4 ms·

>If they can inoculate against AIDS, then the human race may just survive the next millennium. Can you elaborate as to how this would improve the prospects of

• bluepizza 5y ago
  ?
• echelon 5y ago
  > If anything, such a development would enable a greater proliferation of other dangerous pathogens. No, it wouldn't necessarily. While it's true that a vaccine would apply selection pressure and create a fitness gradient for HIV to evolve against, the virus is still bound by its genetics. The rate at which we're developing vaccines is increasing dramatically. If our new methods are good enough to quickly adapt, then HIV may have a limited state space left to explore. A single remarkable vaccine could even do this on its own if we're lucky. The virus can't easily descend down a fitness well to make a jump to a new gradient (ie. dramatic change of receptor bindings). If you're talking about novel viruses, that's a wholly unrelated issue. There's of course a giant reservoir of zoonotic viruses that may one day make a leap to humans, but if anything, our work to rapidly develop vaccines may give us an increased advantage against new viruses if and when they arise. Finally, if you're talking "hygiene hypothesis", that under-stimulation of the immune system creates auto immune disorders, has increased interaction with gut flora, or changes the dynamics with which cancer clearance happens, then you may be onto something. But this is a huge unknown where we have a lot of study left to do. (On a personal note, I left my pursuit of biochem because when I studied it, the prospects looked to be moving at glacial pace and the tools felt akin to using punch cards and truth tables. The problems are massive, dynamical, and it looked too daunting. After the last decade and a half of bio discoveries and innovations, I've changed my outlook completely and am incredibly bullish on biotech. We are going to make incredible strides in the next few decades that will in many ways mirror the rise of tech. I want to find my way back to the field someday.)
• mellavora 5y ago
  Former HIV researcher here. Right now, HIV is a manageable condition, but ONLY because of the availability of drugs which suppress the virus. The virus eventually learns how to get around the drugs, at which point the patient either switches drugs or dies in a few years. Without drugs, HIV is (near) 100% fatal. And since it takes a few years to kill, infected people have plenty of time to pass it on. Which they do. Also, the first HIV infection feels like a minor cold. Most people would not even know they were HIV positive (until their immune system collapsed), were it not for lab testing. Then just apply some basic epidemiology to these facts, and you see that you have a disease which has the potential to infect (and thus kill) a sizeable percent of the population. As in double-digit percentages.
  • JshWright 5y ago
    I don't think the GP comment was being that specific. An HIV vaccine would be huge, but the fundamental research that was necessary to get to the point of a viable vaccine (pending successful trials, obviously) would pay dividends far beyond just HIV.
  • Traubenfuchs 5y ago
    What's your perspective on the future effectivity (or decline) of current PrEP treatments?