> "Vampire facial" is the common name for a platelet-rich plasma microneedling procedure. In this treatment, a patient's blood is drawn, spun down to separate out plasma from blood cells, and the platelet-rich plasma is then injected into the face with microneedles. It's claimed—with little evidence—that it can rejuvenate and improve the look of skin, and got notable promotions from celebrities, including Gwyneth Paltrow and Kim Kardashian.
> In an inspection in the fall of 2018, health investigators found shocking conditions: unwrapped syringes in drawers and counters, unlabeled tubes of blood sitting out on a kitchen counter, more unlabeled blood and medical injectables alongside food in a kitchen fridge, and disposable equipment—electric desiccator tips—that were reused. The facility also did not have an autoclave—a pressurized oven—for sterilizing equipment.
There are a bunch of weird things in the article. HIV typically has three phases: acute for first 6 months (most contagious, perhaps cold symptoms), chronic for up 11 years if untreated, or much longer if under treatment, and then AIDS.
Per the report two cases were acute and one case (two?) had AIDS, yet they all fell within the same viral DNA cluster (AIDS if infected in 2018 would be rare). So it seems that they were infected at very different times, yet they share a common viral strand. One explanation was that the clinic was using infected blood rather than customers' own blood, but even that sounds weird.
That's incorrect. 8-10 years is generally reported as the "average" time from infection to AIDS, but faster progressions are by no means rare. One study found that up to 13% of newly infected patients may develop AIDS within one year. Developing AIDS 6 years out from infection is certainly unfortunate but by no means rare.
Just a meta-observation on the discourse here. I'm _shocked_ that the discourse on ArsTechnica for this story seems civilized while here on HN it's all (so far) snark.
There are definitely snarky comments, but at least looking at it now all the shitty comments are flagged or downvoted at the bottom, while the more useful and insightful ones are at the top.
Not sure if this is part of what you’re observing, but on ArsTechnica, ther article is presented by default, and you have to click to get to the comments.
On HN, the comments are presented by default, and you have to click to get to the article.
To be charitable towards HN, one potential angle of discussion is the privacy implications of using genetic sequencing for investigations. A less charitable towards HN angle would be to talk about how to do this business better and blitzscale it effectively. Of course, ultimately one would expect HN posters to behave with civility and empathy.
I mean, there's plenty of snark on both sites' comment sections. You are allowed to feel sympathy for the victims while also wondering WTF they were thinking. Both are possible.
HN's audience is often pretty petty and biting towards out groups, and tends towards a certain political axis ime (often a sort of progressive individualism) that can be pretty snarky towards people who, in their eyes, "should have known better".
Really? HN has been a mini-Reddit for quite some time now. Frequently just a bunch of low quality, unfunny and recycled one-liners hoping to grab a few precious internet points.
I don’t agree with that at all. While I do think HN discussion has become generally more negative I still almost always find interesting or useful stuff in comments. I think they’re a valuable way to check the pulse of the tech community.
Readit News
Per the report two cases were acute and one case (two?) had AIDS, yet they all fell within the same viral DNA cluster (AIDS if infected in 2018 would be rare). So it seems that they were infected at very different times, yet they share a common viral strand. One explanation was that the clinic was using infected blood rather than customers' own blood, but even that sounds weird.
That's incorrect. 8-10 years is generally reported as the "average" time from infection to AIDS, but faster progressions are by no means rare. One study found that up to 13% of newly infected patients may develop AIDS within one year. Developing AIDS 6 years out from infection is certainly unfortunate but by no means rare.
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
On HN, the comments are presented by default, and you have to click to get to the article.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment