Hacker News Reader

Comment by alistproducer2 | Hacker News Reader

As exciting as this is, we already know how people have used the decreased danger of HIV infection to become careless about other types of STIs. Given that our antibiotics are losing their ability to treat many common STIs, an HIV cure without some advancement in antibiotics will be swapping one epidemic for a series of others.

Edit: I wanted to add a couple sources for my claims above. Once people stopped believing raw sex was an existential threat they started going nuts, falsely believing that everything else can just be cleared up with a pill. Let me also say that my SO worked on the front lines of public health for almost a decade so I might have a unique perspective on this issue because of what she experienced as part of her job.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/health/syphilis-newborns-partn...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/std-rates-in-the-us-rise...

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/01/26/syphilis-up-412-gonorrh...

View on HN

I'm not sure the point of your statement -- even if we accept that "an HIV cure without some advancement in antibiotics will be swapping one epidemic for a series of others", what's our alternative? Not moving forward with the HIV cure?

The field's challenges right now in terms of STIs are addressed with more advocacy, outreach, screening, education, etc. Treatment is phenomenally effective currently for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, etc. Antibiotic resistance has been seen in some of those, sure, and will likely increase, but we deal with that as it comes -- just as we have with every other resistant pathogen. I'm not eager to keep a life-long and fatal STI around (HIV) to try to forestall that outcome.

Also: Those sources don't really support your claims. They describe an explosion of STDs that (at least as posited in those articles) are tied to decreased public health funding. There is indeed lots of discussion around risk compensation in light of improved HIV treatment, PrEP, HCV treatment, etc, but the data's a little unclear, and in my view is irrelevant to whether we should actually find and provide cures.

> careless about other types of STIs.

Maybe true, though sounds awfully spun. I think a better read is that the early years of the AIDS outbreak were ones notable for particular caution in sexual behavior, not the baseline you want to look at.

> Given that our antibiotics are losing their ability to treat many common STIs

Kinda true, though you seem to be evoking the spectre of a multi-drug-resistant syphilis that AFAIK doesn't exist. It also sorta misses the point that the overwhelming majority of STDs are viral.

> an HIV cure without some advancement in antibiotics will be swapping one epidemic for a series of others

Wat? This doesn't follow. At all. Are you one of those people who opposes the HPV vaccine too because it will lead to more sex?

That's ok, we can use CRISPR as an antibiotic: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42992/...

You are right to warn of the risk. But people will party. Else people wouldnt be.

What is needed is not lots of awareness training or protection, but a "morning after" instant test for every STI on the surface of the (planet/partner).

A syphilis epidemic is a lot less deadly and curable than an HIV epidemic. I fail to see your point.

Risk homeostasis is pervasive in human life, but doesn't halt progress.

Does that mean we should pull HIV drugs from the market and return to the situation where it's a death sentence?

Only if we fail to educate people about the dangers of other STIs.

Which is happening...

I would say the excessive mediatic exposure of HIV have definitely worked to supress awareness and care for other STIs.

For instance, I am HPV+ and didn't have a clue about the existance of such a thing before getting it.

Isn't this treatment good news for everyone with a persistent viral infection? Shouldn't we be able to reverse a large class of viruses with similar methods?

I agree. By the numbers, most STIs aren't dramatic or fatal in the way HIV is, but rather "annoying little infections", though they can still affect the quality of the rest of one's life in a profoundly negative way. But they don't get much press.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com