Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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

Sariel007 OP t1_iree9ir wrote

>In July, an HIV-positive man became the first volunteer in a clinical trial aimed at using Crispr gene editing to snip the AIDS-causing virus out of his cells. For an hour, he was hooked up to an IV bag that pumped the experimental treatment directly into his bloodstream. The one-time infusion is designed to carry the gene-editing tools to the man’s infected cells to clear the virus.

>Later this month, the volunteer will stop taking the antiretroviral drugs he’s been on to keep the virus at undetectable levels. Then, investigators will wait 12 weeks to see if the virus rebounds. If not, they’ll consider the experiment a success. “What we’re trying to do is return the cell to a near-normal state,” says Daniel Dornbusch, CEO of Excision BioTherapeutics, the San Francisco-based biotech company that’s running the trial.

49

spanakos1 t1_irgcie9 wrote

What does near-normal state mean?

4

jabberwockgee t1_irgm85h wrote

"HIV is a tough foe to fight because it’s able to insert itself into our own DNA"

I assume that the cell will be HIV free but the DNA might have been edited slightly off when snipping the HIV portion out.

3

smurfettekcmo t1_irejk2s wrote

I happy to learn this research is taking place. It was one of my thoughts first learning of CRISPR. Why can’t we just use it to chop up viruses like Pac-Man? This is step further cutting out the imbedded sequences. I just hope the region the target is very specific to HIV. I know they mention it’s a well conserved region of HIV but with our DNA containing so much viral DNA already could it make edits in unintended regions?

29

Rguy315 t1_irekn1v wrote

I guess that's the billion dollar question and what they're hoping to figure out with human trials.

16

eilertokyo t1_irgwwsu wrote

It’s fairly well understood. CRISPR cuts specific sequences of DNA out. If you’re too precise you won’t remove all the HIV. If you’re not precise enough you’ll cut out all kinds of other spots in the DNA and potentially cause problems down the line. A lot of experimental treatments like this wind up with patients developing leukemia or something else down the line. They state 12 weeks but it would be years before they can say this is safe.

6

IceColdPorkSoda t1_irepbye wrote

This is what animal and clinical trials are for. To answer many of the questions you’re asking right now.

5

Stewy_434 t1_irf2ll6 wrote

Restriction enzymes, or restriction endonucleases, or base pair cutters, cut doubled-stranded DNA by disrupting the phosphodiester bond that joins adjacent nucleotides. It is not random though.

Like other enzymes, restriction enzymes show specificity for certain substrates. For these enzymes, the substrate is a sequence of base pairs in the DNA strands. They bind to, recognize, and cut (digest) DNA within specific sequences, called restriction sites, and these sites must be palindromic readings from the separate strands. You can have 4, 6, or 8 (there are others) base pair cutters. If the sequence is shorter (say a 4 base pair cutter), it is more likely to be repeated than an 8-base pair cutter.

The biochemistry behind it is ridiculous and goes into why enzymes cut at the free ends of DNA molecules, while restriction enzymes cut inside the DNA strands.

3

smurfettekcmo t1_irftg4g wrote

RE are very different tech than CRISPR. CRISPR is much more specific to a certain seq I believe. RE sites are pretty specific but you tend to have multiple of each depending on the length of sequence. I left the molecular lab before CRISPR but have used RE digestion a lot personally when I was still in the lab.

3

slagwa t1_irgxuzh wrote

What are the chances that they get every cell containing a segment of HIV?

1

smurfettekcmo t1_irh3mg7 wrote

From the other attempts described in the article that is definitely a huge hurdle.

2

ElvisGrizzly t1_ireqc9m wrote

So in theory, if this works - snip virus out of the cells with an IV bag that pumps the treatment directly into the bloodstream - doesn't that mean it could work for ANY virus? Epstein barr, RSV even Flu?

23

sandoval747 t1_irezl18 wrote

This treatment works because HIV is a retrovirus. Retroviruses insert their own DNA into the human genome and force us to use their genes with our cellular machinery to create more viruses.

CRISPR is a gene editing technology that can cut DNA at precise locations. This means we can cut the HIV DNA out of the cell's genome and reverse the infection.

This will not work for every virus though because not every virus works by inserting their genome into ours. So, even if it were not an extremely risky procedure, we could never use this tech to cure a virus such as influenza.

35

Not_as_witty_as_u t1_irfzfma wrote

>Retroviruses insert their own DNA into the human genome and force us to use
>
>their
>
>genes with
>
>our
>
>cellular machinery to create more viruses.

wild stuff

​

e: why did it edit like that, sounds like it's being read by William Shatner

18

geekyCatX t1_ires25e wrote

Would be too expensive/possible risks not worth the benefit for flu, but the others I would say yes. If it works, that could be done too.

7

HouseCravenRaw t1_irestq0 wrote

Too expensive today, certainly, and probably not viable for the general population. But if this technique works, I could see using it to eliminate the flu virus from elderly or otherwise unwell patients in a hospital setting, in the far future. Provided they are well-heeled enough of course....

8

AdagioExtra1332 t1_irf5tmj wrote

Theoretically would have the most use for viruses which undergo lysogenic phases and lie dormant in cellular DNA. So it would theoretically be feasible for HIV and EBV. Not so much for RSV or flu.

7

Galaxy999 t1_ireq4f0 wrote

Why are people afraid of genetic editing? If you are, nobody force you to do it. Life is not a gamble unless you want zero control of it.

20

Lou-Saydus t1_irf70sl wrote

I think a lot of the fear stems from the fact that genetic changes are heritable and in some cases, contagious. When we start editing DNA directly, we're introducing a new biological process that has never existed in history, and thus could never be evolved against. Because artificial gene editing is an entirely new process from a biological view, there are no safety mechanisms evolved into our genome. In theory there could be great harm due to unintended consequences much like historical cases of european settlers wiping out native populations via disease, without even trying.

5

Beli_Mawrr t1_irgek5v wrote

I like this argument but people forget that evolution, how these things originally started, is actually pretty terrible. Yes it got us here, but it took a billion years or so. So I think we could probably do a better job than evolution.

4

Galaxy999 t1_irgeoyk wrote

Well said but every thing has good or bad sides and this is not genetically change for entire race. There are always pioneers going to try and other watch and decided whether to follow. It is on every discovery/invention/event of human history. Some never had breakthrough and some created weapons can wipe out the humans. Nothing would prevent any genetic genius to try - in public or under private funding. After all, almost every one wants genetic edge for themselves or their children - even religious folks. Just not every one would go in with first a few waves…

2

1wan_shi_tong t1_irhzap0 wrote

Woah there. Genetic changes aren't heritable. Not when they're done in body cells that is. There's a difference between the body cells and the sex cells aka. sperm and eggs. You can change the cells of the mothers or fathers body however you like but it won't have any impact on the offspring. You can only make heritable changes if you modify the sperm or egg cells. And genetic changes being "contagious" makes absolutely no sense.

1

eilertokyo t1_irgxc6d wrote

Heritability of modifications.

Poor specificity and understanding of the consequences. Cure HIV and get some other genetic disorder (usually cancers) down the line because the sequence they used messed up other areas of your DNA.

Speaking more broadly, a genetic arms race to invent super-people. We already toyed with that once in the 40s, and it didn’t go particularly well. There’s a small technological gap between removing viral DNA for HIV and trying to insert or change DNA for unknown reasons. Cure illness? Great. Eugenics when we understand very little about the interconnectedness of our genomes? Playing with fire.

3

fxrky t1_ireqft9 wrote

Does anyone know where the controversy surrounding gene editing comes from?

I know there was the whole sci-fi dystopia angle that was pushed for a while in Hollywood, but what gives?

Someone, somewhere, must have started a campaign to paint it negatively at some point.

I've literally never heard a good argument against editing, its always the same batshit line of logic that pro-life people usually make. Something something natural something something gods image.

But the people who think like that never come to those conclusions on their own; i feel like I'm missing some huge piece of information.

7

Rguy315 t1_iresz2l wrote

Among proponents of gene editing there is a debate about whether or not it should be done in a way that passes the altered genes onto offspring or not. That's a bit more interesting than the "nature is good" fallacious arguments.

7

supersecretpudding t1_irf1fgq wrote

I hadn't considered that.. we don't want to cause a butterfly effect where 10 generations later we suddenly can't reproduce or something mad I guess, but I'm not a scientist and have no idea so that's probably pretty unlikely

2

refusered t1_irese7d wrote

A lot of people don’t like eugenics programs especially after… after… the holo… yeah

7

mookanana t1_iresbwn wrote

same as any scientific advancement in history: there'll always be people dissing it out of ignorance and fear of change

5

JokrSmokrMidntTokr t1_irg1lx8 wrote

There have been unintended consequences when working with lower animals and even plants. For instance , certain genetically modified plants will trigger peanut allergies when eaten.

3

YareSekiro t1_irfawvh wrote

I can't help but remember the Chinese dude that Crispr edited a baby's gene to cure HIV(or rather to prevent HIV), I think he was just released not long ago after serving 3 years in prison.

7

ZalmoxisRemembers t1_irg1620 wrote

His name is He Jiankui and he was released in April this year. He gene edited twin girls to become immune to HIV. The twin girls are being monitored by the Chinese government for a long term study now, but gene editing is still in an ethical grey area due to a lack of long term research. Both girls have been reported as being healthy so far.

4

madrushdrummer t1_ireptn6 wrote

Wow. That 3-D illustration of HIV is.....unsettling.

3

BeeEven238 t1_irew46x wrote

This would be great if it works. Imagine if we could inject you with a medication to alter specific geans to say turn off/remove say muscular dystrophy, or many of the other disabilitating diseases. But let’s be real…. Why would big pharma want that.

3

toxic_pantaloons t1_irewlfo wrote

I hope this works. I remember back when they expected to have a vaccine for it inside 3 months back around 1985.

3

FuturologyBot t1_ireigxb wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Sariel007:

>In July, an HIV-positive man became the first volunteer in a clinical trial aimed at using Crispr gene editing to snip the AIDS-causing virus out of his cells. For an hour, he was hooked up to an IV bag that pumped the experimental treatment directly into his bloodstream. The one-time infusion is designed to carry the gene-editing tools to the man’s infected cells to clear the virus.

>Later this month, the volunteer will stop taking the antiretroviral drugs he’s been on to keep the virus at undetectable levels. Then, investigators will wait 12 weeks to see if the virus rebounds. If not, they’ll consider the experiment a success. “What we’re trying to do is return the cell to a near-normal state,” says Daniel Dornbusch, CEO of Excision BioTherapeutics, the San Francisco-based biotech company that’s running the trial.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/xxyhgb/a_bold_effort_to_cure_hivusing_crispr/iree9ir/

1

Makahatma t1_irfexnx wrote

Isn't this the backstory behind that movie with Will Smith called I am legend.

1

Practical_Rub6934 t1_irfldle wrote

What I can't wrap my head around is why we aren't funding or pushing for crispr gene editing more. I feel like we're at a good point In civilization where we can push the boundaries and need to loosen up the ethics/fears of it. It has the potential to cure/eliminate so many terrible illnesses.

1

rockinrandy037 t1_irfpgr0 wrote

Yeah they're not gonna just stop at HIV. HIV is the pretty excuse they use to go in there and start moving what they really want to around. Elites have and will pay to have their children genetically modified to be superior in the womb.

1

StopPrayinStrtThnkng t1_irhegcm wrote

Fast forward a bit. It gets cured

Will the religious stop freaking out on same sex drama? Blah blah unnatural/dirty? I would HOPE

1

MallardDrake-_- t1_ireqxy7 wrote

I’ll pay attention when they find a cure for super aids

−1

Seekerinside t1_irfw3au wrote

Holy crap. Just a little tweek on this therapy could easily produce a cancer weapon.

−1

Justeserm t1_irg3jsg wrote

Why are people just now trying this? CRISP is based off bacteria's own defense. This is really annoying how long it's taking people to solve our problems.

−1

ThymeCypher t1_irgrbal wrote

A mix of the complexity developing the medicine and red tape.

2

[deleted] t1_iremzjk wrote

[removed]

−27

Opposite-Peanut4049 t1_ireo843 wrote

We have “manipulated” DNA many many times since the year your fictional flood story supposedly took place. Thanks the warning but we’ll be alright.

10

[deleted] t1_iretvfp wrote

[removed]

−2

Opposite-Peanut4049 t1_irev2a6 wrote

I am happy to be proven incorrect on the topic.

Please provide the following:

  1. The characteristics, characters, and age of the flood in question. For example, some state it was world-wide, some say local, some say it was millions of years, some in the past 6-8 thousand.

  2. The source of those characteristics stated in bullet 1. For example, Genesis X states Y.

  3. The academic literature that collaborates the claims made in bullets 1 & 2.

  4. The academic literature that identifies that the characters of the story in question are tied to the claims made in bullet 1.

3

Sariel007 OP t1_ireosrj wrote

I seriously hope you dropped this "/s"

9

BlowMoreGlass t1_irequp4 wrote

A quick wander through his comment history shows he's a complete fucking clown. So, no /s

9

Sariel007 OP t1_irerhn8 wrote

This is what happens when Republicans are allowed to defund public education.

7