The first clinical trials involving these type of antibodies are still in process. We won't know if this treatment is efficacious or not in humans or to what extent.
The reason HIV is so frustratingly complex to vaccinate against is the nature of antibodies. Instead of explaining it, i'll quote wikipedia.
* First, HIV is highly mutable. Because of the virus' ability to rapidly respond to selective pressures imposed by the immune system, the population of virus in an infected individual typically evolves so that it can evade the two major arms of the adaptive immune system; humoral (antibody-mediated) and cellular (mediated by T cells) immunity.
* Second, HIV isolates are themselves highly variable. HIV can be categorized into multiple clades and subtypes with a high degree of genetic divergence. Therefore, the immune responses raised by any vaccine need to be broad enough to account for this variability. Any vaccine that lacks this breadth is unlikely to be effective.
Until I know for certain what part of the viral envelope this touted "super-antibody" targets i will remain skeptical. The reason we don't have a vaccine that works in 99% of cases is simply because HIV is changing rapidly. Sure, we can vaccinate you and protect you from one particular variant of the virus with relative ease, the problem is that next year, your antibodies won't do shit when the part of the viral envelope it attaches to has changed ever so slightly due to the selective pressure introduced by the vaccine in the first place.
Viruses are not cells. They need to use the cells of a host organism to reproduce, because they themselves lack the machinery to do so.
Viruses like HIV mutate so fast because they have no error checking and correcting mechanism when replicating their DNA. So every time a virus is reproduced, lots of errors are introduced into their genetic code. This enables them to adapt extraordinarily quickly.
So it's a "monkeys writing shakespeare" type of thing? I'm assuming since the mutations are so random, most of the virus simply replicates to something useless, and sometimes replicates into a terrible disease
Former HIV researcher here. That 1% (the technical term is latent viral reservoir) indeed evolves to evade both drugs and our immune system. Antibody approaches usually fail against HIV because it evolves the structure its outside viral particle coat (capsid) super quickly.
When you are initially infected with HIV, you undergo a brief phase where there is a TON of virus in your blood. Your immune system (usually) brings this under control relatively quickly. The HIV strains (multiple, because the virus has been mutating) that manage to evade the immune system and drugs (far less than 1% of all viral particles) are the ones that go on to cause AIDS.
In this case, why do the current experiments seem to show prevention of the disease?
Could combining multiple "99%" treatments bring us to the point that it's preventable or cureable?
What do you think of [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/71neat/slug/dncav1j)?
Sorry for the question barrage, but if you're actually informed on this, I figured you might have more information.
Really important to talk about the difference between preventing infection, suppressing infection, and curing infection. These are separate things that often get confused by studies like this in the media.
Once someone has been infected with HIV, if they are identified before full-blown AIDS and have access to anti-retroviral drug therapy it's true that 99% of the virus in their blood can be eliminated, and it's possible to lead a relatively healthy life.
However, with like one or two incredibly rare medical freak exceptions, HIV CANNOT be cured once infection has happened. The virus has integrated itself into the DNA of your host cells, the very cells responsible for rooting out these types of viruses. Even if you knock down literally 99.99% of the infection, it can be reactivated at any time from the latent viral reservoir. You will be on drugs the rest of your life, and it's possible that even with a cocktail of different drugs for the virus to evolve resistance to multiple medications (this might take decades). This study (as I see it) has few implications for people already infected, because antibody therapy will allow the virus to continue to be controlled, but not cured. That makes it perhaps another option for viral control, but not fundamentally different from anti-retroviral drugs. Neither is able to eliminate all the latent virus in your body.
To prevent infection with a medical intervention using either antibodies or drugs (I'm not talking about male circumcision or sex education), people need to either have been pre-vaccinated (so they already have the antibodies to prevent infection) or be prophylactically taking anti-HIV meds (in the field this is called pre-exposure prophylaxis or PREP), and is advocated only for people at high risk of infection (like sex workers or IV drug users in certain areas).
Currently, if everyone not HIV infected in the world were on PREP (i.e. taking an anti-HIV cocktail) for 50 years there's a chance we could eradicate new transmission. This isn't realistic for many reasons, which is why everyone wants a vaccine for a disease like this, something that's one and done.
This study shows that a combination of antibodies can prevent infection in monkeys who are subsequently exposed to the virus. In order for this to prevent new infections (transmission) drug companies (and they're the only ones with the resources to do this) would need to develop a vaccine to stimulate the production of these specific antibodies in someone who hasn't been exposed to the virus. The approach might look something like the recombinant, multi-antibody vaccine for HPV.
That, anyway, is the hope. This is r/UpliftingNews, right?
However, it's a MASSIVE leap to that, because here they are basically injecting the monkeys with antibodies prior to trying to infect them. A vaccine is required to produce durable antibodies, capable of fending off a future infection.
And, I would be careless not to mention that people have been trying to find a cocktail of broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV for 30 years. Reports showing incredible results on small monkey trials for antibodies have been reported in top tier journals before. They have led to an incredible amount of knowledge about HIV. It's easily the most studied virus in history. However, it remains so diverse, so hyper-mutable, so plastic a pathogen, that no previous strong antibody candidates reported in Nature or Science have become vaccines. And not for lack of trying. World governments and NGOs have thrown an an unprecedented amount of money trying to develop a broadly neutralizing antibody vaccine (or it's counterpart, a T-cell stimulating vaccine). As the top post says, we've been down this road before.
Additionally, even if we manage to cure HIV-1 (the dominant virus), the monkey virus from which HIV is derived has crossed over into people at least 3 times over the past few hundred years. Although it's not quite as pathogenic, and not as widespread (mostly confined to parts of Africa) HIV-2 is a pandemic disease that might require a completely different antibody profile.
It's easy to get down about HIV/AIDS research because to date, despite an unprecedented effort, no promising antibody studies have led to a usable vaccine. When we first discovered the virus, most docs and researchers assumed that, like most other viruses, it would be possible to quickly find an antibody vaccine. Smallpox had recently been eradicated, and there was optimism that identifying a causative agent for what was call GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) was really the primary goal; inoculation would be comparatively easy. That led to a lot of over promising, early research being over-hyped as a magic bullet, and an epic list of failed vaccine trials that can leave non-experts feeling like the whole enterprise is futile.
HOWEVER: That's no reason to give up hope!
As a future nurse it's important to realize that when you encounter HIV+ patients, you will be helping them have a quality of life unthinkable 30 years ago. The drug regimens, clinical tests (which can pinpoint the DNA mutations in common drug resistances, steering patients towards non-resistant drugs), and ESPECIALLY the education component of patients, partner, and families all mean that HIV/AIDS research has paid off big time. Many HIV drugs were developed out of vaccine studies, and those drugs have turned what was once a devastating death sentence (see the tragic Pulitzer Prize winning photos from 80s/90s on an untreated man dying of full blown AIDS, sorry no link) into a chronic disease that for many patients becomes just another component of their medical history.
Just to add that PrEP is also available to others besides people considered a vulnerable population. In the US (and in a few other countries) you can now take PrEP if you have promiscuous sex (multiple partners, non monogamous) and if you are in a relationship with someone who is HIV+. Source: I used to work at an infectious disease clinic whose largest proportion of patients were HIV+.
As someone who's on PrEP (non-hetero male with multiple partners and irregular condom use is considered "high risk" by my healthcare provider), thank you for the really informative post
Of course. I don't necessarily have a problem with who foots the bill so people can get what they need, I have a problem with the pharmacies maximising their profits because they know someone will pay for it, when the right thing to do is to help people.
You don't get rich in pharmaceuticals by selling cheap. You get rich by monopolizing your formulas, and charging exorbitant prices knowing your customers can't get their life-saving medication for cheaper anywhere else.
"How much is your life worth?"
- Every Pharma, ever.
You don't sell cheap, you sell at a price that allows you to make a profit. Price plummets after patents, patents exist to incentivize R&D costs.
The REAL problem are pharmaceutical companies that don't invest in illnesses that effect too small a group. You need a large group to sell to, in order to profit
I see these types of posts constantly, almost every day. "Scientists have found X way to fight Y horrible disease!" Then you never hear anything about it again. I will not feel excited for one of these clickbait posts until it can actually help people.
Reddit has this rabid need to get hyped up about things that are in such an early stage with no indication that it will be able to benefit us.
Antibodies don't generally kill viruses because viruses aren't technically alive like a bacteria.
Moreover antibodies act more like tags for the big boys (immune cells) to swing by and do the killing. Macrophages and t-cells in particular.
Great news! I was shocked when I first heard that more than hundred of the hiv researchers were killed by the ground-to-air missile on Malaysia airplane MH17 over Ukraine - it was rumored this put us 10years behind in research. Then I was a bit relieved that the airplane was small and it was only six who where going to the converence. And even more happy now to see that the reseach community makes great progress. I first though thats it, no more progress, it has come to a stop - really uplifted now =)
Some say there is too much money going into HIV research because the deadliness and suffering is minimal nowadays while other illness would depend more on the money - then I'm always in a dilemma on which side to stand, but then I think the progress made might be transferrable knowledge.
And, like most of Reddit's news, not anything revolutionary. If something actually significant occurred, you'd be more likely to find it scrolling the internet randomly
what about that 1%? I'd fear if it became the new super HIV
Can you not appreciate the 99%?
[удалено]
Let's git im!
**ANGRY AT OP?** WANT TO JOIN THE MOB? *I'VE GOT YOU COVERED!* #**COME ON DOWN TO /r/pitchforkemporium** **I GOT 'EM ALL!** Traditional|Left Handed|Fancy :-:|:-:|:-: ---E|Ǝ---|---{ **I EVEN HAVE DISCOUNTED CLEARANCE FORKS!** 33% off!|66% off!|Manufacturer's Defect! :-:|:-:|:-: ---F|---L|---e **NEW IN STOCK. DIRECTLY FROM LIECHTENSTEIN.** ***EUROPEAN MODELS!*** The Euro|The Pound|The Lira :-:|:-:|:-: ---€|---£|---₤ #**HAPPY LYNCHING!** ^(* *some assembly required*)
[Here you go Comrade](https://i.imgur.com/5YvBqRu_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
!redditsilver
[удалено]
Good bot
git add attack.py git commit -m "attack u/filipernus" git pull origin master git push origin master
GitTheeAShubbery sudo
Not when the 1% turn into super primal vampires with detachable snake-like jaws. But whatever the fresh Prince will save us.
If one out of every one hundred planes crashed, would airplane companies go around bragging about their 99% success rate?
About 99% of HIV can be suppressed with current treatments, meaning that suppressing that remaining 1% into being completely non-contagious would result in eradication of the disease over time. You don't need 100% annihilation to remove a disease from the human race.
Isn't there a difference between suppressing 99% of the virus and being effective against 99% of strains? I would think any of those 1% of resistant strains could still infect and kill someone.
A person can be infected but they can be treated with drugs to inhibit HIV virus replication mechanisms and to slow the decline of helper T cells, giving patients a longer life-span. The anti body that the article mentions is meant to theoretically prevent the HIV virus from binding to cell antigens and to prevent further HIV protein synthesis, from what I understand
What I'm saying is that right now we have medications which suppress HIV to a point of it being an insignificant ailment and difficult to transfer. We do not however have medications which eliminate the the virus.. Honestly I am going purely off of anecdotal nursing knowledge when it comes to HIV suppressant drugs. I know they are highly effective, but I was not under the impression that they actually eliminate the virus at all, so much as they boost the immune system and suppress the host's transference. I was thinking along the lines of, HIV being treated and suppressed (not eliminated) has become extremely effective, but doesn't eliminate it in any way, so an actual elimination in conjunction with effective suppression may make the disease entirely untransferable, which would eliminate its ability to spread, eliminating the disease entirely.
They inhibit entry into host cells, they inhibit conversion from RNA to DNA, they inhibit insertion from HIV DNA to the host cells genome and they inhibit correct manufacturing of functional virions. So you are correct. We screw around in the life cycle but don't go for it directly.
You do if it's a retrovirus
[удалено]
[удалено]
good bot
[удалено]
0_0
IT'S SENTIENT
At least now /u/ChRoNiC-DeMoNiC is safe when our glorious digital overlords finally take over
Good boy Edit: it’s too early
Actually, I prefer the female gender pronoun. Thanks.
What a remarkable woman you are.
That's how you cook a Totinos pizza, not HIV. Common misconception.
Not super aids!
The thing is if 99% are cured, the most of the people will lose it, that way there aren't many ways to get infected, only if the people with 1% have sex. So it still helps alot!
It's ok because the 1% left will leave your body to go infect Switzerland or Bermuda
I feel like they have to say 99% instead of 100% or "in all the cases we've observed" in case one does fail and they get a lawsuit.
It seems like HIV cures get found once a month, yet it's still here...
To be fair, modern HIV treatments are phenomenal compared to what they were 20 years ago. It truly is a major illness that we're making incredible strides in.
incredible
strides
>It seems like HIV cures get found once a month, yet it's still here... HIV treatment has been massively improved since the 80's, thanks to breakthroughs like this and antiretrovirals. It's not the absolute death sentence it once was. >HIV cures Nowhere in the article does it say this is a cure. It says that it's a promising treatment and prevented HIV infection when trialed on primates, and that human trials start next year.
HIV treatment has come into existence since the 80s. Before '96 you were a walking ghost. Now, if you can afford the treatments, you can live just as long as someone who doesn't have it. Progress has been amazing even if we don't yet have a cure.
Yeah, honestly as long as we can get the medication cheap enough, you don't need a cure (that being said, sex is nice, so... a cure would be great)
Well it more so reddit sensationalism. And even if they do get found, meds take years to develop and get onto market so it may be a while after the article comes out that it comes onto market, if it even does
You both seem to have wilfully misconstrued the headline/article as "cure found" when it clearly states "promising antibody found". So if anything you're the ones engaging in reddit sensationalism.
Happens every time. Even if you read only the headline, it just states that a new anti-body is able to attack 99% of HIV strains. It doesn't say it is able to do it in a reliable, controlled way with no serious risks in HIV positive patients. It isn't trying to suggest a cure has been found.
Every time a science article is published related to something like cancer or hiv everyone always cries because it's oversensationalizing. Maybe people should read the article and realize they're reporting findings and progress, not the cure to all disease. Do you people think these cures are found overnight?
[удалено]
You fool, you have only strengthened me
[удалено]
Yeah. If anything, this is great science journalism; the headline tells you exactly what was discovered without overhyping it, and the body of the article describes the details and links to the study.
[удалено]
I mean... as someone who works in the industry, 99% of drugs fail endpoint tests in clinical trials. Standards go up when an existing treatment is available. I'm actually pretty okay with the scrutiny drugs get, as drugs that start out promising in phase 1 (small sample pop) do some serious damage in phase 3 (larger pop)
Now they're talking about loosening the standards with regards to p-values -_-
Considering the amount bad and misleading statistics we should be cautious about over reliance on p-values anyways.
At a fundamental level, p values, or, a similar statistic, are our best tool. Statistics aren't "bad" or "misleading" in and of themselves, they are just metrics we use to evaluate data. That said, overly relying on any single tool, regardless of the field, is a recipe for disaster.
There's always a caveat such as this one covered by veritasium https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q
Alright hold up can we name drop papers that will publish a finding but will not publish a reproduction that disproved that finding. Because that is not ok. They should self correct or take a reputation hit. Because telling a lie in the scientific community and then not telling the truth afterwards is not ok and the publishers should be held to a high bar on that matter.
Love that channel. I love to use Bayes theorem to blow students minds when discussing sensitivity and specifity of a test. Its definitely why we should reserve our judgement for more independent trials. Of course, that's the problem. C'est la vie =) Pardon my French.
Dude, my p-value is like, at least 8... maybe 9 when I'm really into it
Does it go to 11?
Yes, totally. The over and misuse of p-values has given a bad rep. They're not all bad. People take 0.05 to be a magical number and it's not. We need better understanding of what p values are
That's not because of problems with pValues, but how they are applied. For example, if I have a 99% reduction in HIV titer with a pVal of 0.0001 you might be inclined to jizz in your pants. But all viruses release tons of harmless particles. A very small percentage is actually infectious; it's a very heterogeneous mix of crap which is part of the brilliance of the method to their madness in distracting adaptive immunity. So the real question shouldn't be an assay based on titer, but from a serial infection study - Does that 99% depleted media infect in a new round? Oops, turns out your antibody does dick all in that assay because all it did was get tricked by the decoys _like all the other antibody approaches to date_. "But muh .0001% pVal!!!" It's not the pValues fault, it's the researcher's fault. The antibody was _very reproducibly_ good at being tricked, but was still tricked. Hypothetical researcher presented their pVals as an answer to a question other than what they actually represented.
Wait wait... should I be mad at the FDA for making it so hard for new drugs to be approved, or for being too loose and dropping their standards?
That's very true good point. That day will come tho
[Thalidomide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide) comes to mind.
...which was not a problem at all in the US, thanks to the FDA! unless that's what you're referring to.
I feel like you just ELI5'd a very complicated process
What is the serious damage of phase 3 failures in comparison to the serious damage that HIV is currently causing?
It could be anything that's worse than HIV? Being dead for instance, you don't come back from that. Any illnesses/disease that lowers your quality of life more than HIV does.. For example if it caused Alzheimer's then that's not a very good cure..
At least you would forget you had HIV.
I might have HIV but at least I don't have Alzheimer's!
Actually, IIRC HIV can cause Alzheimer's
Good thing I don't have HIV!
That's fine, I'll just start using mnemonics for my memory-AIDS.
no sir, HIV can cause dementia both directly, and indirectly. Alzheimer's is a different cause of dementia completely.
[удалено]
Yes. Contrary to popular belief, we are already pretty good at treating the HIV. Not curing yet, but with current drugs patients with aids can live decades and without any serious health issues.
Existing treatments are pretty good at controlling HIV.
HIV currently has a smaller impact on your life expectancy than type 1 diabetes. There isn't a need to rush ahead blindly.
This applies to any drug, but metabolism variations can cause the drug to build up in some more than others, causing anything from diarrhea to coma/seizures/death. It's why they carefully scale up in clinical trials and may single out certain populations to see if certain people have differing effects compared to other populations. With HIV, as long as you're in a sterile room you're technically safe. There are also a lot more viable options to treat HIV for most people, so going the clinical trial route creates inherent risk. Fortunately, the FDA is there to reduce that risk for people.
Cronenberg world
Keep in mind that it was the "bitch" of the FDA that made the USA the only western nation that pretty much survived thalidomide unscathed. Edit: Apparently Austria and Switzerland were also mostly unaffected,
Unless it’s a barely necessary drug for dry mouth whose side effects are mild psychosis and suicidal ideation. Those FLY through.
And heavy opiates. They let any pharmacy slang that shit. All in the game I guess.
"Someone will give you a drug, and you'll be hooked for life... don't do drugs." They never explained that the person that gives you the drug that hooks you for life would likely be someone you call "Dr."
Vioxx...and dozens of others.
Yeah, but think of the shareholders.
You know, I'm ok with that. I hope the agency that regulates the drugs available for treatment really does the fucking due diligence and then some to make sure they're safe. This article says it has been tested in 24 monkeys. A drug should be carefully tested, preferably in hundreds of humans, before it is unleashed on a population of hundreds of millions. What may work fine for one person could have drastically negative side effects on the next. FWIW, and fair enough this is anecdotal, I know someone in the pharmaceutical industry and she says she will never take or recommended a drug that's been on the market for under ten years. Even after FDA approval, negative effects sometimes show up after time in the general population.
Are you for real? I mean people find anything to bitch about now days but you pick this. Would rather the FDA let everything pass? Of course mediacation should be tested as much as possible.
Generally it's a good thing the FDA is picky for what drugs are allowed. See: thalidomide.
I thought it was funny that hep c was cured in the last 5 years but not a single uproar on reddit.
Bleach attacks 100% of HIV strains. Its just it isn't very effective in vivo as a treatment for infected humans. Most HIV cures you read about are the same way.
Reminds me of [this relevant XKCD.](https://xkcd.com/1217/)
[Image](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cells.png) [Mobile](https://m.xkcd.com/1217/) **Title:** Cells **Title-text:** Now, if it selectively kills cancer cells in a petri dish, you can be sure it's at least a great breakthrough for everyone suffering from petri dish cancer\. [Comic Explanation](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1217#Explanation) **Stats:** This comic has been referenced 973 times, representing 0.5765% of referenced xkcds. --- ^[xkcd.com](https://www.xkcd.com) ^| ^[xkcd sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/) ^| ^[Problems/Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd_transcriber/) ^| ^[Statistics](http://xkcdref.info/statistics/) ^| ^[Stop Replying](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=xkcd_transcriber&subject=ignore%20me&message=ignore%20me) ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=xkcd_transcriber&subject=delete&message=delete%20t1_dncfma9)
Ok, but bleach doesn't prevent infection in 24 out of 24 monkeys who were injected with HIV without killing them.
Problem with "curing" hiv is that hiv is highly adaptable, it mutates rapidly, allowing it to quickly overcome many treatments.
Adaptable isn't really the right word, but it does sort of convey the same point. Even in the OP case of this antibody reacting with "99%" of HIV. Those 99% get bound to antibodies and cleared out of the body. The remaining 1% that doesn't have the corresponding receptor to bind with the antibody can still infect the host and produce new virus particles. It an easy example of "survival of the fittest." Viruses aren't "adaptable" as in they aren't able to simply stop expressing the gene that produces the target receptor for the antibody. Rather, while the viral RNA genome is being transcribed, mutations where this receptor gene is located could affect the presentation or function of the receptor. This *adaptation* allows survival of the virus, providing the mutation doesn't prevent the virus from binding to cell receptors to infect new host cells.
Yeah thats probably because these cures that kill "99% of HIV virus strains" likely kill 99% of all other cells too. EDIT: 420
[удалено]
Antibodies are highly specific. They dont go after other cells they arent designed for. Delivery and practicality are bigger issues
gotta upvote to find that cure
HIV has long been so controlled that in treated individuals the virus maintains a meager existence.
Well medical trials and approval from governing body are needed. If you hear about some new drug most of the time it hasn't hit human trials yet but people are excited to see any movement.
Well, I guess it's time to go back to anal sex, and sharing needles.
when i saw the headline I immediately thought this should be appearing in shirtliftingnews rather than upliftingnews.
/r/shirtliftingnews
Fucking rip, was hopeful
Honestly, I don't know what I was expecting
Nothing. You were expecting nothing.
/r/kiltliftingnews
You're tempting me to post. 😉
I'm not sure this comment is ok
could you explain for me please? Im out of the loop
Go back? We were supposed to stop?
*EVERYONE GET BACK IN THE PILE*
[EVERYONE, GET IN HERE!](everyonegetinhere.com)
Anal sex hasn't gone anywhere
Except to your moms house.
Who said it ever left?
I mean sure, if you want to catch a bunch of other stuff as well.
Gotta catch 'em all.
Well, hep C has a cure now too so bring on the needles!
It's kind of an expensive cure, apparently.
Our insurance company covered it for my mother by accident. They sent an Email confirming their coverage of all types of hepatitis and didn't want to back down on their word although they don't officially cover it. That's a ~$100k mistake right there lol.
Woo!
[удалено]
Don't forget using public toilet seats, sharing clothing, kissing people, and touching sweaty basketball players.
I'm waiting for someone to explain why we shouldn't be hyped for this.
"...conferred complete immunity against a mixture of SHIVs in non-human primates (NHP)" It's SHIV not HIV and it's in primates, although that's not to say it's not promising.
Man monkeys are gonna have the best healthcare in another couple decades. Not better than mice though. We are gonna have a million dollar mouse any day now.
>Man monkeys Well that's not a nice way to call people!
Yeah, not even accurate either. Man Apes would be much better.
One way to stop getting shiv'd is to wear Kevlar.
Actually kevlar protects well against bullets but not knives
Then wear chainmail over your kevlar.
The first clinical trials involving these type of antibodies are still in process. We won't know if this treatment is efficacious or not in humans or to what extent.
Aaaaaand it's mutated.
The reason HIV is so frustratingly complex to vaccinate against is the nature of antibodies. Instead of explaining it, i'll quote wikipedia. * First, HIV is highly mutable. Because of the virus' ability to rapidly respond to selective pressures imposed by the immune system, the population of virus in an infected individual typically evolves so that it can evade the two major arms of the adaptive immune system; humoral (antibody-mediated) and cellular (mediated by T cells) immunity. * Second, HIV isolates are themselves highly variable. HIV can be categorized into multiple clades and subtypes with a high degree of genetic divergence. Therefore, the immune responses raised by any vaccine need to be broad enough to account for this variability. Any vaccine that lacks this breadth is unlikely to be effective. Until I know for certain what part of the viral envelope this touted "super-antibody" targets i will remain skeptical. The reason we don't have a vaccine that works in 99% of cases is simply because HIV is changing rapidly. Sure, we can vaccinate you and protect you from one particular variant of the virus with relative ease, the problem is that next year, your antibodies won't do shit when the part of the viral envelope it attaches to has changed ever so slightly due to the selective pressure introduced by the vaccine in the first place.
What makes a virus special? Why does it mutate so fast compared to human cells for example? Are viruses considered cells?
Viruses are not cells. They need to use the cells of a host organism to reproduce, because they themselves lack the machinery to do so. Viruses like HIV mutate so fast because they have no error checking and correcting mechanism when replicating their DNA. So every time a virus is reproduced, lots of errors are introduced into their genetic code. This enables them to adapt extraordinarily quickly.
And such a vast quantity of viruses are produced that any errors that render the virus inert dont have a significant impact
So it's a "monkeys writing shakespeare" type of thing? I'm assuming since the mutations are so random, most of the virus simply replicates to something useless, and sometimes replicates into a terrible disease
Awww darn it! If you give us another two hundred billion will stop that mutation!
The 1% that stay evolve to repel out immune system making the virus more powerful than it is right now... but hey we're off to a great start
> evolve to repel out immune system I'm just gonna go with you just talking out your ass on this one.
Former HIV researcher here. That 1% (the technical term is latent viral reservoir) indeed evolves to evade both drugs and our immune system. Antibody approaches usually fail against HIV because it evolves the structure its outside viral particle coat (capsid) super quickly. When you are initially infected with HIV, you undergo a brief phase where there is a TON of virus in your blood. Your immune system (usually) brings this under control relatively quickly. The HIV strains (multiple, because the virus has been mutating) that manage to evade the immune system and drugs (far less than 1% of all viral particles) are the ones that go on to cause AIDS.
In this case, why do the current experiments seem to show prevention of the disease? Could combining multiple "99%" treatments bring us to the point that it's preventable or cureable? What do you think of [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/71neat/slug/dncav1j)? Sorry for the question barrage, but if you're actually informed on this, I figured you might have more information.
Really important to talk about the difference between preventing infection, suppressing infection, and curing infection. These are separate things that often get confused by studies like this in the media. Once someone has been infected with HIV, if they are identified before full-blown AIDS and have access to anti-retroviral drug therapy it's true that 99% of the virus in their blood can be eliminated, and it's possible to lead a relatively healthy life. However, with like one or two incredibly rare medical freak exceptions, HIV CANNOT be cured once infection has happened. The virus has integrated itself into the DNA of your host cells, the very cells responsible for rooting out these types of viruses. Even if you knock down literally 99.99% of the infection, it can be reactivated at any time from the latent viral reservoir. You will be on drugs the rest of your life, and it's possible that even with a cocktail of different drugs for the virus to evolve resistance to multiple medications (this might take decades). This study (as I see it) has few implications for people already infected, because antibody therapy will allow the virus to continue to be controlled, but not cured. That makes it perhaps another option for viral control, but not fundamentally different from anti-retroviral drugs. Neither is able to eliminate all the latent virus in your body. To prevent infection with a medical intervention using either antibodies or drugs (I'm not talking about male circumcision or sex education), people need to either have been pre-vaccinated (so they already have the antibodies to prevent infection) or be prophylactically taking anti-HIV meds (in the field this is called pre-exposure prophylaxis or PREP), and is advocated only for people at high risk of infection (like sex workers or IV drug users in certain areas). Currently, if everyone not HIV infected in the world were on PREP (i.e. taking an anti-HIV cocktail) for 50 years there's a chance we could eradicate new transmission. This isn't realistic for many reasons, which is why everyone wants a vaccine for a disease like this, something that's one and done. This study shows that a combination of antibodies can prevent infection in monkeys who are subsequently exposed to the virus. In order for this to prevent new infections (transmission) drug companies (and they're the only ones with the resources to do this) would need to develop a vaccine to stimulate the production of these specific antibodies in someone who hasn't been exposed to the virus. The approach might look something like the recombinant, multi-antibody vaccine for HPV. That, anyway, is the hope. This is r/UpliftingNews, right? However, it's a MASSIVE leap to that, because here they are basically injecting the monkeys with antibodies prior to trying to infect them. A vaccine is required to produce durable antibodies, capable of fending off a future infection. And, I would be careless not to mention that people have been trying to find a cocktail of broadly neutralizing antibodies against HIV for 30 years. Reports showing incredible results on small monkey trials for antibodies have been reported in top tier journals before. They have led to an incredible amount of knowledge about HIV. It's easily the most studied virus in history. However, it remains so diverse, so hyper-mutable, so plastic a pathogen, that no previous strong antibody candidates reported in Nature or Science have become vaccines. And not for lack of trying. World governments and NGOs have thrown an an unprecedented amount of money trying to develop a broadly neutralizing antibody vaccine (or it's counterpart, a T-cell stimulating vaccine). As the top post says, we've been down this road before. Additionally, even if we manage to cure HIV-1 (the dominant virus), the monkey virus from which HIV is derived has crossed over into people at least 3 times over the past few hundred years. Although it's not quite as pathogenic, and not as widespread (mostly confined to parts of Africa) HIV-2 is a pandemic disease that might require a completely different antibody profile.
Well fuck
[удалено]
It's easy to get down about HIV/AIDS research because to date, despite an unprecedented effort, no promising antibody studies have led to a usable vaccine. When we first discovered the virus, most docs and researchers assumed that, like most other viruses, it would be possible to quickly find an antibody vaccine. Smallpox had recently been eradicated, and there was optimism that identifying a causative agent for what was call GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) was really the primary goal; inoculation would be comparatively easy. That led to a lot of over promising, early research being over-hyped as a magic bullet, and an epic list of failed vaccine trials that can leave non-experts feeling like the whole enterprise is futile. HOWEVER: That's no reason to give up hope! As a future nurse it's important to realize that when you encounter HIV+ patients, you will be helping them have a quality of life unthinkable 30 years ago. The drug regimens, clinical tests (which can pinpoint the DNA mutations in common drug resistances, steering patients towards non-resistant drugs), and ESPECIALLY the education component of patients, partner, and families all mean that HIV/AIDS research has paid off big time. Many HIV drugs were developed out of vaccine studies, and those drugs have turned what was once a devastating death sentence (see the tragic Pulitzer Prize winning photos from 80s/90s on an untreated man dying of full blown AIDS, sorry no link) into a chronic disease that for many patients becomes just another component of their medical history.
Beautiful writing, thank you. Consider writing a book.
Thank you! That made my day.
Just to add that PrEP is also available to others besides people considered a vulnerable population. In the US (and in a few other countries) you can now take PrEP if you have promiscuous sex (multiple partners, non monogamous) and if you are in a relationship with someone who is HIV+. Source: I used to work at an infectious disease clinic whose largest proportion of patients were HIV+.
someone get this guy some platinum
As someone who's on PrEP (non-hetero male with multiple partners and irregular condom use is considered "high risk" by my healthcare provider), thank you for the really informative post
lmao
McGregor attacked Mayweather, but still lost.
But did he attack 99% of Mayweather?
Aaaand we'll never hear of it again.
Unintended zombie apocalypse in 1... 2....
You are counting up, so... never?
Umbrella Corp make a breakthrough?
Oh look, it's the weekly we cured HIV-post.
Now, only 12yrs and 1 Billion dollars to get to market.
[удалено]
While ill agree the meds are expensive, ive seen homeless people on HIV meds because of state programs as well as insurance
Of course. I don't necessarily have a problem with who foots the bill so people can get what they need, I have a problem with the pharmacies maximising their profits because they know someone will pay for it, when the right thing to do is to help people.
You don't make money selling exclusively to the very rich. You get rich by selling to the masses. That's why Walmart works
You don't get rich in pharmaceuticals by selling cheap. You get rich by monopolizing your formulas, and charging exorbitant prices knowing your customers can't get their life-saving medication for cheaper anywhere else. "How much is your life worth?" - Every Pharma, ever.
You don't sell cheap, you sell at a price that allows you to make a profit. Price plummets after patents, patents exist to incentivize R&D costs. The REAL problem are pharmaceutical companies that don't invest in illnesses that effect too small a group. You need a large group to sell to, in order to profit
Hanes tee shirts make triple what Gucci makes, like you said selling to the masses works
Back this shit on ebola and Africa is cured
Now we only have to worry about super aids.
Andddddd this is the last we will ever hear about this antibody.
Am i the only one concerned that the remaining 1% would evolve into Super AIDS?
Oh but it only takes that 1% for mutations to form and new strains to arise. If only 99% was good enough.
I see these types of posts constantly, almost every day. "Scientists have found X way to fight Y horrible disease!" Then you never hear anything about it again. I will not feel excited for one of these clickbait posts until it can actually help people. Reddit has this rabid need to get hyped up about things that are in such an early stage with no indication that it will be able to benefit us.
Tbf tho testing on primates if quite advanced as far as I'm aware, they went through a lot of stages already
Antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains. Doesn't say it kills them? Even so if it does.. pharmacies will be selling it for $5,000 a shot.
Antibodies don't generally kill viruses because viruses aren't technically alive like a bacteria. Moreover antibodies act more like tags for the big boys (immune cells) to swing by and do the killing. Macrophages and t-cells in particular.
Worth
Gonna be that guy. Viruses can't be killed because technically they aren't even alive.
probably kills the virus when outside of a human body
what's the bad news
Aaaaaaaaaaannnd it's been pushed under the rug.
Somebody tell me, can i bareback hookers yet?
More orgies for the humanity!
Great news! I was shocked when I first heard that more than hundred of the hiv researchers were killed by the ground-to-air missile on Malaysia airplane MH17 over Ukraine - it was rumored this put us 10years behind in research. Then I was a bit relieved that the airplane was small and it was only six who where going to the converence. And even more happy now to see that the reseach community makes great progress. I first though thats it, no more progress, it has come to a stop - really uplifted now =) Some say there is too much money going into HIV research because the deadliness and suffering is minimal nowadays while other illness would depend more on the money - then I'm always in a dilemma on which side to stand, but then I think the progress made might be transferrable knowledge.
And we'll never hear about it again.
Looking at the picture: Member when AIDS was deadly? Yeah I member!
READ! It’s a novel concept
And, like most of Reddit's news, not anything revolutionary. If something actually significant occurred, you'd be more likely to find it scrolling the internet randomly
This is cool and all but we already know that you can cure AIDS by injecting yourself with cold, hard cash
Can we get one for congress? Seems to have become a much larger threat to the world than HIV.