FDA approves human trial for treatment to cure HIV | Hacker News Reader

FDA approves human trial for treatment to cure HIV

washingtonblade.com

46 pointsstevefink16 comments

> the T-cell samples extracted through that process will be sent to a lab, where they will be genetically altered in a process developed by AGT. He said AGT believes the genetically altered T-cells will make them resistant to HIV infection and enable them to do what HIV has prevented human T-cells from doing during the course of the 40-year plus HIV epidemic – to neutralize the virus and prevent it from harming the human body.

So you'll still have the virus, and be able to give it to others, but your immune system won't be compromised?

Not in a medical field, but my understanding is that virus on its own is harmless (just a combination of RNA, proteins and fat), it needs cells to replicate. So if it can't infect them it won't produce copies and won't spread either.

That's now how I read it. The treatment allows T-cells to do what they'd normally do to any other infection. And, from the first paragraph, should "enable the immune system of people who are HIV positive to permanently eliminate HIV from their body."

How can a person infect someone with HIV when it has been eliminated from his body?

The T-Cells will probably also attack infected T-Cells.

The immune system is super complex and self regulatory, with different Immune cell populations attacking each other in case of auto immune disease for example.

I'm not going to get too excited about this.

"Brain cells can harbor and spread HIV virus to the body" - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/brain-cells-ca... (June 2020)

At $200k for treatment I don't see insurance companies covering this.

Isnt it still cheaper than a lifetime of HIV meds?

For who?

The patient? Probably.

The insurance company? No. They make a profit with every transaction, so the smart money is treating chronic conditions, not curing them.

Insurance companies don’t make a profit with every transaction, that’s the drug companies.

This is very, very, VERY wrong. Insurance companies bucket people by risk and then charge premiums based on that. The more people use specialist services, the less they make per person. They most definitely do not make money per transaction. They are paying premium money out with each claim. This is one of the reasons they are so obsessed with preventative care. It’s way cheaper and catches shit before it gets more expensive.

Insurance companies are highly motivated to treat (and cure) chronic illnesses because those patients cost them so much over the long term.

This can be seen two ways. Yes, the specialization of service and products for a particular illness has a cost associated with it. But, the cost of specialization is within the field not the direct cost of the insurer. The availability of many treatments/products does not directly relate to cost burden of the insurer as the cost is proportional to customer need. Increasing markets are most likely passed proportionally to the consumer based on risk.

The net increased of cost could be seen as a decentralized cost over their entire customer base. The question is... if the insurer is taking a relative percentage for each dollar passed between the insurer and healthcare industry then, maintaining a higher volume of expenses is proportional to their profit. (This would be dependent on a fairly non-elastic demand of people buying insurance). There might also be regulation associated to the maximum amount of profit they can make relative to the actual amount used to cover their customers. If that's the case, then more money spent is probably more money earned.

Looks like original research required 4 years for FDA approval:

https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Cure_for_AIDS

https://southpark.cc.com/clips/164373/they-found-a-cure-for-...

"about $180,000 shot directly into the bloodstream"

Thankfully, the US isn't the only country in the world, and large chunks of the world have socialized medicine.

That number is just a little bit of sensationalist journalism, intentional or not. It is reasonable to assume that this is a very manual process right now so that things can be changed easily. Dna sequencing cost $2.4m in the early 90s using the Sanger Sequencing method but today it costs $100 (using a different but as accurate method) because of automation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequencing

Has this been tested in animals? I see no mention of this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com