Slashdot Mirror
Study: HIV Becoming Less Deadly, Less Infectious
An anonymous reader writes: A new study (abstract) from Oxford University shows HIV is weakening as it evolves in response to our immune system. When the virus encounters somebody with a particularly strong immune system, it sacrifices efficiency in replication to gradually overcome those defenses. This causes it to take more time for the infection to cause AIDS. Professor Philip Goulder said, "It is quite striking. You can see the ability to replicate is 10% lower in Botswana than South Africa and that's quite exciting. We are observing evolution happening in front of us and it is surprising how quickly the process is happening. The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination." Goulder added that the average time from infection to the onset of AIDS has increased by 25% over the past 10 years.
From TFA: "Some virologists suggest the virus may eventually become "almost harmless" as it continues to evolve." Yes, I realize the the article says "Some" and "almost" but still I'd rather it be like dealing with a common cold than a full shutdown of my immune system.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Comcast is really excited. If HIV can get some positive press, they may have some hope, too.
I hate to say this, but if the virus is changing in that direction, it means it is more effective at infecting people that way. That's the way evolution works.
I guess if the virus is low key for a long time, it is detected later and retrovirals are started later, so it gets more chances to infect someone. Also, if the virus damages the body less, or the damage is slowwer, there are more chances it is not treated, so again it gets more chances to infect.
While it is good news that VIH is becoming less deadly, I wouldn't like it to become a chronic infection slowly debilitating and eventually killing its hosts. That would cause it not to be treated at all in poor countries.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
"The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination."
Not sure if this is incorrectly phrased or i'm incorrect in my understanding of viral evolution... The virus has evolved to slow down the process of causing disease, surely this is because it is advantageous to the continuation of this virus, if the host dies too quickly they are less likely to pass on the virus. So how does this contribute to eliminating the virus? is it not the opposite? Longer infected lifespan == Greater chance of transmission.
One of the most nasty things a disease can do is to slowly replicate without causing symptoms. These long incubation periods are why Ebola, Tuberculosis, and Rabies are so dangerous. It makes them hard to detect and gives the host time to travel and potentially infect others without either party knowing. By the time the symptoms manifest it is often too late. By contrast, a disease that produces symptoms immediately is easily detectable and the host seeks treatment. If it is really really fast, they die before they can pass it on, and such diseases quickly eradicate themselves.
I don't look forward to a world where AIDS only manifests after 30 years, but everyone has it.
Strange but true, at the end of the day all parasites are better off when they become symbiotic. There is no advantage to killing off your free meal, in fact your are better off lending a hand.
Shh! Don't get this kind of information beyond the sphere of well informed people. Some people may think that risky sex behavior becoming less dangerous is a thing.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
I'm somewhat skeptical here. From my very small n=2 study, my husband and myself, infected the same year in 2006 (we both had HIV negative and positive tests that same year) with the same virus, as evidenced by genotype mutations test, I can tell you that my husband progressed from HIV to AIDS in less than a year, and had to go on antiretrovirals right away, whereas I didn't need medication for years and chose to remain without them for 4 years. I was in HIV controller studies. There was no change to my immune system on paper. But I was very tired, and I later chose to go on meds anyway. I had to drop out of the studies for this reason. I don't know what came of them. We are of different ethnicity - I am of caucasian and middle eastern descent; while my husband is asian; so our genetic are probably quite different.
It seems to me that this difference in disease progression between countries may have less to do with the virus itself evolving than it does with people's immune systems and genome evolving and becoming better able to deal with the virus.
-- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog