4 ms·

A very real, though slightly impractical, cure for AIDS

43 points by rms 18y ago

rms 18y ago
This is the real deal, though it isn't practical at large scale. My business partner is bitter because he had this idea a year ago and was told by experts in the field that it would never work.
- ingenium 18y ago
  >My business partner is bitter because he had this idea a year ago and was told by experts in the field that it would never work. It's described in this post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47751 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47751 and my follow up comment.
- ComputerGuru 18y ago
  "experts" you mean.
- timr 18y ago
  Sounds like this idea predates your partner, but more generally, the skepticism he encountered would be a feature of science, not a bug. Scientists are paid to be skeptical. (I know that you probably know this, but I think most people would take your comment to mean that establishment scientists are all incompetent curmudgeons, irrationally resistant to "outsider" ideas.)
river_styx 18y ago
*impractical
tocomment 18y ago
What makes it so impractical? Isn't a bone marrow transplant just an injection with the new cells? It doesn't even require surgery right? Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about.
- hugh 18y ago
  I'm no expert either, but I think the problem is that suitable donors are extremely rare -- and most of them would prefer not to give up their bone marrow to some random stranger, thanks very much. update: Oh, and a bone marrow transplant is a horrible procedure which kills 30% of recipients.
  - rms 18y ago
    Yeah... for it to work you basically have to completely destroy the immune system of the transplant target and they recover in a bubble.
    - kylec 18y ago
      The way I see it AIDS will do that on its own, so you might as well give it a shot.
      - rms 18y ago
        AIDS perhaps, but anyone that could afford to pay for a treatment like this is unlikely to have progressed past HIV, as they could surely afford the best current treatments.
  - ComputerGuru 18y ago
    Also, unlike other kinds of donations, bone marrow transplants are a bit more taxing on the donor. It's a painful procedure that requires a hospital stay for donor and recipient, and it's really complicated. To put things in perspective, it's physically easier to donate a kidney than bone marrow.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
mleonhard 18y ago
I bet the first designer babies will all have this CCR5 mutation and will be immune to HIV.
- tel 18y ago
  I doubt it. It's effectiveness relies on the fact that CCR5 isn't so common as to force microevolution. Like antibiotics, something like this needs to be applied very carefully.
  - ingenium 18y ago
    Sure, it may evolve around it, as there already exist some strains that infect directly via the CXCR4 receptor and bypass CCR5 receptors all together. However, this isn't reason to not include the mutation in "designer babies". It will still be effective, and provides resistance to diseases other than HIV (though it also makes you slightly more susceptible to others). In other words, there really isn't any reason to NOT include it, especially since there is a definite benefit achieved by including it.
aredkin 18y ago
Couldn't it be that he never had AIDS and its just a mistake?

43 points by rms 18y ago

rms 18y ago

This is the real deal, though it isn't practical at large scale. My business partner is bitter because he had this idea a year ago and was told by experts in the field that it would never work.

ingenium 18y ago
>My business partner is bitter because he had this idea a year ago and was told by experts in the field that it would never work. It's described in this post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47751 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47751 and my follow up comment.
ComputerGuru 18y ago
"experts" you mean.
timr 18y ago
Sounds like this idea predates your partner, but more generally, the skepticism he encountered would be a feature of science, not a bug. Scientists are paid to be skeptical. (I know that you probably know this, but I think most people would take your comment to mean that establishment scientists are all incompetent curmudgeons, irrationally resistant to "outsider" ideas.)

river_styx 18y ago

*impractical

tocomment 18y ago

What makes it so impractical? Isn't a bone marrow transplant just an injection with the new cells? It doesn't even require surgery right? Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about.

hugh 18y ago
I'm no expert either, but I think the problem is that suitable donors are extremely rare -- and most of them would prefer not to give up their bone marrow to some random stranger, thanks very much. update: Oh, and a bone marrow transplant is a horrible procedure which kills 30% of recipients.
- rms 18y ago
  Yeah... for it to work you basically have to completely destroy the immune system of the transplant target and they recover in a bubble.
  - kylec 18y ago
    The way I see it AIDS will do that on its own, so you might as well give it a shot.
    - rms 18y ago
      AIDS perhaps, but anyone that could afford to pay for a treatment like this is unlikely to have progressed past HIV, as they could surely afford the best current treatments.
- ComputerGuru 18y ago
  Also, unlike other kinds of donations, bone marrow transplants are a bit more taxing on the donor. It's a painful procedure that requires a hospital stay for donor and recipient, and it's really complicated. To put things in perspective, it's physically easier to donate a kidney than bone marrow.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

mleonhard 18y ago

I bet the first designer babies will all have this CCR5 mutation and will be immune to HIV.

tel 18y ago
I doubt it. It's effectiveness relies on the fact that CCR5 isn't so common as to force microevolution. Like antibiotics, something like this needs to be applied very carefully.
- ingenium 18y ago
  Sure, it may evolve around it, as there already exist some strains that infect directly via the CXCR4 receptor and bypass CCR5 receptors all together. However, this isn't reason to not include the mutation in "designer babies". It will still be effective, and provides resistance to diseases other than HIV (though it also makes you slightly more susceptible to others). In other words, there really isn't any reason to NOT include it, especially since there is a definite benefit achieved by including it.

aredkin 18y ago

Couldn't it be that he never had AIDS and its just a mistake?