5 ms·

I'm sure that it is much more complicated than this, but I wonder how long the virus can remain immune to all previous '99%' cures? Maybe eventually we could co

I'm sure that it is much more complicated than this, but I wonder how long the virus can remain immune to all previous '99%' cures? Maybe eventually we could come up with enough of these and then administer them all at once.

carlisle_ 9y ago
I believe that's actually somewhat how AIDs treatments have worked. I'm not sure if all are like that but it's pretty much the exact logic.
- esm 9y ago
  Yep. Triple therapy is now standard in HIV treatment. The odds of developing mutations to 2-3 agents simultaneously are very low
  - skygazer 9y ago
    When I was a teenager, I wrote a connect four game, and my brother would play it. Every time he'd win, I'd jump back into the code. I realized it was a fruitless cat and mouse (not only because the game is trivial) but because of the pacing of my "fixes" -- if I could have had the final version completed before he first played, he might have been stymied, but the iterations seemed to give him an easy path -- he only needed to solve one problem at a time.
  - bjterry 9y ago
    Why don't we deliver all antibiotics as a triple? Wouldn't that eliminate antiobiotic resistance?
    - DrScump 9y ago
      Antibiotics kill bacteria, not viruses. And that includes desired strains.
c3534l 9y ago
Probably for longer than we can keep coming up with chemicals that selectively kill it. After all, if we're not killed by the chemical, then that means it's possible to survive it.
- fghvbnvbnfe 9y ago
  That's not really a meaningful argument. You're talking about a large multi-cellular organism that has tissues, organs, and all that and comparing it to something that doesn't even have cells.
chimeracoder 9y ago
> I'm sure that it is much more complicated than this, but I wonder how long the virus can remain immune to all previous '99%' cures? Maybe eventually we could come up with enough of these and then administer them all at once. That's basically what HAART (the technique we've used to treat HIV successfully for the last 25 years) is. People take three antiretrovirals simultaneously. They're designed such that, for the virus to adapt to one, it has to make itself more susceptible to one of the other two.
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  > They're designed such that, for the virus to adapt to one, it has to make itself more susceptible to one of the other two. That's not really accurate. HAART works because the 3 drugs are taken simultaneously, and it's extremely unlikely for a virus to get random mutations that confer resistance to all three in one generation.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > That's not really accurate. HAART works because the 3 drugs are taken simultaneously, and it's extremely unlikely for a virus to get random mutations that confer resistance to all three in one generation. That is literally exactly what I said. The drugs are taken simultaneously, and it is very difficult to develop resistance to all three simultaneously, because becoming more resistant to one means becoming more susceptible to another.
    - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
      Not sure if it's just miscommunication, or you misunderstand how HAART works, because you said "That is literally exactly what I said", and then in your next sentence repeat the statement that is false, "becoming more resistant to one means becoming more susceptible to another." For example, suppose you take ATripla, which is a combination of efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir. If a viral particle has a random mutation that confers resistance to, say, efavirenz, that mutation does not make the virus more susceptible to emtricabine or tenofovir. The fact is the virus was already susceptible to those two drugs (that's why you take tests that specify your viral strain's pre-existing resistances to determine the best drugs for you before you start HAART), so it still is unable to replicate. It's just a matter of statistics, not that resistance-granting mutations naturally make the virus more susceptible to other drugs.

carlisle_ 9y ago

I believe that's actually somewhat how AIDs treatments have worked. I'm not sure if all are like that but it's pretty much the exact logic.

esm 9y ago
Yep. Triple therapy is now standard in HIV treatment. The odds of developing mutations to 2-3 agents simultaneously are very low
- skygazer 9y ago
  When I was a teenager, I wrote a connect four game, and my brother would play it. Every time he'd win, I'd jump back into the code. I realized it was a fruitless cat and mouse (not only because the game is trivial) but because of the pacing of my "fixes" -- if I could have had the final version completed before he first played, he might have been stymied, but the iterations seemed to give him an easy path -- he only needed to solve one problem at a time.
- bjterry 9y ago
  Why don't we deliver all antibiotics as a triple? Wouldn't that eliminate antiobiotic resistance?
  - DrScump 9y ago
    Antibiotics kill bacteria, not viruses. And that includes desired strains.

c3534l 9y ago

Probably for longer than we can keep coming up with chemicals that selectively kill it. After all, if we're not killed by the chemical, then that means it's possible to survive it.

fghvbnvbnfe 9y ago
That's not really a meaningful argument. You're talking about a large multi-cellular organism that has tissues, organs, and all that and comparing it to something that doesn't even have cells.

chimeracoder 9y ago

> I'm sure that it is much more complicated than this, but I wonder how long the virus can remain immune to all previous '99%' cures? Maybe eventually we could come up with enough of these and then administer them all at once. That's basically what HAART (the technique we've used to treat HIV successfully for the last 25 years) is. People take three antiretrovirals simultaneously. They're designed such that, for the virus to adapt to one, it has to make itself more susceptible to one of the other two.

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
> They're designed such that, for the virus to adapt to one, it has to make itself more susceptible to one of the other two. That's not really accurate. HAART works because the 3 drugs are taken simultaneously, and it's extremely unlikely for a virus to get random mutations that confer resistance to all three in one generation.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > That's not really accurate. HAART works because the 3 drugs are taken simultaneously, and it's extremely unlikely for a virus to get random mutations that confer resistance to all three in one generation. That is literally exactly what I said. The drugs are taken simultaneously, and it is very difficult to develop resistance to all three simultaneously, because becoming more resistant to one means becoming more susceptible to another.
  - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
    Not sure if it's just miscommunication, or you misunderstand how HAART works, because you said "That is literally exactly what I said", and then in your next sentence repeat the statement that is false, "becoming more resistant to one means becoming more susceptible to another." For example, suppose you take ATripla, which is a combination of efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir. If a viral particle has a random mutation that confers resistance to, say, efavirenz, that mutation does not make the virus more susceptible to emtricabine or tenofovir. The fact is the virus was already susceptible to those two drugs (that's why you take tests that specify your viral strain's pre-existing resistances to determine the best drugs for you before you start HAART), so it still is unable to replicate. It's just a matter of statistics, not that resistance-granting mutations naturally make the virus more susceptible to other drugs.