Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JuggernautNo6974 t1_irelwp3 wrote

I’m not remotely in the medical field and have no understanding of chemistry or biology and don’t even know much about HIV. From an outsider who just reads the news, it seems like we’re fairly close to curing HIV? Seems like there have been a lot of breakthroughs in the last 3, 5 ish years.

Does anyone have an objective estimate as to how close we are scientifically?

106

chcampb t1_iremwtp wrote

Anywhere between 12 weeks and a few decades?

97

Km2930 t1_irg7uzf wrote

I believe China performed CRISPR on a few individuals by inserting genes of people who are naturally immune to HIV. It was already done, it’s just unreasonably expensive to do on every single individual. That was reported a few years ago and then the people and the scientists disappeared. There was also the case in Germany where somebody had a stem cell transplant from an individual who had natural immunity to HIV and that recipient became HIV negative. It’s another example of somebody who is cured of HIV, but it’s way too expensive and risky to do on the average person

26

mt-beefcake t1_irh8lzs wrote

Thats very cool, i havnt looked into China's research on crisper treatments yet. From my understanding generally the treatments are not expensive to make at all after R&D, and would be pennies compared to a life long regime of drugs. It's just not profitable enough to make a cure readily available.

5

Jamothee t1_irhryuy wrote

>There was also the case in Germany where somebody had a stem cell transplant from an individual who had natural immunity to HIV and that recipient became HIV negative.

That is wild. The human body is so adaptable, it's incredible

3

JustAStepTooFar t1_irhg9iw wrote

This is too funny to be acceptable ok? Someone do something about this menace

0

Technic235 t1_iren6z5 wrote

We won't know how "close" we are until an actual cure is discovered that can be safely used on a large population. Some of these technologies have been dead ends, for now. Like 4-5 people have been cured EVER but they were on their deathbeds and basically all their bone marrow was destroyed and replaced to cure a different disease and the chance of death from the procedure was very high. Curing HIV was just a happy accident in their cases.

71

shoutymcloud t1_irfttuv wrote

I’m in medical field - we’re at a point where we can use daily, oral medications to suppress HIV to the point it is undetectable. The person has an almost zero risk of transmission and has the same life expectancy as someone without HIV. They still have the virus and they still have to take the pills, but it interferes with their life very little, it would seem.

21

conditerite t1_irh8ku8 wrote

What I’m hoping is that this might prove to be a solution for those who are HIV positive and suffer from lipodystrophy because of it. That problem has been a less-known aspect of HIV that has entirely eluded any effective treatment.

4

Nytarsha t1_irhsewx wrote

Another issue I often see overlooked when people talk about the efficacy of modern HIV meds is how hard they are on the liver.

I mean, yeah, they do a great job at suppressing the virus, and the pros drastically outweigh the cons, but they can contribute to liver damage in certain circumstances.

I know it's better than the alternative, but I just want people to be aware since sometimes the meds are touted as some magic wand that makes all the bad stuff go away. There are side effects.

3

zxcbvnm90 t1_ireonsv wrote

It's just like that saying when you lose your keys, etc. They are always in the last place you look.

Since we don't know what option will end up panning out, we can't make a good determination for a timeline.

12

Wise_Meet_9933 t1_irf5rv1 wrote

if not a good determination, then span out a great summation. Thirty years is a very long time ride along with help of computation, arguably, 18 years.

1

Rogermcfarley t1_irf1hz6 wrote

Most people don't die from HIV now so it's not the death sentence it used to be as the medications we have are good for treating HIV. But yes medication isn't a cure but we're getting closer to one. Biochemistry is very complex and we rely on studies to enhance our knowledge, however not all studies are high quality. Biochemistry is so vastly complex that it's slow going. For example cosmetic conditions such as male pattern baldness are still not fully understood which is why we don't have any drugs yet that were designed to treat baldness, only repurposed drugs such as Minoxidil and Finasteride.

I have these charts from Roche, which are just a few of the main biochemical pathways in the human body, so whenever I get an idea that solving a biochemical problem is easy I just look at the charts >

http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1

There's many 100s or thousands more pathways and more to discover. Nature has millions of years head start on us.

This is a good book to have a look through just to get an idea of how mind bogglingly complex biochemistry is

Biochemical Pathways – An Atlas of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 2e by Gerhard Michael

I've used that book to look up some biochemical pathway I was interested in and it's not even in the book. Plus depending on brain region or area in the body the biochemical pathways don't work the same way. It's beyond my comprehension anyway, I'm just speaking from a perspective of doing this as a hobby so I'm sure some experts can come in here and explain further if they wish.

The medical breakthroughs reported in the general media often cite poor studies, interpret the studies incorrectly or hugely over simplify biochemical processes. So we're led to believe Serotonin is the happy neurotransmitter and Dopamine is the reward neurotransmitter and it's all just that simple when it's anything of the sort.

Biochemistry is fascinating but the reason some conditions are incurable so far or we wonder why we can't just cure baldness, it is because this is vastly complex and requires high quality methodological study. Then meta analysis of the studies if there are enough.

7

Glodraph t1_irfeqf6 wrote

Student in biomedical and diagnostic biotechnology here. Rough estimate I would PERSONALLY say about 5 years to have something that works. Getting it to scale both in volume and costs will be different. We are really getting closer though, that's right.

7

JuggernautNo6974 t1_irffg4a wrote

Ty, of the roughly 10 replies to this you’re the first to state your qualifications and an estimate which is what my Q was lol

6

Glodraph t1_irfkos0 wrote

Yeah np lol. I cannot stress enough that it's my personal opinion. I am a student so my knowledge and qualification is limited and estimates on treatments and such are always a bet. But I think we're taking the right steps with technlogies like genetic editing and mRNA vaccines (which are already being tested for HIV). The issue is that the virus, even if it comes in 2 main variants HIV-1 and HIV-2, shows a huge genetic variability even in the same patience; it's like having 10.000 covid variants in one person. This make targeting and treatment very difficult as you need either a "universal" target or a system that can evolve and adapt with the virus. Now you can see why it's extremely difficult to eradicate. Huge steps were made though so I am optimistic about this.

5

Not_as_witty_as_u t1_irfzbwc wrote

>2 main variants HIV-1 and HIV-2

Do they differ with symptoms, treatment etc? Like is one more aggressive for example?

2

Glodraph t1_irg1pqk wrote

I don't really know tbh, never actually studied a lot of viruses in detail, I only know the general mechanism of the HIV one but I don't really know anything as far as clinical data goes.

3

heytheremicah t1_irgr652 wrote

Did a research project on HIV for a genetics course in undergrad. From what I remember, HIV-2 generally has a lower mortality rate than HIV-1 and is endemic in regions of West Africa. Both usually require a combination of drugs (2-3) as usually using only one will lead to drug resistance and these drugs are any combination of integrase inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), protease inhibitors, NRTIs, etc. Usually there’s a genetic predisposition to acquiring drug resistance in HIV, so genetic screening is done beforehand to best determine which medications to prescribe.

3

Necessary-Celery t1_irp4f2u wrote

I would agree and would conservatively guess 7 to 12 years until we see CRISPR therapies commonly on the market.

2

banged_ur_mother666 t1_irh1769 wrote

They are very close. As it stands being hiv+ is not a death sentence. You can have relationships and sex without a condom as long as your viral load is low.. My ex wife faked her medical records when we were married in 2007. We found out when she was 19 weeks pregnant. It was Really scary .that was only 16 years ago..I am pleased to say my 16 year old boy is very healthy and HIV- . the anti retrovirals helped protect him in the womb but today even if he was hiv+ I would not be worried about him leading a normal life. Side note. A scientist friend has had hiv since 1988 . He apperantly had a very rare gene mutation that protects him from hiv. He was arrested for making mda in his lab and the judge sentenced him to doing community service working on aids vaccines.

3

mt-beefcake t1_irh8ca9 wrote

There is a documentary on prime video about biohackers and what big pharma is doing with crisper. There are already some treatments with crisper out, for example to cure blindness from genetic eye disorder. But the treatments(in the US)cost anywhere from 100k to 250k per dose, and it takes multiple doses over a period of time. The biohackers could make the same treatments for a few hundred bucks. One group were even working on a treatment for hiv and had a volunteer take a dose in the first trial. I know a lot of new treatments for all sorts of things are just around the corner. But availability I think is where the issues are going to be. Especially until they aren't considered experimental. I'm sure the big companies would miss their profits from charging insurance companies for drugs at 10000% markup for the rest of their lives, so they charge the equivalent for a cure that cots pennies on the dollar from tax funded R&D.

3

JokrSmokrMidntTokr t1_iresjm4 wrote

We've been a "couple years away" from a cure for 30 years.

2

MarginCalled1 t1_iretef2 wrote

That's ignoring a ridiculous amount of technogical and scientific advancements. 30 years ago I was excited for Duck Hunt and 2d Mario. Exponential is the key word here.

15

JuggernautNo6974 t1_irezarw wrote

I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but is there not widely available medication that now effectively Rids one of detectable levels of HIV? Meaning, you can live a normal life without it turning into aids?

8

ben_vito t1_irf0n0k wrote

Pretty much, yes. But you still have to take those pills for the rest of your life. And they can have side effects. And you can't really have a truly normal love life, though many will find a partner accepting of the risks (especially if on meds and viral loads are undetectable).

8

DaemonTm t1_irg82ky wrote

"And you can't really have a truly normal love life"

maybe if you got no game, i fucked plenty when i was single and was very upfront about my status

0

ben_vito t1_irhrlk1 wrote

My assumption is it would be harder to find people accepting of it, but I could obviously be wrong about that. Glad it wasn't an issue for you!

1

Glodraph t1_irfeuuk wrote

Looks like the same argument against nuclear fusion. Oh that's wrong, too.

1

Lou-Saydus t1_irf6a09 wrote

This could be a miracle treatment. Or, unlikely but possible, this could cause every affected cell to have completely junked DNA essentially dooming him to a slow radiation poisoning-like death. Or it could be anything between the two. We don't really have any (ethical) experience in using crispr in humans in vivo and the unintended consequences are unknown. The most likely outcome is that the viral dna is not completely eliminated and this is only a temporary treatment that reduces the need for anti-virals for a time until the virus is able to re-infect previously treated cells.

2

Emmangt t1_irfp2ci wrote

I feel your predictionabout the efficacy being temporary is very likely to be the right one. Maybe if the treatment works a few weeks they might try to do it every month for x months and then it would increase the probability that every infected cell has been cured.

5

jgainit t1_irgnkmz wrote

Just from what I’ve read, I bet an actual cure or functional cure within maybe 20-25 years. And prior to then, very dope treatment and prevention options. Of course hopefully I’m wrong and the end comes much sooner

1

DoranMoonblade t1_irhamz2 wrote

HIV is a cashcow. Healthcare industry is not going to let it happen anytime soon. I don't know how one can set an objective timeline on this, maybe cashflow anaylsis?

1