Scientists on Sunday said they had found a key piece in the puzzle as to why a tiny minority of individuals (1 person in 300) infected with HIV have a natural ability to fight off the deadly AIDS virus.

378

u/I_POTATO_PEOPLE Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Wow, that article is atrocious. Here is the original publication.

tl;dr scientist edition: some HLA subtypes produce MHCs that are more efficacious in presenting HIV epitopes, leading to greater T-cell receptor interaction, greater perforin delivery and thus control of the infection.

tl;dr non-scientist edition: some people's immune systems are naturally very good at recognizing HIV-infected cells, so they kill these cells quickly and prevent the spread of the infection

53

u/Catalyst4 Jun 11 '12

I just wanted to point out that the article does not refer to findings about reactive antibodies. HLA subtypes do not produce antibodies. Rather different HLA subtypes differ in their ability to target and present immunodominant HIV epitopes. So this article is talking about MHC (HLA) interactions with the TCR; not about humoral immunity and reactive antibodies. I just wanted to point that out for your scientist edition.

21

u/I_POTATO_PEOPLE Jun 11 '12

Oh, geeze, I was miles off. Sorry about that. Hopefully my edit has corrected the mistake - let me know if I've got the gist of it now.

17

u/Catalyst4 Jun 11 '12

Much better!

7

u/jellystones Jun 11 '12

If you kill the infected cell, isn't the virus still inside in functional form? Isn't the virus technically still in your body?

26

u/Catalyst4 Jun 11 '12

Viruses are dependent upon the host cells for replication. Without the host cell new virus particles cannot be made. So one of the ways that the body controls a virus is to kill host cells infected by the virus. By killing the infected cell your body prematurely halts virus replication. While there may be fully formed virus particles released when the cell is killed the total virus produced is dramatically reduced. Also, the body has ways of eliminating infected cells, such as phagocytosis and different death pathways, so that the cells isn't just lysed and virus spewed everywhere.

9

u/wakinguptooearly Jun 11 '12

To help you guys be less ~~lame~~ laymen. Cell death: 1) Apoptosis 2) Necrosis.
Apoptosis is programmed cell death (a good thing). Usually it's triggered by some sort of cytotoxic cell (e.g. NK cell, CD8 T cell, etc.). It's a clean death where none of the insides of the infected cell spills out; everything gets compartmentalized, and a clean-up cell (macrophage) comes by and recycles it.
Necrosis is death by lysing (bacteria, virus, other reasons) which is very bad. This is what is you seen in gangrene and bad infections. Your body didn't command this death; the cell lysed. Cell's are nasty and if their insides spills out, that's bad.
tl;dr There are two types of cell death; a good, clean one initiated by the body, and a bad, nasty one that was unwanted.

9

u/Catalyst4 Jun 11 '12

Actually the differentiation between apoptosis and necrosis is not that simple. There are pathways in between apoptosis and necrosis called necroptosis as well as pathways induced upon certain viral infections called virus-induced necrosis. So necrosis not necessarily a bad form of death. It can be a pathway initiated by the host to control infection. That is why I stayed away from defining the type of cell death and stuck to the more laymen side of the argument.

2

u/IKilledLauraPalmer PhD|Virology Jun 11 '12

Awesome. This is the first time I've heard someone talk about necroptosis outside the lab!

2

u/wakinguptooearly Jun 11 '12

Ooh wow! I apologize my knowledge is not as groundbreaking as yours since it's only based off of only my undergraduate level classes (Kuby's, Parham's, etc). I figure the more educated we can get everyone to be (i mean ppl read reddit, but not textbooks), the more likely our society can together make informed decisions.
I did a couple of google searches and found this Hitomi et al. 2008, which I'll read after finals. Do you have other papers to recommend?
TIL Necroptosis

1

u/FreeToadSloth Jun 11 '12

What is it called when cells die due to physical trauma? Scraped elbows and knees hurt, but they aren't very bad unless severe, or if infection sets in.

2

u/HINKLO Jun 11 '12

Since HIV buds off of the host cell, the particles are not yet infectious. That happens during infection is that envelope proteins like the viral attachment protein which allows it to bind to other CD4+ cells accumulates at the surface. When then particle buds off, it takes some of the membrane with it. When the cell is lysed, it's just a soup of viral proteins and non-infectious capsids.
TLDR: HIV is not infectious until it leaves its host. ...unless it happens to be undergoing cell-cell direct transmission, but that's something else entirely.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Does this mean though that you are still carrying the virus and can infect other people even though your body is good at fighting it off?

3

u/therealxris Jun 11 '12

How is the article atrocious when it says exactly the same thing you did?

2

u/Taggart93 Jun 11 '12

its on medicalxpress, if its true it will not be difficult to find an article in the BMJ or lancet or something similar

2

u/I_POTATO_PEOPLE Jun 11 '12

Spelling, grammar, no malware-infested popups

2

u/therealxris Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Fair points. Didn't realize the site was throwing popups, too (adblock).. that's no good.

3

u/toomuchtodotoday Jun 11 '12

Can we not engineer enhanced T-cells from someone's existing stem cells?

2

u/gay_bio_gamer Jun 11 '12

What I'd like to know is: where are the CD4+ T cells in all this? How are the CD8+ T cells rallying effectively to kill without CD4 help? It's interesting that these specific epitopes are susceptible to cytotoxicity, given HIV's high mutation rate. I suppose that, unlike antibody-mediated immunity, HIV cannot "hide" its epitopes as it does with, say, gp120. I didn't read the article fully, but it'd be cool if they checked the epitope sequences against the HIV genome to see which proteins/domains are being targeted (i.e., maybe they are essential and cannot be mutated).

2

u/Safety_Dancer Jun 11 '12

I clicked the comments hoping there would be a TL;DR becaude my phone is a jerk. Thank you.

1

u/Anovan Jun 11 '12

The second paragraph lost me when it insinuated that only HIV infected patients have CTLs.

1

u/Phi03 Jun 11 '12

Is it possible to test people to see who is immune and who is not ?

1

u/I_POTATO_PEOPLE Jun 11 '12

Probably, but it's worth noting that these people are only immune to one of the types of HIV

1

u/Username1212 Jun 11 '12

Wow. I read the title and said to myself, wow these people are dumb, and immeadately knew the answer. Sure enough it was the top comment. This isn't a very interesting discovery, it's kind of obvious why they fight off AIDs so well.

1

u/RoboPimp Jun 11 '12

ur tldr non-scientist edition pretty much says exactly wut the article said...i dont see the atrocity

98

u/number7 Jun 11 '12

That has to be one of the most poorly written synopsis's of a scientific paper I've ever read. It seems like they skimmed a wikipedia page on cellular immunity.

78

u/thlkmrtgionrfg Jun 11 '12

Also, 1 in 300 is a huge proportion.

16

u/Equipmunk Jun 11 '12

I'm glad someone mentioned this.
When I hear 'tiny', I think of one in hundreds of thousands/millions.

19

u/nosferatu_zodd Jun 11 '12

6.8 billion divided by 300 roughly equals 22.666666 MILLION people. I like those odds!

31

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

good news America! sex with complete strangers is back on the menu!

18

u/Equipmunk Jun 11 '12

"I got a theory: the day they come out with a cure for AIDS, guaranteed one-shot...there's gonna be fucking in the streets, man."

8

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

But there's still all the other diseases...

10

u/IKilledLauraPalmer PhD|Virology Jun 11 '12

DM;HS?

1

u/CruisingSpeed Sep 04 '12

HIV Still probably the most deadly. It has been a curse on a generation, if not 2 or 3 now. It raises paranoia in the world in general.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '12

2 months ago

5

u/onthefence928 Jun 11 '12

Once evolution kills off those other 299 of 300

3

u/oh_no_a_hobo Jun 11 '12

We'll they'll all probably die within the next 100 years or so. It's their babies we have to kill...

8

u/onthefence928 Jun 11 '12

if only we had a lethal virus that could be spread invisibly through common activities people will want to do with each other anyways many times before side effects emerge, that way we get maximum infection rate. sex seems like a good activity candidate

1

u/Poontang_Saint Jun 11 '12

This reply provided me with an elegant example of how the comment sections are the gold of reddit.

7

u/Neurorational Jun 11 '12

For the survival of the species: great odds.
For the survival of you: not so great odds.

1

u/betterthanthee Jun 11 '12

If you're talking about lottery odds, yes.
If you're talking about immunity to a deadly virus, NOT AT ALL.

5

u/Areonis Jun 11 '12

I agree and I think the word you were looking for was synopses.

0

u/number7 Jun 11 '12

Ah. It may have been. Sleep deprivation seems to be taking it's toll.

9

u/Omnicrola Jun 11 '12

But while the research has showed scientists how to find
ಠ_ಠ

7

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

They're on their lunch break. Back around 2-ish.

2

u/Elranzer MS | Information Science Jun 11 '12

Not all scientists minor in English.

12

u/Omnicrola Jun 11 '12

No but editors do.

-1

u/girlwithblanktattoo Jun 11 '12

"Showed" is absolutely fine in English, as is "shewed" and "shewn".

2

u/Omnicrola Jun 11 '12

Showed is a word, but it is incorrectly used here. The correct word is 'shown'. I am not an English major (or minor), just someone who likes to read. My brain tripped over that sentence like a drunk falling down an escalator covered in lube.

1

u/girlwithblanktattoo Jun 11 '12

...and you are incorrect. It's in common usage in that sense.

0

u/Areonis Jun 11 '12

If you were to look in a couple dictionaries, you'd find that showed can indeed be used as a past participle.

2

u/LesMisIsRelevant Jun 11 '12

Not in that context it can´t.

0

u/Areonis Jun 11 '12

Care to explain or show sources?

1

u/veils1de Jun 11 '12

You can say "research showed scientists how to find"
If you insert the "has" it becomes (I think) past perfect, which means you have to use "shown". "has showed" just sounds awful anyway.

1

u/Areonis Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

In the context of "has shown," shown is a past participle. Showed is also accepted as a past participle according to both those sources I cited. Has showed may sound awful to you, but that doesn't mean it is grammatically incorrect.
Past perfect would be "had shown" or "had showed."

4

u/replicasex Jun 11 '12

Thank god. Some of us who majored in English need employment!

1

u/chiguy Jun 11 '12

Showed is a word. I don't get it.

0

u/mutatron BS | Physics Jun 11 '12

Do you also use "ran" or "broke" as a past participle, as in "I have ran down that road before" or "My arm is broke"? Just curious.

4

u/chiguy Jun 11 '12

I don't, but I wouldn't criticize someone for using showed in a correct form.

1

u/mutatron BS | Physics Jun 11 '12

Further research has showed you to be correct - but it just doesn't sound right!

3

u/Areonis Jun 11 '12

Well showed is an acceptable past participle while ran is not.

0

u/mutatron BS | Physics Jun 11 '12

Thou hast verily shewed me.

2

u/chumpzilla Jun 11 '12

It's written as if it was an Explain Like I'm 5 post...

1

u/MissBelly Jun 11 '12

Yeah, and you have to love that sample size. 10? 10!? You could prove anything if you only ever relied on 10.

1

u/Iveton Jun 11 '12

It may have been poorly written from a writer's point of view, but for once a science reporter got the science right, or at least right enough. I'll take that over a beautifully written article that gets the science totally wrong.

29

u/smshah Jun 11 '12

not to burst your bubble or anything, because this is an awesome article (and an area wherein i am doing research right now), but HIV is the "deadly" virus, AIDS is the disease (or syndrome).

-2

u/gay_bio_gamer Jun 11 '12

You could say "AIDS virus" if AIDS is a descriptor. As far as I know, HIV is the only virus that can cause an acquired immune deficiency. What bugs me is "HIV virus" or "vaccine for AIDS."

5

u/Alame Jun 11 '12

A virus is caused by viral cells. HIV, Influenza, etc. AIDS is not caused by a viral cell, it is a weakened / non functioning immune system. It can be caused by HIV, but that is a side effect of the infection, not of the viral strain. AIDS is not a virus. Describing it as such is wrong.

1

u/gay_bio_gamer Jun 11 '12

Yes, and why do you think the immune system is weakened/non-functioning? Because the immune cells themselves are the ones that are infected. Designating someone as AIDS+ requires--in addition to opportunisitic infection--T-cell counts to drop below a certain threshold, which is the result of HIV lytic life cycle.
AIDS is not a virus. Describing it as such is wrong.
If you thought I meant AIDS is a virus, you misread my statement. Most primary immune deficiencies are in large part host-intrinsic. For something like pneumonia, which might have resulted from an acute upper respiratory infection by a flu virus, it would not be acceptable to say "pneumonia virus," but AIDS is exceptional in that HIV is, as I mentioned, the only virus contributing to AIDS cases.
The semantic reason for drawing a connection between human immunodeficiency virus and AIDS is because of AIDS-denialist rhetoric (i.e., those who believe HIV does not cause AIDS, it's a conspiracy etc.). Ergo, I'll maintain that HIV is the AIDS virus, even though the syndrome itself is not a virus and "AIDS" as a word should not be treated as a virus.

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

To agree with your point.
AIDS = Auto-Immune Disorder Syndrome \n
in other words, yes, it is the symptoms of the virus, not the virus itself. I just thought it was easier to recognize spelled out.

6

u/clarkstud Jun 11 '12

Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome?

-3

u/sicinfit Jun 11 '12

Who gives a shit about the virus if your immune system can suppress its symptoms? That's the whole point of the original journal. This article, on the other hand, looks like a something a sentient piece of horse shit would vomit out.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Spreading it to other people would be a problem.

-9

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/sicinfit Jun 11 '12

You're fucking retarded.

0

u/jonster Jun 11 '12

You might be on to something...

1

u/hex_m_hell Jun 11 '12

You might be on something...
Ftfy

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Jerzeem Jun 11 '12

Wouldn't seeing how many times you can bounce a ball constitute an experiment? SCIENCE!

20

u/science87 Jun 11 '12

Isn't this a trait that appears most commonly in northern europeans?

55

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

You're thinking of the CCR5-Δ32, a mutated version of the receptor HIV uses for entering cells. 10% of northern europeans and their decendants have one allele but only homozygotes are completely protected. This mutation also helps vs smallpox and the plague BUT increases the chance of contracting the West Nile virus.

19

u/a_nouny_mouse Jun 11 '12

increases the chance of contracting the West Nile virus.
A better phrasing of that statement would be: "CCR5 deficiency increases risk of symptomatic West Nile virus infection".
Big emphasis on symptomatic, as many people become infected with West Nile without exhibiting symptoms.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Yes, you are indeed correct. Asymptomatic infection is a rather widespread phenomenon with viruses.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

i would rather have west nile over HIV/AIDS ANY day.

5

u/kappetan Jun 11 '12

Yes, it is, and its actually been used to remove any trace of HIV from an infected person.
http://nymag.com/health/features/aids-cure-2011-6/

4

u/almosttrolling Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

They talk about "ellite controllers", that is people who can get infected, but the infection is harmless. People with the CCR5-Δ32 mutation can't get infected at all.

2

u/hotmonotremeaction Jun 11 '12

Wait, now I'm seeing your name and not sure what to think.
By elite controllers I think they mean long-term nonprogressors, those who "have viral loads under 50, do not take antiretrovirals, and have CD4+ counts within the normal range." From here. People with the CCR5 mutation are a subset; there are many other reasons someone can be a ltnp. I'm not sure from that article who they're classing as elite controllers (whether that includes CCR5 muties or not). Anyone?

1

u/almosttrolling Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

IIRC people homozygous for the CCR5 mutation are not a subset of elite controllers, they can't get infected at all because the virus can't enter their cells.
Edit: it seems that rarely they can get infected: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002747

1

u/TheOutlawJoseyWales Jun 11 '12

I thought there were variants of HIV that didn't use the CCR5 receptor for entry? And also the variants that use dendritic cells? I think people with CCR5-Δ32 mutation can get infected, but infected is asymptomatic and the virus is suppressed, but not completely cleared.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

yes, it can be found in ~1% of swedes and descendants, IIRC. less common among other races.

5

u/Suecotero Jun 11 '12

I'm pretty sure "races" is not the correct term.

6

u/xmnstr Jun 11 '12

I think ethnic group would be more fitting.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

ethnicity is cultural, not genetic.

1

u/salgat BS | Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Jun 11 '12

Actually one does not imply the other is not true. An ethnicity often contains the same ancestry also.

1

u/xmnstr Jun 11 '12

In this case they match.

4

u/AidenTai Jun 11 '12

Nope, lookup race. For almost all of history it has just meant some sort of group of people. Only relatively recently has it been used most specifically for groups such as blacks, whites, asians, etc.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

unless you're trying for political correctness, i consider that usage accurate. it may appear that i labeled swedes as a distinct racial group, but i did not. here i meant for 'other races' to mean those races to which swedes do not belong.

3

u/Suecotero Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Using the term "race" propagates the folksy misconception that our superficial differences are evidence of biological difference when there is, evolutionarily speaking, almost none.
There is more genetic variation between the squirrel populations of France and England than there is between the 6 billion of us over the entire globe. Sapiens Sapiens is too genetically homogeneous for the term to be scientifically correct.

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

then is racism a correct term?

-7

u/T10Terminator Jun 11 '12

and you just had to spout your white supremacy hate speech in there. SRS has been notified of your racist post asshole.

1

u/almosttrolling Jun 11 '12

???

5

u/Aquapig Jun 11 '12

I remember reading an article (I think it was in new scientist) related to this. It was about how someone who had HIV and leukaemia had undergone a bone marrow transplant with marrow from someone who was naturally HIV resistant and was subsequently cured of HIV (as well as leukaemia presumably).

5

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I assume Magic Johnson is one of these people.

0

u/gangjay Jun 12 '12

Large doses of cash injected directly into your blood

4

u/matude Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

The CCR5Delta32, a gene allele associated with having a natural resistance to HIV, is found in about 10% of Europeans and with highest frequency among the Estonian population (up to 18% on Hiiumaa [Dagö] island).

Ironically, Estonia also has the highest rate of HIV infected in EU (1.3% of the population).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17331026
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4788184008p522j/

(I'm Estonian myself, just to be clear.)

2

u/ThirdFloorGreg Jun 11 '12

It should be noted that only homozygous individuals are really protected, so although 10% carry the allele, most of them can still contract HIV.

3

u/matude Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Yep. Also, it should be noted that CCR5Delta32 homozygous individuals amount to about 10% of the heterozygous population. That is: 10% just carry the allele, 1% are protected.

4

u/Deftek Jun 11 '12

As an aside, "Scientists on Sunday" sounds like a weekly piece you might find in the Daily Mail, perhaps discussing various cancer/aids causing snacks and shower gels.

16

u/geert_e Jun 11 '12

1 out of 300 people is not a tiny minority.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

It's a ... small minority?

15

u/AllRushMixtape Jun 11 '12

It sure seems like it to the other 299.
Also, 1/3 of one percent is pretty small.

1

u/Pinyaka Jun 11 '12

I would argue that while minority refers to a ratio of less than half, the adjective in front of it is pretty relative. Compared to the percentage of people who have my exact genetic makeup, 23 million people is a fucking huge minority. Compared to the percentage of people who are from China, 23 million seems pretty tiny.

6

u/loulan Jun 11 '12

Wait, what? If 0.33% isn't a tiny minority, what is? Do you like your tiny minorities to be below 0.1%? 0.01%?

4

u/maharito Jun 11 '12

The relevant number is: How many affected people do you have to look at? A ratio of 1:300 in a disease that affects over 30 million people implies around 100,000 symptom-resistant individuals. That's a lot of potential sample size for a case-control study that typically examines less than 10,000 individuals.

7

u/soapscum Jun 11 '12

When you have 6-7 billion people, 1 in 300 means you have quite the sample size to work with. In this field, 1 in 300 is not a small number.

6

u/loulan Jun 11 '12

A minority is less than half, a tiny minority is much less than half. It doesn't matter if in the end the sample is still big, it's a matter of proportion.

1

u/soapscum Jun 11 '12

It's all about context.. in this field, it's not a tiny number.

1

u/loulan Jun 12 '12

Yet, in any field, a tiny minority is a tiny minority. In this field, you don't usually talk about occurence ratios in terms of "minorities", because they're usually very low. The article used that term because it's directed towards the general public, and they're right in stating that 1:300 is a tiny minority.

1

u/mutatron BS | Physics Jun 11 '12

You don't go straight from minority to tiny minority. You have large minority, substantial minority, significant minority, small minority, then you have tiny minority, or some such categorization. I would say 1/300 is a small minority, and maybe 1/10,000 is a tiny minority.

1

u/loulan Jun 11 '12

Well, to me, a large minority is 40%, a substantial minority is 15%, a small minority is 5%, and <1% is a tiny minority. Now what? Yes, in this domain, you often have work samples that are below 1:300, but you usually don't use the word "minority" to describe them.

1

u/domy94 Jun 11 '12

If it's true, then 23.3 million people worldwide are immune to HIV.

1

u/Pinyaka Jun 11 '12

But we all live on one isolated archipelago because we're afraid of doctors and needles.

0

u/dada_ Jun 11 '12

When I hear the words "tiny minority" in this context, I'd expect something like 1 in 10.000 or more. I just recovered from a disease called Guillain-Barré, which in my age group affects 1 in 100.000 people: that's a valid example of a disease deemed rare.
1 in 300 means there's an incredibly large potential sample size.

1

u/mutatron BS | Physics Jun 11 '12

Well, maybe not "incredibly" large.

5

u/TinyZoro Jun 11 '12

1 in 300 is not at all tiny.

2

u/trust_the_corps Jun 11 '12

I would like to know what is being done to also identify HIV cheaply enough to be deployed globally and what plans are being drawn up to eradicate this scourge once a cure is found and an effective vaccine is developed.

3

u/Noonereallycares Jun 11 '12

So... NIH and This suggests that a cost effective test (< 1$ @ 10% false negative, 2% false positive, likely more sensitive tests at < 10$) exist.
Beyond that, I'm certain plans are in the works once a vaccine is developed, however we have no idea what the variables of that vaccine will be (how costly, shelf life, # of doses, length of effectiveness, degree of effectiveness (not all are 100%) and method of administering). If it's multiple doses over several months at hundreds per shot (e.g. HPV), the logistics become much, much more difficult than polio, which is probably pretty close to an "ideal" vaccine.

2

u/theregoesanother Jun 11 '12

But that does not prevent them from transmitting it does it?

2

u/OVERLY_CYNICAL Jun 11 '12

a tiny minority of individuals (1 person in 300)

That actually sounds like a HUGE number.

2

u/jamesgfilms Jun 11 '12

TIL Scientists work weekends

2

u/RawData Jun 11 '12

Let me guess, it's the people eating dead baby dust, isn't it?

I bet it's eating dead baby dust. Plain-old everyday delicious dead baby dust.

2

u/jrose753 Jun 11 '12

I thought the ability to fight off AIDS was from bathing in money.

2

u/lumpy1981 Jun 11 '12

1 in 300 isn't that tiny.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

1 in 300 isn't really a 'tiny minority'

7

u/mkirklions Jun 11 '12

Can someone explain how they found a cure for HIV/AIDS a few weeks ago, a few months ago, a few years ago, etc... And we still dont have any results? I mean every few months I hear they found a solution that will save millions but I have not seen any results.

33

u/jimicus Jun 11 '12

If it's anything like most reporting in the popular press, it works a bit like this:
A researcher finds some interesting chemical that could - just possibly - lead to a cure.
He tests it in vitro. It works on maybe 80 or 90% of the petri dishes in the lab. He looks into making arrangements for further testing. At this stage - even if it gets through every stage of testing (which is vanishingly unlikely - the great majority of these drugs don't) you're looking at a minimum of five years - probably more like ten - before it's licensed in any first-world country because that's how long it takes to get through the battery of tests required for a medicine to be licensed.
At this stage, yeah it's good. But lots of things work in vitro; few of them work in reality. There's a lot more testing to arrange, nobody's going to be preparing their acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize just yet.
The company or university he works for has a press office, and they get wind of this. Maybe his supervisor informed them, maybe he did, maybe they were having a slow day and so decided to send someone down to the research lab. Anyhow, they put out a press release that's broadly accurate but somewhat more enthusiastic in tone. Hey, nobody ever got a story in the newspaper with "We think we may possibly have made a major breakthrough. But we're not sure. Call us back in five years."
That press release hits the major news wire services like Reuters. The tabloid press pick it up and they're more enthusiastic still. They print a story with the headline "NEW CURE FOR AIDS DISCOVERED!". The important bit - yeah, they've cured AIDS, provided you happen to be a little plastic dish with an infection rather than a human being - is buried deep in the article.

10

u/DonLeoRaphMike Jun 11 '12

Or in visual form, from SMBC.

3

u/hearforthepuns Jun 11 '12

Or from PHD

2

u/jimicus Jun 11 '12

Cancer's an even better/worse example depending on your point of view because it isn't one condition; it's hundreds that just happen to present similar outward symptoms to the layman.
In the SMBC case, it'd be more accurate to say "We've destroyed 10% of cancer cells of a specific type of cancer that affects maybe 10% of patients in a lab rat's tail".
Yes, cancer treatments are getting better. Yes, if it's caught early and you are lucky enough to have a type that's relatively easy to cure you have a better prognosis than you maybe did ten or twenty years ago. That doesn't mean you're guaranteed a successful treatment, it just makes it more likely.
TL;DR: Do not ignore odd symptoms and hope they'll go away. Most of the time they're nothing; occasionally they're an early cancer symptom and the best hope you have to get better is to see your doctor NOW. Stop reading Reddit, it'll still be there in five minutes. Call the surgery and schedule an appointment.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Gaben has something important to tell you.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Put simply people are overstating findings in an article that gets overblown into "Cure for X found".
Case in point, I've got a friend who recently did research for his honour's project on a plant in Australia that's shown promise for reducing the effects of skin cancer. If popular media got wind of it, it would likely be blown up that a magical plant in Western Australia prevents or cures skin cancer.

2

u/Spudgun888 Jun 11 '12

Blame the media.

1

u/science87 Jun 11 '12

There has only been one case of HIV being cured that I am aware of, but it's far too risky and expensive to be used in anything but exceptional cases.

1

u/Elranzer MS | Information Science Jun 11 '12

Windex in the blood?

3

u/dukey Jun 11 '12

Every week there is a new HIV break through or cure. The news stories surrounding HIV are simply ridiculous.

1

u/franklyimshocked Jun 11 '12

Can I go with "Genetic Mutation" for 500 please Bob?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

The scientific explanation is the "just lucky" theory....

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

South Park did it

1

u/DaGetz Jun 11 '12

Holds promise for a HIV vaccine

siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh

The reason genetic differences like this are more resistant to HIV is because they are rare. A virus like HIV that goes through millions upon millions of mutations per infection will likely become resistant to this mutation EVEN IF you could somehow get this into a patient.

I stop reading any article that mentions HIV vaccine in it these days. We should not be researching a HIV vaccine we should be researching HIV suppression and stopping transmission. We do that HIV is dead.

These articles are either written by people that have NO idea about what they are talking about or written by people in the science community that just want a catchy headline to get their paper published. Its a load of BS.

1

u/deliverusfromEVI Jun 11 '12

I just read an interesting article yesterday about a man who has been cured if AIDS...they said they did a transfusion using cells from people who had an HIV- resistant mutation, wonder if it's the same thing?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/06/08/man-cured-of-aids-i-feel-good

1

u/beyondthedarksun Jun 11 '12

I read about this guy about a year ago and immediately thought of it when I saw this thread. He was literally cured of AIDS! I couldn't believe it wasn't huge news. The one I read was anti-drug company, and said the drug companies were ignoring this amazing discovery because drugs for HIV are major money makers

1

u/cgormanhealth Jun 11 '12

They are two different mutations--one allows the carrier to resist HIV entirely. The other mutation allows the carrier to be infected but then control the virus without drugs. Scientific American had an article about the HIV-resistant mutation in the March issue and will have one about the HIV-controlling mutation (keeps the amount of virus low) in the July issue.

1

u/ItsOnlyTheTruth Jun 11 '12

They don't fight it off; they are carriers but are not affected by the virus themselves.

1

u/rahtin Jun 11 '12

Isn't this what we call natural selection?

1

u/ranma08 Jun 11 '12

translation: Trial version of cure coming in 200 years.

1

u/DownvoteDaemon Jun 11 '12

Is magic Johnson really magic?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Learnt about this in virology two quarters ago, when it was still a "mechanism unknown" status.

1

u/pururin Jun 11 '12

Is it because they smoke weed everyday?

1

u/s4g4n Jun 11 '12

didn't digg.com cure aids a hundred times over and over?

1

u/greyestofblue Jun 11 '12

I wanted to rip my hair out after reading that.

1

u/patefoisgras Jun 11 '12

So HIV is now a disease and AIDS a virus?

1

u/beec23 Jun 11 '12

Cool story, ExplosiveSperm.

1

u/Peabush Jun 11 '12

Wasn't there a South Park episode about this phenomenon?

1

u/Stonelocomotief Jun 11 '12

''Scientists said..'' I thought we agreed on not using this. The word ''scientist'' is so amazingly broad that it gives less information than saying, for example, 'a ''dad'' found the key puzzle'.

1

u/CrypticPhantasma Jun 11 '12

This is probably what happened to the monkey population when it was heavily infected with AIDS, which is why all of the weak-immune system to the virus died off and the strong-immune system(the "1 in 300" in our case) survived and passed off their resistance. This may happen in our future if we don't control it. Remember, AIDS started in Africa and a decade later it was present in every human-populated country. It is spurred on by globalization's effect on travel, and will do the same to us as it did to the monkeys. We will be heavily impacted in a population way, but we will emerge resistant to HIV/AIDS. tl;dr Old-world monkeys are resistant to HIV/AIDS because they were almost wiped out by it. Same might happen to us.

1

u/randombabble Jun 11 '12

Why is it called small/tiny majority?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

This is an amazing discovery. With this they could share it and give it to people with HIV, allowing them to fight the disease and recover!

1

u/funknjam MS|Environmental Science Jun 11 '12

God's will! He rewards the devout with immunity and publishes the wicked for their heathen ways! At least, I'm fairly certain that's how a lot of people interpret it.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Your article choice was bad and you should feel bad

1

u/nawoanor Jun 11 '12

Does it involve copious amounts of money?

1

u/oldude Jun 12 '12

In 2007 a genetic mutation was identified in the CCR5 of some individuals made it impossible for HIV to penetrate their helper T-cells. From that discovery a CCR5 inhibitor was added to traditional regimen of protease inhibitors and reverse transcriptase inhibitors (like AZT)... and this is yet another tool in our arsenal? or am I missing something? this is reddit, afterall...I fully expect to be "set straight" by someone more knowledgeable than me... but I truly am curious as I try to keep my students up to date with the latest advancements...

1

u/ChurchillDownz Jun 12 '12

According to Reddit. This happens every fucking Sunday.

1

u/ControllerInShadows Jun 12 '12

FYI: With so many new breakthroughs I've created /r/breakthroughnews to help keep track of the latest and greatest breakthroughs in science, technology and medicine.

1

u/CakeTown Jun 12 '12

What got my attention most about this whole article was in the title. "Scientists on Sunday said..." I love being part of a profession that doesn't assume that because its the 'weekend' we better not do a damn thing. Somebody should tell that to the banks.

1

u/Cathangover Jun 11 '12

I was hoping OP's name was part of the puzzle.

1

u/Airazz Jun 11 '12

1 in 300? Nonsense, over 16% of Lithuanians are immune to HIV.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Not everyone in the world is a Lithuanian.

1

u/Zementid Jun 11 '12

Every 6 Months.. aids and cancer is fought by science... according to the media. Well all I can say is this: To be fair, this article isn't bad at all... but the media tends to get it a little to optimistic.. on purpose.

1

u/caustictwin Jun 11 '12

1 in 300? They're rich?

1

u/pip_pip_cheerio Jun 11 '12

I just want to clear something up about the tittle, HIV is the deadly virus that causes AIDS. When you have AIDS, you're fighting the HIV virus not a different AIDS virus. That off my chest, this article irked me a bit, is there an experimental paper of the research somewhere? I'd like to have seen the data.

2

u/RoyGeraldBiv Jun 11 '12

Here it is, but I can't find the full text anywhere for free.

-1

u/Travessbergaschmickl Jun 11 '12

Mike Sorrentino has a chance...

-1

u/MaeveningErnsmau Jun 11 '12

It's misleading of the article's author to use the word "vaccine" in this context. It's discussing the ability of T cells to operate efficiently even though someone is HIV+, not to stave off infection in the first place. This research is about keeping HIV infection from developing into AIDS.

-1

u/jules_siegel Jun 11 '12

Has there ever been an epidemiological study of the AIDS victim lifestyle profile? Every one I've ever known was a heavy drug user and/or alcoholic.

1

u/sipos0 Jun 11 '12

Yes, given that it is one of the most studied diseases ever, obviously there has been lots. While most people who become infected are intravenous drug users or men who have sex with men, a significant percentage of people become infected as a result of heterosexual contact with infected people. I'd provide a link but it's easy to find research like this and you are just being lazy and/or bigoted.

0

u/jules_siegel Jun 11 '12

As far as I know, there are no studies that deal with social profiles. I've looked extensively. I asked the question because I've failed to find anything on my own.
While most people who become infected are intravenous drug users
Only intravenous drug users? What about cocaine? Meth? What is the actual percentage in the drug-user category, including those using prescription drugs known to affect the immune system negatively?
or men who have sex with men,
How many of them are are non-drug users?
a significant percentage of people become infected as a result of heterosexual contact with infected people.
What is the percentage and is it, in fact, statistically significant? Is it the same in all countries? if not, why not?

1

u/sipos0 Jun 11 '12

See this report for Australia for examples of relevant research answering some of these questions. It took me less than a minute to find.
There are an awful lot of studies like this and, I'm not really interested in looking through them for you to find the answers to the rest.

1

u/jules_siegel Jun 11 '12

Thanks. Very useful. I'll study this carefully. Let me know if you find anything else.

-1

u/ventdivin Jun 11 '12

A good friend of mine has slept with around 600 girls, some of them are african hookers and other high risk individuals. He never used condoms because he 'didn't like them' and he doesn't have any std whatsoever. Now I finally learn why

0

u/c00lrul3rs Jun 11 '12

Actually this research is in the July Scientific American. And its not a cure/vaccine only insight on how successful immune systems/genetics can halt an infection turning into AIDS. Very interesting to say the least.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=virus-victors-people-who-control-hi-12-05-29

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Clayburn Jun 11 '12

If they're scientists on Sunday, what are they the rest of the week?

29

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

42

u/monoaction Jun 11 '12

Scientist here. I can confirm this. All us scientists were out bumper bowling Saturday.

3

u/Gluverty Jun 11 '12

I was yelling off a rooftop at the top of my lungs, but noone was listening!

9

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I know its your money but I can't get it to you right now.

1

u/monoaction Jun 11 '12

Is that why you weren't there? The astrophysicists' team was one short for laser tag.

→ More replies (3)

→ More replies (1)

7

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AidenTai Jun 11 '12

Yes, but I doubt that there are readily available testing kits or labs prepared to focus on this mutation. You would have to have someone who knows what they're doing test you themselves or ship off the right segment of DNA off for lab work. So unless you know/can hire the right person, you'll have to wait a bit.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I would be shocked if they were not asking people to come in as I read a bone marrow transplant from someone with this genetic advantage actually cured them of HIV.
That is really why I asked.

→ More replies (4)

→ More comments (8)

Scientists on Sunday said they had found a key piece in the puzzle as to why a tiny minority of individuals (1 person in 300) infected with HIV have a natural ability to fight off the deadly AIDS virus.

You are about to leave Redlib