Thank Goodness for AIDS?

Disclaimer: In my last post, I pointed out that I was trying to make up for my recently-stagnant blog writing behavior by temporarily injecting some heavy controversy. Please keep that in mind while reading this one.

Recently, studies have shown that it might already be possible to dramatically reduce – if not eliminate – the number of new HIV cases using existing drugs. We should know for sure in less than a year. (Article is here: http://www.healthology.com/hiv-aids/hiv-aids-news/article3505.htm) The gist of it is, in monkey trials (the last stage of testing before human trials, which are in progress), researchers simulated hardcore receptive anal intercourse once a week, for fourteen weeks, in twelve monkeys. This turned out to be very bad for the six control group monkeys. However, the six monkeys that spent those fourteen weeks on existing AIDS drugs came out of the diseased bareback orgy squeaky clean. And they stayed that way, even after the researchers took them off the drugs. Again, to reiterate, the study also shows that people should normally assume that a fourteen-week bareback orgy is not a good idea.

But those six healthy monkeys are really impressive. Taken collectively, they suggest that the odds of contracting AIDS via the highest risk sexual behavior is less than 1/588 (less than 0.17%) per sex act while on the drugs. In contrast, the other group shows that normally, the odds of contracting AIDS is somewhere between 5.1% and 83%. (This has been studied more thoroughly in humans with different results. I present only the like for like data, which accounts for the wide range. For people who are curious, the monkeys were apparently experiencing simulations of exceptionally rough sex.) Worst case, that means that monkeys on the drugs are 3.33% as likely to catch AIDS when compared to the monkeys who are not. (Best case is that the monkeys are 0% as likely.)

That’s a very big change. These drugs are not terribly cheap, but let’s face it. Most people who are at high risk of catching AIDS know who they are. If even a majority of these people went on these drugs (assuming they work in humans), we would see the rate of AIDS transmission in developed countries drop dramatically. Pair that with widespread testing, which looks like it might become standard with routine physicals in the near future, and we might basically be looking at an end to the AIDS crisis entirely (again, this is in developed nations only).

Skeptics will point out that we are no closer to a cure, and they would be correct. I should also remind everyone that we do not yet know that the monkey data will hold true in human populations. But it looks promising. That said, to rebuff the critics of the lack of a cure, I would point out that if we eliminate new cases of AIDS, even if we never find an outright cure, the AIDS problem will eventually go away via a tragic, but very predictable series of events.

That is a good thing, if the only other available option is the same end to existing AIDS cases, but with new cases still spreading. That said, I will unabashedly call this a potentially very good thing.

But it has the potential to get even better. The reason that HIV has been as bad as it was is twofold. First, it gets along a little too well with the immune system. Second, the immune system is exceptionally bad at noticing that HIV is even around. The virus’ surface looks deceptively like human cellular material. Therefore, attacking it directly is extremely difficult. Normally, that’s very bad for people with these viral shells around. But modern science is experimenting on HIV. It is possible to remove the genetic material inside the “stealth” viral shell and put something else in there. This new genetic material can then be selectively targeted to cells for delivering gene therapies. If the research stays promising, HIV shells could turn into a major pharmaceutical product and save countless lives through a large number of applications. Similar things can be said about the virus that causes genital herpes.

So here is today’s controversial question: How many lives would HIV technologies have to save before you considered the virus to have been a benefit to humanity?