I corrected your error.

There are two types of people: those who fear command lines and those who do not.

So the goal of the adenovirus is to introduce the broadly neutralizing antibody into T cell lines. These are the immune cells that are going to be ultimately fighting HIV infection, but they lack the right antibodies. In the normal situation, your body raises antibodies, but they cannot bind to the right spot on the virus envelope. Instead, they bind to a spot that the virus naturally varies, and the virus escapes via mutation (i.e., mutated virus replicates, other virus doesn't). In the new situation, the adenovirus provides an antibody that is better, which binds a spot on Env that the virus needs (so virus with mutation at this spot replicate poorly).

So muscle and heart cells are likely not getting the vector, nor would they be expressing antibodies. Similarly, your body wont continue to raise the antibody if the infection is gone (it will not be ad infinitum).

This is my understanding ... perhaps others could add key points.

Sometimes, the trials are conducted with people who are currently on HAART (anti-HIV therapy). Their HAART regimens are ended, and the new regimen is given to them. My understanding is that the HIV-infected community is very very understanding--they know that the only chance for a real solution is to volunteer.

An alternative scenario is to conduct the trial in a high risk population, such as sex workers or people living in sub-Saharan Africa. If you treat enough people, there will be a portion who become HIV-positive during the trial, and you can compare the control/test groups. If the drug is really working well, the study will be halted prematurely because it's unethical not to give the control group the treatment (also an incentive for someone to volunteer themselves when they don't know what they are getting, placebo or test).

Well, NPR had the test on. But imagine that if you draw a Venn diagram of "fucking idiots" and "NPR listeners" ... well, you get my point.

I just heard a seminar from the guy who discovered nanotubes ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumio_Iijima ), and it's pretty amazing with all the various properties the tubes have. He showed us some, and it was black (and he talked about this). He also mentioned that they would be the future for smartphone touch screens but that Apple was reluctant to use them in the latest iPhone.

Now when his group or some other researchers discover a thin material black enough to block gamma wavelengths, then we'll be talking.

From one bookworm to another, there is a lack of fiction (aside from the Bible) on your list! What gives?

I'm pretty sure Rodney McKay will appear at the point of the rip.

I think the more reasonable concern is that crops will yield less over time due to climate change. Combine that with ever-growing population (+ a billion people every dozen years or so) and you have a real problem. Shortages of food lead to riots and further instability of governments that are already shaky. Of course, this wont happen soon but probably in the next 100 years unless some sort of technological breakthrough happens. People probably exaggerate the effects because the smaller effects over time are harder to recognize as being caused by climate change.

It's funny that you think scientists aren't up to answering trends over 100 years. There was a paper that came out in Science yesterday predicting temperatures back 800,000 years ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6054/347.abstract ). It's the job of scientists to question these narratives, too, but it's also wise to look at all of the data.

These kinds of protest were very popular before the Great Depression and spawned all kinds of songs against the banking elites (e.g., JP Morgan). NPR had a nice piece discussing the history of anti-Wall Street protest the other day: http://www.npr.org/2011/10/07/141162196/a-look-at-the-history-of-wall-street-protests

Exactly what I was going to post. I am not a programmer, but hanging out in the alt.org nethack put me in touch with a lot of cool programmers. ^^ My 15 ascension streak is still up there I think too.

This is partly true, but with such a long time from birth to adulthood, the parents' survival gives their offspring a much greater chance for survival. Sure there are other people around to care for your 12 kids when you are gone, but if the numbers of cases increased substantially, then this would not be the case. Natural selection would begin to favor those with fewer kids and surviving than more kids and not surviving. You could even test this with a mathematical model if you wanted to (and I bet that it's already in the literature somewhere).

If you look back, originally it started appearing in young gay men (1981 I think). But within 1 year, women were documented with the disease. You can probably blame politicians at the time for making the wrong decisions if you want. There has been a similar reaction from Russian politicians who for a large time ignored the disease there (which is in a way far worse because it's spread to a much higher degree by intravenous drug users, which is the worst form of transmission). And if you compare certain sub-Saharan countries based on the political impetus for controlling the disease, there is a clear drop in new cases for countries that educate the population about condom use. I dont think they by and large think of the disease as a way of getting rid of gays but something that either does not really exist in their population or something religious-related (God's punishment blah blah blah).

What I am wondering about is how this compound would not harm cellular membranes, which contain cholesterol-rich regions (lipid rafts). HIV particles bud from these regions, giving them their particular cholesterol-rich membrane composition. This is a question related to theoretical off-target cytotoxic effects. Then again, RTIs have cytotoxic effects, too.

Wish you the best, you insensitive clod!