AIDS Can Fight AIDS 276
dptalia writes "Scientists at the University of Pennsylvania have announced that they have engineered a strain of the AIDS virus that fights AIDS. This strain of AIDS works like a vaccine and improved the immune system of the test subjects. After three years on this new therapy, no side effects have been observed."
Two Wrongs (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Two Wrongs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Two Wrongs (Score:4, Interesting)
the more ash the less fire can breathe
The technique are using appears to modify an AIDS strain to have complete opposite effect offsetting HIV.
HIV slows the Immune system their system lets call it VIH accelerates the Immune system again to fight HIV.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Two Wrongs (Score:5, Funny)
Doctor: Well, you'd think so, but all of your diseases are in perfect balance.
A lot more is necessary... (Score:5, Insightful)
... for this to turn into something big, but I think it's a hopeful start. A lot of people are laboring under the mistaken belief that the drug cocktails available now will somehow stop AIDS. But even if somehow made available inexpensively worldwide (which ain't gonna happen any time soon), it still wouldn't be enough. We need radically better treatment. It needs to be inexpensive, easy to administer, and something that only needs to be administered once.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A lot more is necessary... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A lot more is necessary... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We all know you're running Linux, but we'll sue Gates anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, in all of the instances you mention, you claim that it's the "victim" who does the suing.
Here's a thought: rather than blaming lawyers for accepting money for litigating cases - which is, after all, how they make a living
When has that ever worked? (Score:2)
That'll be the day. When exactly has the system provided a means by which a person can legally extort money out of some other person, and that means hasn't been taken advantage of?
If you allow it, people will do it. They'll do it because first, someone without any morals will do it for the straight fis
Re: (Score:2)
To get this ball rolling, it'd be awefully helpfull if the damned lawyers would hold back the dollar signs in their eyes when some moron comes waltzing in with a case they'd like filed, then send them on their way. I firmly believe there are plenty of cases (that aren't stupid/frivilous) that these la
Re:A lot more is necessary... (Score:5, Insightful)
It really irks me when people talk about sue-happy America and pretend that the problem is all about individuals suing corporations. Yes, all of these lawsuits have likely occurred at one point in time, but in the VAST majority of these type cases they end up losing or they win, but only because the situation is significantly more complicated. For example, take the woman who sued McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on herself. On the face of it, as a quick little soundbite it sounds absurd and the perfect example of everything that's wrong about this country... but the details of the lawsuit changes everything. The McDonald's in question was running a "unlimited coffee" promotion, and they realized that by serving the coffee extremely hot (190+ degrees F, as I recall) people would wind up drinking less because they had to wait for it to cool off. They had health inspectors come by--the inspectors measured the temperature of the coffee, told them it was DANGEROUSLY hot and needed to be served at a lower temperature. They might have even warned them multiple times about it, I don't recall. The McDonald's management chose NOT to lower the temperature of the coffee. Then, an elderly woman spilled some on her lap. If the coffee was served at a reasonable temp, she would have been fine; maybe some slight irritation (mild first-degree burns.) But, because the coffee was so damn hot, she suffered THIRD DEGREE BURNS across her pelvic area, including her vulva. She required skin grafts and was in tremendous pain for quite some time. Imagine for a second spilling some hot coffee on your lap and getting third degree burns all over your genitals, then finding out that the restaurant was specifically warned by health inspectors that their coffee was dangerously hot and yet they decided to keep their coffee hot anyway because it was more profitable?
I don't recall how many millions of dollars she won, but I'd say that in this case, the "poor corporation" clearly deserved it. From what I've seen, most of the time when they lose, they do deserve it. Let's take your examples--the tobacco company ACTIVELY HID their own research that showed their product caused cancer. Maybe 30+ years ago people knew they weren't super-healthy, but they know that they increased their chances of getting lung cancer by (to pull a number out of my ass here) 10,000%? Big tobacco did, but they destroyed the research and hid the truth. Until that truth finally came to light (decades later, I think), most people didn't know that heavy, long-term smoking was a virtual death sentence. Big tobacco deserved to be hit with those billions of dollars' worth of punitive damages.
And let's say that salami slicer was missing a vital safety guard, but the owner was too cheap to replace it. Sorry, but he too deserves what he gets. Employers being motivated to take cheap, basic precautions to keep their employees safe can only be a good thing.
The bartender is a little more iffy--you have a link to the a *successful* lawsuit? I agree that he shouldn't be responsible for his patrons, but in very specific circumstances (like, if he somehow KNEW the guy was going to be driving home) you could make a case for reckless endangerment.
The video game thing has happened a few times, but I'm not aware of a single successful lawsuit (of this type) brought against a video game. Stupid lawsuits *generally* aren't successful, and corporations can almost always afford to defend themselves vs. an individual.
Contrast that with a corporation suing an individual. E
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
CC.
Aids doesn't kill people, drugs kill people (Score:2, Informative)
old content (Score:2)
I took a look at the site you mentioned (specificaly first page and their's tour) and all the statements of the people are from between 1992 and 2000.
Then in section "MISSING VIRUS" there is latest entry, I quote:
And latest news entries are from 2002 too.
So, while those pages about AIDS looks good and correct, they lack fresh content and may be by now (2006) even inc
Re: (Score:2)
Neither did I. But many people just can't handle the truth, and they get modpoints too.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer
Re:A lot more is necessary... (Score:5, Funny)
A bullet?
[Yes, I'm joking. And yes, I know I'm going straight to hell for that one.]
Re:A lot more is necessary... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A lot more is necessary... (Score:4, Interesting)
I hear it often as a sort of personal praise. "I'm going to hell, aren't I" or, "I know, I'm insane" or "I just say the craziest things." It's like a nervous tick, looking for an affectionate re-affirmation that they're being entertaining.
It's sort of like laughing at your own jokes. If you're not getting the attention and feedback that you wanted, you can just toss it in at the end! I think it's often unconscious, as I know at least four people who do/say that. Interestingly, the people who actually make me laugh or who say things which are actually unexpected and humorously awful very rarely do this.
However, I think in the context here, it serves the same purpose as a smiley; it's just letting you know that they do not actually think you should just shoot AIDS victims. Not really excusing the joke, just saying that it was, in fact, a joke.
The "that's HARDCORE" reply is awesome though.
Henry Cho (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Unproductive much? (Score:2)
Way to shoot the messenger there.
Maybe instead we should look at the drug market and see why it's producing outcomes that we're unhappy with, and figure out how to modify the incentive structure in order to produce outcomes that we'd prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anybody know wether patients which use the anti-HIV drugs available can still infect others?
Of course we would need mandatory HIV-tests on the border which wouldn't be very politically correct. But if every country would implement those, it would be possible to effectively eliminate AIDS in one country after another.
More (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that, in the long run, HIV is a prime candidate for eradication. Compared to something like smallpox or polio, HIV spreads slowly, the method of infection is easy to manage, quarantine is easy if morally questionable, the spread is easy to track, and we're on top of a few of the principal vectors already (ie: tainted blood and contaminated medical instruments). Needle-exchange programs could bring even more. Any capacity for actually eliminating or completely supressing the disease would make the eradication of HIV an immediate possbility, and one that would get acted on very quickly.
Re:More (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we were more agressive with quarantining we wouldn't need to wait for drugs, or drug research. Sounds like our morals are already wanting if we're allowing more infections to occur because we value people's 'privacy' (the right to carry a lethal virus undetected and spread it around?!) over the lives of their victims.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Long-term parental abuse of a child does permanent psychological damage to the child. It frequently turns the child into an abuser themselves, potentially of children and potentially in the wider sense of becoming some kind of sociopath. So it's basically contagious. Like HIV, it doesn't always transmit. But the proliferation of child abuse demonstrates that it goes on enough to keep passing it from generation from generation. So lets isolate parents. You know, kee
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A lot more is necessary... (Score:4, Informative)
Typhoid Mary (Score:2)
As others have pointed out, if they can still infect others, by giving them the cocktail, you are effectively just enabling them to spread the disease more easily; unless you have a way to guarantee that an HIV-positive person won't use their lack of symptoms as a way to disguise their infection and start having sex, you could easily be damning many innocent people to death by prolonging an infected person's life.
Withou
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, a hopeful start. I have plenty of hope in research carried out by people that express themselves in ways like this (from TFA):
"The virus particles that are released are, like, sterile. They are nonpathogenic," June said. [emphasis mine]
Re: (Score:2)
Governments and education are the big problem (Score:2)
If you're stupid enough to be having sex with a stranger without protection you really deserve to contract whatever you get.
You're talking about AIDS from the perspective of someone in the West. We've known about AIDS for more than two decades, and still plenty of people are getting AIDS here. There are a lot of people dying of AIDS who, as you said, should have known better. But many of them women who are getting infected by their husbands. Is the wife at fault for the actions of the husband, who cheated
Re: (Score:2)
Shoot anybody with AIDS.
Just kidding, of course, never the less, this has been done before. (During the plague, the infected was often isolated somehwere and left to die.)
cultural resistence (Score:4, Interesting)
There are examples already. (Score:2)
However, I'd argue that if you look at gay (male) culture today, versus say in the late 1970s, you'll see some fairly drastic changes as a result of the AIDS epidemic. There's a lesson in there somewhere, and it's not that we all have to turn into Evangelical Christian prudes to escape God's wrath; gay people didn't disappear from the planet as a result of H
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps HIV? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perhaps HIV? - Nitpicking the Nitpicker (Score:5, Informative)
There is no such thing as an "HIV virus", per se. There is, however a "Human Immunodeficiency Virus", which is shortened to HIV, or - if you will - " the HI-virus".
Ingenious (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ingenious (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but the idea is not patentable, since Congress has prior art.
Re: (Score:2)
By the people, for the people ?
Re: (Score:2)
Highlander (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yoda, highlander is!
So after the AIDS.... (Score:5, Funny)
So at what point does a Cow get sent in to go after the chicken.
Re:So after the AIDS.... (Score:5, Funny)
Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
Re: (Score:2)
don't cross the streams (Score:5, Funny)
Well, whatever you do, don't cross the streams. You're sure to get human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!
People can fight people (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig. Planet of the Apes reference (Score:2)
AIDS has killed AIDS!
AIDS has killed AIDS!
AIDS has killed AIDS!
(additional stuff to bypass lameness filter.)
I hope these scientists are around.. (Score:2)
Zombies are not cannibals (Score:2)
That's why it's hard to survive a zombie movie.
Re: (Score:2)
AIDS Can Fight AIDS? (Score:5, Informative)
AIDS != HIV
Re:AIDS Can Fight AIDS? (Score:5, Informative)
HIV is the virus which affects the immune system (by infecting the T-helper lymphocytes). AIDS is what happens after enough time has passed for the HIV virus to put a sufficient enough dent in the immune system - that's why its called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome after all.
So I think its more correct to say that it's HIV to fight HIV-using a HIV modified virus to stimulate the immune system against HIV.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh... (Score:2)
What about HCV? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about HCV? (Score:5, Interesting)
At least, I've worked for a few biotech companies that specialised in either HIV or Hepatitis C, and all of them at -least- worked on the side on the other in parallele, reusing all compounds, methodologies, and documentation/research. I don't know if it was an isolated experience, but it really seems like it was the more efficient way to go.
No Fair (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
cure == disease? (Score:2, Funny)
you: DAMN
Dr. now the good news we will inject you with AIDS that will kill your AIDS
you: GREAT
Dr. Now the not so good news the AIDS that kills the AIDS will then kill you.
Re: (Score:2)
Shopkeep: Take this needle, but beware it carries HIV.
Homer Simpson: [worried] Ooooh, that's bad.
Shopkeep: But this HIV can cure AIDS.
Homer Simpson: [relieved] That's good.
Shopkeep: The cure isn't guaranteed to work.
Homer Simpson: [worried] That's bad.
Shopkeep: But if it works, you'll be completely protected from that terrible disease.
Homer Simpson: [relieved] That's good.
Shopkeep: The LD-50 is one tenth of what I can rel
So we can use AIDS to fight AIDS? (Score:2)
I see a pattern emerging.
Time to convince my local fire fighters that the old saying actually does hold some water, which they won't need anymore since they'll be using fire to beat down the flames...
Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
Competitive antagonism...? (Score:5, Interesting)
The second thing I'm curious about is if the original HIV infection can be wiped out completely? We know that it hides out (M and T tropic strains) in the dendritic cells, lymph nodes, macrophages, etc., and can transfer from cell-to-cell without hematologic involvement, so it seems to me at least, that some latent virons of the original HIV infection will still be around.
They further suggest that the CD4 count increases, yet, how is this possible if the genetically engineered HIV strain is competing with the original strain? I'm assuming that the CD8 T-cells are possibly having an "easier" time fighting off the genetically engineered strain, and possibly giving its numbers a chance to bounce back up and stay elevated. This may lessen the burden on the CD4 cells, giving those numbers a chance to rise as well.
One problem, however, is that it's only a matter of time before the original HIV (T tropic) strain mutates. Normally, this would knock-off the humoral system, e.g., CD8 and CD4 counts plummet, just as the new strains begin their assault. With the genetically engineered strain, I'm not so sure what sequence this will occur.
Just an idea, if they can actually use this method, along with tweaking the surface antigen genes to actually mutate (and yes, there are millions of possibilities, and I'm assuming that natural selection doesn't require every possibility), we may actually be able to get the humoral system to recognize a sufficient number of antigenic sites and possibilities to be able to mount a full response, and eventually cure the person of HIV!
Obligatory Cuberpunk Reference (Score:2)
The story of it is spread thruoghout the novel, which I though was pretty damn good.
I'm well aware I used AIDS three times on one sentence. Hey, it's late.
You mean (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Setting the record straight - New advances (HIV) (Score:5, Informative)
Every couple of weeks or so the media buy a press release about how 'a new drug' / 'gene therapy' / 'Nanotechnology' could possibly cure AIDS.
Now let's get a few things straight -
Firstly, all these potential cures work against HIV (which causes AIDS).
Secondly, there are already some great meds around for extend life span of people infected with the HI virus by 20+ years as long as people infected are adherrent to their drugs and live healthly lifestyle. Of course when you live in poverty and without access to decent healthcare this is damn hard - hence the problems in resource poor communities.
Thirdly, there is a huge pipeline of new potential drugs which may improve on the current medication regimes and if anyone is interested these tables below will give some indication of the new advanced that may possibly become approved over the next few years after extensive tests: -
Finally, if people are really interested in the latest new drugs for HIV they can get the simply subscribe to thebody.com that has an excellent newsletter which includes new developments. Or look at their latest update on Other Antiviral Drugs in Development- Sept 13 2006 [thebody.com] and note the following paragraph
'Antisense Drugs These are a "mirror image" of part of the HIV genetic code. The drug locks onto the virus to prevent it from functioning. One antisense drug, HGTV43 by Enzo Therapeutics, is starting Phase II trials. VIRxSYS has completed a Phase I trial of its product, VRX496.'
Re:Setting the record straight - New advances (HIV (Score:2)
Also even if people have access to the drugs it doesn't mean they will take them as needed, it isn't exactly natural to remember to take x number of pills every y
The Immortals by Tracy Hickman (Score:2)
It is a good book however.
Welcome to MySpace! (Score:2)
Gotta love college reseaerchers. (Score:2)
Like you know, sterile or whatever. Oh yeah, Like, sign ME up Valley Girl, Fur Shure.
Heard at the Innoculation (Score:2)
Multiple Sclerosis? (Score:2)
This is a very interesting idea, and it sounds promising. I would sound one note of caution, though: AIDS is not the only auto-immune disorder, and mucking with the immune system to make it hyperactive (especially if this is done as a vaccine) runs the risk of bringing on other immune disorders, like Multiple Sclerosis. MS is still very poorly understood, and nobody really knows what sorts of factors can bring it on.
I know that they have been testing this for three years without observed side effects, but
Re:They put in more T cells than they took out... (Score:5, Insightful)
You need some way of blocking the virus from exploiting the new T-cells as "fuel". This new virus is kind of like a fire ring; Burn/infect it first in a controlled way to stop the real fire/infection from spreading further.
Re:AIDS Hoax-Ten reasons HIV is not the cause of A (Score:5, Informative)
Facts: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm sorry there isn't time.
Re: (Score:2)
By having a strong immune response to infection.
and what makes them sick...
Not having a strong immune response to infection, possibly because all the T cells have been wiped out by a virus.
Re: (Score:2)
Go on - go ahead - do it - inject yourself with a snootful of HIV. I dare ya. Naaaa- I DOUBLE DOG DARE YA!
RS
Re: (Score:2)
Though the hoax has made quite a few people phenomenally rich.
Unfortunately, whatever the cause of AIDS, it's made many phenomenally dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory time para- *Classic division-by-zero implosion complete with event-horizon*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Prayer Hankies.
Re:AIDS is just a made up desease (Score:4, Informative)
If you want to read about the duesburg hypothesis please read the whole story as this is really old stuff and his views are not accepted by the scientific community.
Wikipedia has a reasonably fair article regarding this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis [wikipedia.org] and science had a damning article regarding it no less than 12 years ago http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/266-Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if you had an antibody that bound only to cells infected with HIV, and that antibody was carrying a small tiny amount of alpha-emitter material. Antibody latches onto cell, cell dies, antibody finds a new cell. Could keep the CD4+ count up for quite a while at that rate.
Re: (Score:2)