Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

AIDS Can Fight AIDS 276

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the numbers-games dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AIDS Can Fight AIDS

Comments Filter:
  • Two Wrongs (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So does this mean that two wrongs DO make a right?
  • by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @03:33AM (#16748719) Homepage Journal

    ... 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)

      by Telvin_3d (855514)
      ... and then we need to wait for the patents to expire so that the people who actually need it can afford what the drug companies will charge.
      • by debilo (612116) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @03:51AM (#16748817)
        ... and then we need to wait for the patents to expire so that the people who actually need it can afford what the drug companies will charge.
        Or we pull a stunt [bbc.co.uk] like Brazil on the drug companies and force them to reduce the price. [bbc.co.uk]
        • by mccoma (64578)
          or we could fix the FDA process and fix liability (every drug will kill someone).
          • by Tuna_Shooter (591794) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @08:49AM (#16750201) Homepage Journal
            Jeesh...... It's not the FDA but the lawyers that have PUT the FDA in such a position of liabilty. Whats needs reform is the legal system in this country that is not driven by greed. how the world works lately... If a man cuts his finger off while slicing salami at work, he sues the restaurant. If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of lung cancer, your family sues the tobacco company. If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, he sues the bartender. If your grandchildren are brats without manners, you sue producers of a video games. If your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you sue the gun manufacturer. And if a crazed person breaks into the cockpit and tries to kill the pilot at 35,000 feet, and the passengers kill him instead, the mother of the crazed deceased sues the airline. I must have lived too long to understand the world as it is anymore. So, if I die while parked in front of this computer, I want you all on my behalf to sue Bill Gates...
            • by sydb (176695)
              So, if I die while parked in front of this computer, I want you all on my behalf to sue Bill Gates...

              We all know you're running Linux, but we'll sue Gates anyway.
            • by sammy baby (14909)

              If a man cuts his finger off while slicing salami at work, he sues the restaurant. If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of lung cancer, your family sues the tobacco company. If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, he sues the bartender...

              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

              • Here's a thought: rather than blaming lawyers for accepting money for litigating cases - which is, after all, how they make a living - how about you exhort litigants, aka "regular folks," to stop suing people?

                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
              • by michrech (468134)
                Here's a thought: rather than blaming lawyers for accepting money for litigating cases - which is, after all, how they make a living - how about you exhort litigants, aka "regular folks," to stop suing people?

                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
            • by foreverdisillusioned (763799) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @05:55PM (#16758351) Journal
              If a man cuts his finger off while slicing salami at work, he sues the restaurant. If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of lung cancer, your family sues the tobacco company. If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, he sues the bartender. If your grandchildren are brats without manners, you sue producers of a video games. If your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you sue the gun manufacturer.

              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)

      by foobsr (693224) *
      On the other hand ... [virusmyth.net].

      CC.
      • One example of someone who declined to take an AIDS cocktail:

        Traywick [one-time heavy meth user] was diagnosed 21 years ago and has been healthy ever since, despite never having taken anti-HIV medications. Antibody tests demonstrate conclusively that he harbors the virus. But his immune system has controlled it so effectively that repeated blood assays have never shown a detectable level of the invader, even though Traywick still occasionally uses speed and engages in unprotected sex.

        -HIV-Positive Group May [latimes.com]

      • 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:

        Another Award (April '02)
        Alex Russel is offering £10,000 Reward for the first person who can prove that HIV exists. See the details.

        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

    • by nacturation (646836) <nacturation&gmail,com> on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @05:08AM (#16749269) Journal
      It needs to be inexpensive, easy to administer, and something that only needs to be administered once.

      A bullet?

      [Yes, I'm joking. And yes, I know I'm going straight to hell for that one.]
       
      • by tehcyder (746570) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @09:29AM (#16750461) Journal
        Yes, I'm joking. And yes, I know I'm going straight to hell for that one.
        So you believe in a Deity that condemns people to eternal suffering because they told one shitty bad taste joke? Fucking hardcore.

      • A bullet?

        [Yes, I'm joking. And yes, I know I'm going straight to hell for that one.]

        --
        Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously," try the "Post Humously" option.
        Looks like you finally followed your own advice! ;)
    • by RoLi (141856)
      IMO the most important thing would be to prevent further spread of the virus.

      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)

      by Mark_MF-WN (678030) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @05:34AM (#16749361)
      More certainly is necessary. Much, much more. But drug cocktails do help substantially. All else being equal, they drastically reduce the odds of a person spreading the HIV virus during an unprotected sexual encounter, and reduce the odds of a pregnant woman passing it to her child from 30% (surprising in and of itself) to something like 5%. Now granted, people with HIV shouldn't be running around getting pregnant in the first place, nor should they be having unprotected sex. But it's not a perfect world, and if drug cocktails slow the spread, that's a win in my book. If they save even a few children from being born with HIV, that's a gargantuan win against a terrible injustice.

      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)

        by caseih (160668) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @09:25AM (#16750423)
        In countries where education is available, and methods of protection are cheaply available, yes HIV and AIDS are controllable. But in the place where HIV and AIDS first orginated, the virus and the disease are widespread. Drugs are not widely available, and education in the disease and safe practices are lacking. Hence HIV is spreading at a fast rate and is affecting many many women and children in particular, because of the willful ignorance of husbands and men in their society. Witness the South African government minister who said that showering an encounter protected him from HIV. That attitude combined with the general attitudes toward women in that part of the world make HIV and AIDS a lot harder to combat and control. Judging by the rest of the world's inability to really care about Africa (millions have died from war and disease in the last 10 years), this problem--no this epidemic--will be with us for some time. This new AIDS virus-attacking-virus, if it can be cheap enough, will certainly go a long ways to help. But my point is that while we in the west have the means to attack the problem and prevent it in the future, there's a lot of work to be done in Africa and other places in order to change attitudes about HIV and AIDS, and protect people from them.
        • by steveo777 (183629)
          Good point. I've been reading about some relief groups that are handing out condoms to women whose husbands work in diamond mines for months at a time just so they won't spread AIDS to them when they get back. There is almost no education in South Africa and the government hasn't done much about it either. Combine that with extreme poverty and the West exploiting everyone they can to save a few bucks and you've got the epidemic. Here's [globalhealth.org] a few [avert.org] articles [bbc.co.uk]. These are also a year or two old and things have go
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dsanfte (443781)
        quarantine is easy if morally questionable


        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)

          by delinear (991444)
          I think the moral question is more that quarantine assumes that someone with the virus would knowingly infect others. It's quite possible for someone with the virus to go about a relatively normal life and the means of transmission are few and very well defined - by segregating that person from the rest of society you are raising some serious moral issues; essentially you're saying they can't be trusted not to commit acts which might spread the virus. That being the case, why stop at HIV? You could then go
      • by slughead (592713)
        More certainly is necessary. Much, much more. But drug cocktails do help substantially. All else being equal, they drastically reduce the odds of a person spreading the HIV virus during an unprotected sexual encounter, and reduce the odds of a pregnant woman passing it to her child from 30% (surprising in and of itself) to something like 5%. Now granted, people with HIV shouldn't be running around getting pregnant in the first place, nor should they be having unprotected sex. But it's not a perfect world, a
    • by tryptych (1023927) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @05:56AM (#16749457)
      These HIV cocktails DO effectively stop AIDS. AIDS is a condition caused by the HIV virus reducing and eventually depleting CD4 cells used in the immune system to nothing. An uninfected person usually has a CD4 count of around 800. When this is reduced to under 100, this is then classified as AIDS. Even if the CD4 count were to rise well above that threshold, they are still considered to have AIDS. Most HIV+ people on combination therapy start once their CD4 drops below 200, and from then on it rises back up at about 100 a year thereafter. The side effects are often not good, but so far, everyone seems to be living pretty normal lives. It's no cure, but its a start. http://www.aidsmap.com/ [aidsmap.com]
      • But do the cocktails prevent an infected person from spreading the virus to other people?

        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
    • I think it's a hopeful start.

      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]
    • Or you could just stop having casual unprotected sex with people you don't know well enough to confirm whether or not they have an STD. I feel sorry for the people that got it before donated blood testing was tested or babies that get it from their infected mothers, but I don't have any sympathy for whores (both men and women alike) that contract it through sexual intercourse. This isn't 1980 anymore folks. If you're stupid enough to be having sex with a stranger without protection you really deserve to
      • 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

    • by dk.r*nger (460754)
      It needs to be inexpensive, easy to administer, and something that only needs to be administered once.
      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)

      by spectrokid (660550) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @09:15AM (#16750359) Homepage
      When we moved from farms to towns in the early middle ages, we brought our habits: pigs running freely in the streets, unexisting hygene. Then came the plague. Some refused to adapt, and they died. Others accepted sewages and garbage collection as a new way of life. They lived. AIDS will be eradicated from Africa the same way the plague was eradicated from Europe (and cholera,...) By a mixture of biological resistance and cultural resistance. Condoms for fun, monogamy for making children, the solutions are there. Africa needs to accept them as unavoidable cultural changes.
      • This is a very interesting point, and one that I don't thing gets mentioned often, because it's un-PC and opens up the speaker to allegations of racism.

        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
    • by m0rph3us0 (549631)
      Remington makes such a solution. However most nations find it unpalatable.
  • Perhaps HIV? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @03:34AM (#16748723)
    There is no such thing as an "AIDS" virus, per say... I think you mean to say that they used a modified HIV virus. AIDS is the resulting symptom that people with HIV (or certain other diseases) might develop.
    • by Mjlner (609829) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @06:09AM (#16749535) Journal
      There is no such thing as an "AIDS" virus, per say... I think you mean to say that they used a modified HIV virus. AIDS is the resulting symptom that people with HIV (or certain other diseases) might develop.

      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)

    by Centurix (249778) <centurix@ g m a i l.com> on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @03:36AM (#16748731) Homepage
    We can genetically modify idiots to fight other idiots!
  • Highlander (Score:5, Funny)

    by Umbral Blot (737704) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @03:37AM (#16748743) Homepage
    There can only be one! (AIDS virus)
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There can only be one!

      Yoda, highlander is!
  • by UniverseIsADoughnut (170909) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @03:42AM (#16748769)
    So after the AIDS kills the AIDS, then they send something in to kill the AIDS that kills the AIDS....

    So at what point does a Cow get sent in to go after the chicken.
    • by kupan787 (916252) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @04:15AM (#16748973)
      Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
      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.
    • by idonthack (883680)
      What?? There was no chicken. Cows chase goats. Proof [wikipedia.org]!
  • by macadamia_harold (947445) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @03:43AM (#16748771) Homepage
    Scientists at the University of Pennsylvania have announced that they have engineered a strain of the AIDS virus that fights AIDS.

    Well, whatever you do, don't cross the streams. You're sure to get human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!
  • by Bushido Hacks (788211) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @03:43AM (#16748773) Homepage Journal
    It's only a matter of time before one of the AIDS strains invades the other AIDS strains on suspicions of building protiens of mass cell destruction.
    • Or, one strain sues the other strain for violation of its Most Holy Intellectual Property, unless the allegedly infringing strain takes down a license from the plaintiff strain, who is really looking forward to the trial, except we need more discovery.
  • AIDS has killed AIDS!
    AIDS has killed AIDS!
    AIDS has killed AIDS!
    AIDS has killed AIDS!

    (additional stuff to bypass lameness filter.)
  • ... when the zombie plague hits. Not only will zombie vs zombie become a way of disposing of the living dead, but we can televise it and make it the new national sport. Don't know what we'll do with the remaining living dead though. Fast food jobs, perhaps?
  • AIDS Can Fight AIDS? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Purity Of Essence (1007601) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @03:52AM (#16748827)
    AIDS is a condition, not a virus.

    AIDS != HIV
    • by blitz77 (518316) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @04:35AM (#16749099)
      Where art thou, mods?!!? Mod parent up!

      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.

  • Well... There goes solving the Human problem.
  • What about HCV? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by davegaramond (632107) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @04:03AM (#16748899)
    A lot of HIV/AIDS research is going on, but I wonder, what about Hepatitis C virus? As I recall, it also leads to fatality (liver damage + death) in more than 70-80% of the cases, transmits much like HIV (blood transfusion, needles, sexual intercourse), and in some regions especially South East Asia it's far more prevalent than HIV. There's also no known vaccine against it at the moment.
    • Re:What about HCV? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Shados (741919) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @04:16AM (#16748979)
      From my experience, a lot of biotech companies that do R&D about AIDS tend to to Hepatitis C at the same time. The research process is very very similar, and in both cases, is a lot of trial and error. So they try a molecule or another one one, then try it on the other if it didn't work, etc.

      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.
  • Threads about AIDS really hurts some of our abilities to make jokes or insert Simpsons quotes into as many threads as possible.
  • Dr. the bad news.. you have AIDS and left untreated it will kill

    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.
    • Heh, your post reminds me of a great scene from a Treehouse of Horror Simpsons [snpp.com] episode.

      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
  • I think I remember an article about using Cancer to fight Cancer as well.

    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)

    by dangitman (862676) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @04:29AM (#16749057)
    The principles of Bum Fighting applied to medical science. It brings a tear of joy to my eye.
  • by Fulg0re- (119573) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @04:45AM (#16749159)
    The idea seems pretty insightful. I'm curious, however, as to what is the mechanism of preferential cell uptake and synthesis of the genetically engineered HIV strain if it is still using the same env gene (CD4 and CCR binding)? Did they also modify the tat and nef genes as well? Are there simply more viruses being made somehow, thus increasing its particular population?

    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!

  • In William Gibson's Virtual Light, AIDS was cured by finding a variant of AIDS that destroyed other AIDS strains and did no harm to its host. I think they guy they "discovered" that strain in was named JD Shapley.

    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.
  • HIV can fight HIV.
  • by blahdeblah2000 (1013033) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @07:01AM (#16749727)

    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.'

    • 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.

      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
  • This if I remember correctly was the basis of the book. However at least in the book the Cure turned out to be worse.

    It is a good book however.
  • "The virus particles that are released are, like, sterile" ...and this is a scientist? We're doomed.
  • FTFA:The virus particles that are released are, like, sterile. They are nonpathogenic," June said.

    Like you know, sterile or whatever. Oh yeah, Like, sign ME up Valley Girl, Fur Shure.

  • "Hold still now, you'll feel a little prick."
  • 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

"Those who will be able to conquer software will be able to conquer the world." -- Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp.

Working...