Hacker News Reader

Comment by carbocation | Hacker News Reader

This procedure has a >10% mortality. The annual mortality from HIV in 2010 is how many orders of magnitude lower than 10%?

And why were they willing to do this risky procedure for this patient? Hint: not because of his HIV.

This is an example of a huge story that nevertheless got enormously overblown.

View on HN

Whether the treatment is is worse than the disease is less relevant here than the fact that this proves it is in fact possible to cure. With that knowledge, we can pursue techniques that won't hopefully won't have such drastic consequences.

Most researchers already agree that it will be soon possible to cure HIV. Antiviral therapies, while not yet well known, are becoming mainstream. I wouldn't call this a "cure", but rather evidence that one person's immunity to a specific form of HIV can be transferred to an person infected with that form to prevent it from replicating. It supports existing claims about the role of CCR5 in HIV's life cycle and the protective effects of its mutation. There is no reason to preface this with "For The First Time In The History Of Man" or anything so dramatic.

If you have friends who have HIV/AIDS, you'll be more appreciative of the dramatic flair.

Since this cures you for life, comparing it with the annual mortality rate doesn't seem appropriate. Better to compare the average life expectancy with and without the procedure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com