Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Zero In On Protein That Destroys HIV

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the discovering-the-crucial-bazooka-protein dept.

Medicine 216

Julie188 writes with this excerpt from a Loyola University news release: "Using a $225,000 microscope, researchers have identified the key components of a protein called TRIM5a that destroys HIV in rhesus monkeys. The finding could lead to new TRIM5a-based treatments that would knock out HIV in humans, said senior researcher Edward M. Campbell, PhD, of Loyola University Health System."

cancel ×

216 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (5, Funny)

PocariSweat1991 (1651929) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318286)

"Hey everybody! We're all gonna get laid!"

Oblig. Trey Parker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318334)

Everyone has AIDS!
AIDS AIDS AIDS!
AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS!
Everyone has AIDS!

And so this is the end of our story
And everyone is dead from AIDS
It took from me my best friend
My only true pal
My only bright star (he died of AIDS)

Well I`m gonna march on Washington
Lead the fight and charge the brigades
There`s a hero inside of all of us
I`ll make them see everyone has AIDS

My father (AIDS!)
My sister (AIDS!)
My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (AIDS AIDS AIDS!)
The gays and the straights
And the white and the spades

Everyone has AIDS!
My grandma and my dog `ol blue (AIDS AIDS AIDS)
The pope has got it and so do you (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
C`mon everybody we got quilting to do (AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS)
We gotta break down these baricades, everyone has
AIDS! x 20

Oblig. Ween (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318388)

You really need the circus music to make sense of the lyrics, but here goes...

AIDS, AIDS, HIV, AIDS, HIV
AIDS

HIV, AIDS, HIV, AIDS, AIDS
HIV

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (5, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318384)

The '70s will be back! You young guys are gonna love it, but the prostitutes will hate it. Back then, having sex with a woman was no bigger a deal than smoking a joint (that we were convinced would be legal once our generation took over... ha), and the best pickup line was "wanna fuck?" and women would come up to YOU and ask that.

AIDS killed it. If this works, you guys are in for some great times.

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (4, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318470)

...

How old ARE you?

Does your Commadore PET still work?

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (5, Funny)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318546)

What do you think he's using to post you insensitive clod!

On the other hand I've heard similar stories from my Grandfather. Made especially hilarious by the fact that he was already married to my grandmother in the 70's and he says this stuff in front of her.

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (5, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318632)

I was a beta tester for dirt. We never did get all the bugs out...

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318584)

and the best pickup line was "wanna fuck?" and women would come up to YOU and ask that. AIDS killed it. If this works, you guys are in for some great times.

Man, someone should've taught you kids about what condoms do. Y'all could still be fucking, and be like "sup puritans?!"

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318588)

I thought Herpes shoved the knife in, and AIDS twisted it for the final kill.

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (1)

Conditioner (1405031) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319498)

no one ever talks about HPV

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318750)

"and the best pickup line was "wanna fuck?"

That'd be "Me, You, fuck fuck." these days.

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (1)

JismTroll (588456) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318772)

I don't think any of these Linux nerds will be in for great times any time soon

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318832)

Yeah, heaven forbid all these petty girls turn into real women, show some initiative and ask guys out for a change. Jesus, I might get some attention that way.

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319008)

Wait, this got modded INTERESTING?!?

How old are you people?!?

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318764)

One slight problem: so-called 'HIV' has never been isolated, and is not the cause of 'AIDS'.

Worst still, 99% of Slashdotters haven't got a clue about what 'AIDS' is, they just blindly parrot whatever the media tells them.

Read the book "Science sold out" by Rebecca Culshaw.

And rhesus monkeys don't get 'AIDS', nor is there any such thing as a 'monkey version' of 'HIV'.

You know nothing about it, but will insist that I am wrong.

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318926)

"Hey everybody! We're all gonna get laid!"

Well, if that all works out, here's the lyrics that we will need: http://lyrics.wikia.com/The_Cramps:Tear_It_Up [wikia.com]

It should be a hoot and a half . . . .

Re:Oblig Rodney Dangerfield (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33319166)

"Hey everybody! We're all gonna get laid!"

You must be new here

yea. (1)

Soilworker (795251) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318288)

Use condoms.

Re:yea. (5, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318310)

"I just saved a bunch of money on child support by switching to condoms!"

Re:yea. (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318858)

So easy, a caveman can do it.

Re:yea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318348)

That won't help a blood transfusion.

Re:yea. (5, Funny)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318514)

I've worn a condom every time I've had a blood transfusion, and I've never gotten HIV.

Re:yea. (5, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318420)

If I had a nickel for every condom that broke on me, I could buy myself another pack of Condoms.

Wearing protection, while it helps, is not the best way to go about staying uninfected.

And no I'm not saying that Abstinence is the right choice either, I think I'd probably go insane. But you can, you know, develop relationships with people before sleeping with them, so theres that level of trust where you'll inform each other of any STD's or STI's. THATS the best way to stay clean while being sexually active.

I wear one because I don't want any unwanted pregnancies. Before you jump in with "Isn't she on the pill?" - Yes, she is. Theres 2 reasons for that, one being that there are always those rare cases where the pill isn't 100% effective. The other reason being that it shouldn't be entirely her responsibility. If the odds were one in 1000 while on either the pill or using condoms, both of us doing our part makes it a 1 in a million chance instead.

Re:yea. (4, Insightful)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318570)

Even forming relationships to trust someone isn't foolproof. They could be an STD carrier and still not tell you. Or they may not even know themselves.

Re:yea. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318596)

Agreed there is no 100% bullet proof plan - but if you want to be sexually active - do you have a better suggestion?

Re:yea. (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318700)

I do not. Unfortunately, until there is a vaccine for HIV, it's still a dangerous game depending who you're sleeping with.

It's less of an issue for myself and my wife since we're married, but we do have a female friend who we include from time to time, and we all get tested every 3 months. Trust but verify.

Re:yea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33319312)

Does she live in the Niagara Falls area, and we wouldn't know her?

Re:yea. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318790)

Agreed there is no 100% bullet proof plan - but if you want to be sexually active - do you have a better suggestion?

Blowing yourself up and getting a whole passel of virgins? Just a thought.

Re:yea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318650)

You are choosing poor condoms. Properly sized, good quality condoms generally wont break on you. The brands which seem to have the best reputation for not breaking are Beyond Seven and Kimono though you might find that you need the "large" version even if you did not with American condoms. The sizing is simply different.

ProTip: Trojans, despite being a well recognized brand, have a reputation for being a lot less reliable than you would expect.

Re:yea. (4, Funny)

ThatFunkyMunki (908716) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318780)

Duh, what did you expect? A trojan horse is when the big present comes in, and all the little guys come out inside the base! Seems like a no-brainer that I wouldn't trust something like that with wrapping my schlong

Re:yea. (3, Informative)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318656)

And yet, no insurer offers contraceptive-failure insurance (presumably for those who have been surgically sterilized: 1/600-1/2000 failure rate for men, and 1/300 for women), nor is a contract to abort in the event of contraceptive failure legally enforceable.

Further, a man can be assessed child support for a child provably not his, and jailed if he does not pay. (Google "legal father" sometime, and the lack of proper service of process to allow disputing paternity within statutory limits). I suppose this is unconstitutional, but mounting a constitutional challenge is likely beyond the financial means of many caught in this trap.

Finally, there is the case [thefreelibrary.com] of a minor in Florida, seduced by an adult woman, who subsequently became pregnant. Florida law forbids a minor being ordered to pay child support to an adult, but as soon as he turned 18, he was hit with a a $50,000 arrears tab, and ordered to pay or go to jail.

Abstinence, and the general avoiding of women of unknown character, is the only defense a man has if he does not want to father a child or be required to financially support one.

Re:yea. (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318886)

Further, a man can be assessed child support for a child provably not his, and jailed if he does not pay. (Google "legal father" sometime, and the lack of proper service of process to allow disputing paternity within statutory limits). I suppose this is unconstitutional, but mounting a constitutional challenge is likely beyond the financial means of many caught in this trap.

And if he did have enough money to fight it, it would probably just be cheaper and easier for him to pay it anyway.

Re:yea. (2, Informative)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319306)

Not really, because "child support" includes statutory support requirements based on "earning ability" AS WELL AS discretionary expenses for the child's "special" needs, often determined by a "best interests" standard applied by the court to include state-provided psychologists, psychiatrists, and any number of professionals you now have to pay. In other words, the "child support" ordered can be unbounded, and exceed any ability you have to pay, resulting in your incarceration for not paying it.

So, if you can put up a credible fight, you should, particularly if you are not the biological or adoptive parent of the child.

If you are, of course, you should support your progeny to a reasonable degree. Often the amount of support ordered is unreasonable, and reflects the greatest income ever earned, rather than modern economic realities.

Re:yea. (0, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319052)

Yeah, there is always one in every group spouting this lie.

No one believes it, and you're not making us think you have a big dick.

" If the odds were one in 1000 while on either the pill or using condoms, both of us doing our part makes it a 1 in a million chance instead."

And you don't understand math.

Well done, your an idiot and I, for one, welcome you not reproducing.

Re:yea. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319180)

And you don't understand math.

Break it down for me then. You see I was always under the impression that 1/1000 times 1/1000 equals 1/1000000 .

But clearly my understanding is wrong. Please, please explain.

Re:yea. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33319230)

Well done, your an idiot and I, for one, welcome you not reproducing.

Ahh, the irony.

Re:yea. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319328)

No one believes it, and you're not making us think you have a big dick.

Also - not what I claimed. I claimed condoms break easily, and to be honest it doesn't really have much to do with the size - it's more about adequate lubrication for the full duration.

Re:yea. (1)

machxor (1226486) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319452)

No one believes it, and you're not making us think you have a big dick.

Also - not what I claimed. I claimed condoms break easily, and to be honest it doesn't really have much to do with the size - it's more about adequate lubrication for the full duration.

Oh so now you're not claiming you have a big dick but that you last forever. Your girlfriend must be impressed ;-)

Re:yea. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33319392)

Broke? Or just slipped off because your wanker's too small?

Re:yea. (1)

svanheulen (901014) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318920)

Because condoms are made of magic... Pro Tip: You can still get STDs while wearing a condom, just like you can still get preggers.

Not ready for humans yet (4, Informative)

Meshach (578918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318322)

The specific protein is TRIM5a, and from TFA:

Humans also have TRIM5a, but while the human version of TRIM5a protects against some viruses, it does not protect against HIV.

This is exciting but it looks like it has a ways to go before it is a viable treatment for humans.

Re:Not ready for humans yet (0, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318424)

Yea, but thats only cause the drug companies will bury it for the next 100 years, it'll eventually become public when some high school kid cobbles together enough info and publishes it before someone realizes they need to buy him off.

Re:Not ready for humans yet (1)

notmuchtosay (850664) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318576)

I like how we accuse most companies of not thinking beyond this quarter and their immediate profits, but when it comes to drug and oil companies they are evil genius that plan for the future and would never cash in on the immediate gains they could get with new ideas/products.

Re:Not ready for humans yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33319010)

They are still pissed on all the money they lost to polio and small pox.

Re:Not ready for humans yet (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318462)

And when it is, it's only a matter of time until TRIM-resistant HIV develops.

Re:Not ready for humans yet (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318612)

That's a pretty big leap. It wouldn't be the first time that a disease was eradicated in the wild.

Re:Not ready for humans yet (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318498)

Will it still work after the virus mutates?

$225,000 (3, Interesting)

the_banjomatic (1061614) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318324)

Sounds like promising research, but I'm confused by why the cost of the microscope is prominently displayed in both the press release and TFS. Is $225,000 considered cheap or expensive for a microscope these days?

Re:$225,000 (1)

anglico (1232406) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318364)

Yes, our clinic scope costs $2000.00 and it only goes to 400x.

Re:$225,000 (3, Informative)

Kitten Killer (766858) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318468)

The 400x part is usually meaningless. It's just 40x objective and a 10x eye piece. What actually matters is the resolution.

Resolution can be improved by things like deconvolution as used in TFS, but that's still relatively low. You can easily start flirting with 7 digit figures when you use confocal microscopy and variations of laser excitation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confocal_microscopy

Re:$225,000 (1)

men0s (1413347) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318846)

I don't think banjo posed a "yes/no" question..

Re:$225,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33319030)

Mine goes to 11.

Re:$225,000 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318368)

It's pretty standard for a high-end confocal microscope. Reading the actual paper:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6WXR-50HWJ1Y-1-14&_cdi=7165&_user=334567&_pii=S0042682210003971&_orig=browse&_coverDate=09/15/2010&_sk=995949998&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkzk&md5=19c683b5d36819b1870a7b57e48bc6a5&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

there is nothing about a unique microscope setup. University press releases are never a good source of information.

Re:$225,000 (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318504)

FYI. The above url is behind a pay wall.

Re:$225,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318566)

It's a peer-reviewed publication in biology, what do you expect?

Re:$225,000 (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319082)

that's like asking is 20K cheap or expensive for a car.

It's expenseive for a 20 year old hond civie, cheap for a 2010 Corvette.

Considering all the money that has gone into finding possible cures, 225,000 is cheap.

Help for geeks everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318326)

Wow, just imagine: If you can't get laid the day they cure AIDS...

and the $225,000 figure is relevant? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318328)

I wish they'd tell us the hair colour of the researchers too since it's probably just as relevant to the article.

Should be: (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318536)

"Using a big-ass microscope, researchers have..."

Re:and the $225,000 figure is relevant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318646)

I bet it's a reference to Southpark, where One of them get's HIV and to cure it you roughly need about 200,000 dollars of cold cash injected straight into the blood stream.

Re:and the $225,000 figure is relevant? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319210)

I wish they'd tell us the hair colour of the researchers too

Wanna bet they aren't blondes?

Cheap microscope (4, Insightful)

Kitten Killer (766858) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318330)

As a biologist, I have no idea why they're making such a big deal of it being a $225,000 deconvolution microscope. It's cheap compared with what most institutions have. Besides which is the fact that the microscope used isn't interesting. Any high(ish) resolution fluorescent microscope would have given you the same data. The interesting part is this TRIM5a. Let's see what happens with recombinant TRIM5a in animal studies.

Re:Cheap microscope (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318464)

press releases lead to funding. putting a dollar amount in there will (they hope) elicit one of two responses: "wow, that's a lot of money and they did good work, let's give them more" or "wow, they'd do even better with a more expensive microscope."

Re:Cheap microscope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318482)

As a biologist, I have no idea why they're making such a big deal of it being a $225,000 deconvolution microscope. It's cheap compared with what most institutions have.

Er? Exactly. So good research using only modest equipment. Seems like you are thinking that they were emphasizing that this was expensive microscope. Oh boy.

Re:Cheap microscope (2, Insightful)

Rotten (8785) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318520)

I think the idea is to show that some advances are not money dependent. It's interesting to see a development on the enzyme/protein field, it's encouraging and sounds like it's moving in the right direction.

Re:Cheap microscope (1)

avandesande (143899) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318766)

Yet pretty dumb. I am no expert but it isn't hard to imagine micro imaging devices costing more than a million.

Re:Cheap microscope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318810)

I have no idea why they're making such a big deal of it being a $225,000 deconvolution microscope. It's cheap compared with what most institutions have.

I think you just answered your own query. It was probably meant to indicate that relatively inexpensive equipment was used.
Although average joe would not consider 1/4-Million dollar scope as cheap.

Re:Cheap microscope (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318822)

You took the thought right out of my head. If they had used the concave bottom of a broken bottle would the finding be that much more exciting, or not??? What if they had used the most expensive electron imaging scanner and powered it with the nrg equivalent of one year's worth of watt hours that it takes to run Botswana? Would it have been bigger news then?

Re:Cheap microscope (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318862)

I have no idea why they're making such a big deal of it being a $225,000 deconvolution microscope.

Don't you know? Money cures AIDS! [google.com] If they can get a more expensive microscope, they are sure to cure it once and for all!

Well yeah (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318332)

And it could kill the human at dose lower than what kill the HIV virus. Wake me up when they are at phase 3 or later.

Ironically ... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318354)

Ironically, the protein that destroys AIDS isn't folded, it's straight.

rimshot

Re:Ironically ... (0)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318686)

what is this 1988, HIV infection is not a gay only infection. People never cease to amaze me.

Re:Ironically ... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318976)

People never cease to amaze me.

Agreed. The lack of any sense of humor among slashdotters is truly astounding.

Re:Ironically ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33319114)

Wow is this 1988, gays have a sense of humor now. People never cease to amaze me.

Re:Ironically ... (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319290)

HIV infection is not a gay only infection

Funny that you interpreted it like this. I had to read your post twice and think what made you mention homosexuality with relation to the GP.

When I read "the protein is straight" I thought the joke was that it isn't folded, so all the effort spent in studying protein folding was in vain.

Re:Ironically ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318724)

rimshot

What a choice word to use in a thread about sexually transmitted diseases.

You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318394)

that we will get TRIM support in an update?

So which drug company is going to buy the (0, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318396)

patent and then bury so they can keep selling drugs to treat the symptoms rather than curing the person with HIV?

I'm betting it'll be GSK.

Re:So which drug company is going to buy the (1)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318578)

I am not sure what is more sad. That your 1st reaction is to wonder this, or that I think I'm starting to believe that really happens.

Re:So which drug company is going to buy the (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319214)

I want to nip this in the bud:

It doesn't happen. Learn how the sciences in pharmaceutical companies is done, look at the patent regulation regarding pharmaceutical , and look at the bonus structure for the executives.

Now think about the market.

The first two on my list are far to complex for a /. post, so I will address the money portion.

ABC company figures out a cure for AIDS.
The CEO and board can sit on it and make a few % increase in profit. Then it falls out of patent and someone else rakes it in. Of the next CEO uses it to get a fat bonus.

OR
the can produce it sell it, watch there stocks go through the roof, and the Executive get 10 million plus bonuses. They get more interest in investors, and the scientists get huge amount of prestige. possible the Nobel prize. Which also makes the company look great.

The scientist could probably lead there own research for the rest of their lives.

Re:So which drug company is going to buy the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318674)

I'm not convinced that this has ever happened once. Link it or leave and take your tin foil hat with you.

Re:So which drug company is going to buy the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318696)

Please tell me there's some law that would prevent this...

Re:So which drug company is going to buy the (3, Informative)

Kitten Killer (766858) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318816)

Even if you can kill the HIV virus, you still wouldn't have a cure.

HIV is a retrovirus. It becomes part of the infected cell's genome. Any agent that kills the virus can suppress symptoms/disease but not cure people who are already infected.

P.S. Please take off your tin-foil hat. The glare is quite annoying.

Re:So which drug company is going to buy the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318910)

I'm pretty sure that this either never happens, or perhaps it happened once ever.

Anyway, if there's a patent on it then it's public knowledge. Many countries have explicit exemptions to patent laws for medicines when supply is restricted for any reason (artificial or legitimate). So there would still be great gain worldwide.

Re:So which drug company is going to buy the (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319126)

That doesn't happen. If you know the pharmaceutical business, you would understand why that's the least profitable thing they could do, and why it couldn't be done anyways.

So the FDA can sit on it (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318522)

for another 10 years. The great FDA barrier to entry in the world of drug research. Thanks nanny state!

Re:So the FDA can sit on it (3, Insightful)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319246)

You're right: We should burn down the FDA so that the wise and beneficient pharmaceutical companies can immediately cure all our diseases with their well-tested, totally safe, and 100% effective drugs that are never mis-marketed for the sake of profit.

Re:So the FDA can sit on it (2, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319292)

Are you actually implying that it would be better without the FDA? Think about what the FDA actually lets through (think Fen-phen and the likes)... this is shit that was clearly dangerous but the drug companies just wanted their money, and the FDA still passed it. While their methods are obviously broken to some degree, imagine no FDA. We'd go back to the 1900's where they sell snake oil for all sorts of problems with no organization to even test or approve it... it just gets thrown on the shelves. Which would you rather have?

You HOPE : What About The Other (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318538)

100,000 retrovirii [virusmyth.com] ?

Yours In Vladivostok,
K. Trout

I still have a better idea (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318568)

A virus is basically a cellular syringe. Break the syringe by destroying the protein shell that contains the RNA - infection stopped as you can't inject into a cell any longer.

Just figure out how to do it without making people lose their hair and fingernails. That's the tough part.

get ready for the resurgence of other STDs (4, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318622)

Once HIV is curable, people will find out the hard way that they never did come up with a cure for Herpes.

Re:get ready for the resurgence of other STDs (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319278)

Generally, if you're intelligent enough to fear one STD, you're intelligent enough to fear all of them. I find it hard to imagine someone whose promiscuity hinges on the existence of a cure for just one of them.

Re:get ready for the resurgence of other STDs (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#33319362)

Generally, if you're intelligent enough to fear one STD, you're intelligent enough to fear all of them. I find it hard to imagine someone whose promiscuity hinges on the existence of a cure for just one of them.

Well, one kills you and the other doesn't. High-order risk vs low-order risk. Combine that with human nature, and I bet you'll see a massive resurgence in Herpes cases once HIV is cured.

i like puppets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318682)

puppet gopher on penis

And before the FDA trials are done (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318698)

there will be strains in circulation that the protein doesn't affect.

HIV mutates fast. For more discussion of HIV (and a lot of rude comments by an HIV researcher [1]) check out Abbie Smith's blog [scienceblogs.com] .

[1] Yes, she's young and (very) good looking. And has a dog that you could saddle for rodeo.

Ah, yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318740)

The age-old adage: "What would rhesus do?"

Hot Damn! (4, Funny)

Petersko (564140) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318796)

We're one step closer to the day I can go find the freakiest, dirtiest, most disease-laden slut and hire her to do nasty, nasty things... and simply go for a single shot afterwards.

I'm turning 40, though, so they'd better get on with it. If my emails are to be believed, I have only another thirty or forty years until pills no longer facilitate my erections.

scope manufacturer gripes: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33318890)

hey douche bag, as long as you brought it up, how about plugging the guys who made your scope for such low cost, instead of gloating about how you scored such a bargoon in your labware.

Zeiss? Leica? Nikon?

So now we just have to worry about... (2, Insightful)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 4 years ago | (#33318966)

the anti-bacterial resistant gonorrhea

HPV

herpes

Hepatitis C

The last being the worst of them - but if a cure for AIDS is found, i'm sure HVC is right behind it - IIRC, they already use interferon and have a 50/50 success rate to put patients in remission (although the treatment is basically chemotherapy... so makes you feel like poop)

Re:So now we just have to worry about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33319364)

There's already vaccines for the cancer-causing strains of HPV.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?