Cure For Aids Found?
dr_d
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Umm where are the headlines?</div> <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/hsn/20040226/hl_hsn/scientistsfindgenethatblockshiv' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...nethatblockshiv</a>
Well I'm not sure what to make of that, but what they're saying is they could make medacine that could decrease the chance of HIV infection. I know there are a few biology buffs around here so what's your input on this?
Well I'm not sure what to make of that, but what they're saying is they could make medacine that could decrease the chance of HIV infection. I know there are a few biology buffs around here so what's your input on this?
Comments
Its good news all round, anyway.
As for what happens, I think the virus is simply passed out of the body. The AIDS virus has a very short lifespan, it dies, and is excreted out....
cannot find the reasearch atm...
This also have implications for other virii, as its possible there are similar proteins for those virus' as well.
While probable, theres been heresay about cures for years. I'd wait till its independanly verified by someone I trust, like New Scientist. Can't exactly say that Yahoo knows what its talking about.
This is great news. It'll probably be 10 years before we see any fruits, but if it DOES work, then maybe Africa can clean itself up and not be such in such turmoil.
How do you figure? Aids is currently the only thing that keeps the population in check, but I guess people dying in famine is just as good as people dying in aids.
As you might understand
cure for aids -> population boom, there's no more reason to use condom, now is there? -> even more people in overpopulated Africa -> even more people starve to death
I can't really see this resolving anything but in the western countries. It's definately not going to help Africa.
You should be a little more realistic anyhow and less pessimistic:
- No aids = more people
- More disgruntled people = revolution
If the protein blocks the viruses replication then it should be able to simply degrade the viral material intracellularly to get rid of it. I do not believe if this works as they say it does, that you would need to destroy any cells in question, which is a very good thing as part of the problem of AIDs is the immune system smashing itself to get the virus.
This does have promise, but like so many other possibly AIDs 'cures' it probably has a low practicality. From all intents and purposes, this gene probably isn't expressed at a high level (if at all) in many people who would be likely to be affected by AIDs. This raises the question of then figuring out a key part of the process: <i>How the hell do we turn it on?</i>
The possibilities that I can see are essentially very expensive. You could genetically engineer people from birth (shocking indeed to most) so that they actually expressed that protein at significant levels for protection. Another idea is to target T-cells and attempt to turn on the gene via a gene therapy technique, the irony of having to use a neutered virus to stop another virus is quite amusing to me though. The third possibility is to try and figure out what signals (cytokines) actually turn the gene on and then make a drug/mimic that can cause expression of the gene.
In general however, this doesn't really have a lot of prospect for an actually viable treatment. The first problem is that both of the two methods I described above have "lawsuit" written all over them. It doesn't matter if cancer later down the track has nothing to do with the treatment to get this gene functioning, it could, and probably will be used as an excuse to sue someone over it. Vaccine development has been basically quashed due to this very problem and I don't see many companies wanting to spend the money on making such a portentially risky treatment.
Now I haven't read the paper yet (give me until this afternoon, I'm going looking for it in an hour, I love being back at Uni), but it sounds like the virus has already gotton around it (or has in the past). This leads to the second problem in that if you can't get it to enough people, sooner or later you'll get another HIV (there are 3 kinds already) that happens to be able to thwart this particular idea. Possibly it will have deleted/altered the RNA binding site (perhaps a RNA loop is missing that is recognised normally), maybe it will devise a blocking protein itself (a protein to block the other protein) or it might have already evolved past it by the time anything is come up with.
The real cynic in me though would insinuate that drug companies would drop the treatment anyway, because they aren't interested in <i>curing</i> something they can make so much more money off by <i>treating</i> every year. But that would just be me being a bitter old scientist again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There was also IIRC an extract from hawthorn bushes that did the same, except it stopped the AIDS cell binding to the white blood cell by making the cell sheath (I think it was a sugar.... AEGERI!) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is supposed to work by blocking a receptor that the virus needs to bind to, without that receptor the virus is pretty much stuffed. That goes for pretty much any virus, block the receptor (or remove it) and you basically are immune.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How do you figure? Aids is currently the only thing that keeps the population in check, but I guess people dying in famine is just as good as people dying in aids.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it is their poor water supply that does them in. Cholera, rotavirus and other beasties kill more people than AIDs, Tuberculosis and Malaria (All 3 million a year diseases) combined. Of course if you removed AIDs then deaths to both malaria and tuberculosis would decrease as well. This probably wouldn't help however, as has been demonstrated in the past, remove one virus/organism, another just takes its place.
It is a never ending cycle.
I believe the quote goes, if you build a better mouse trap, nature just builds a better mouse.
How do you figure? Aids is currently the only thing that keeps the population in check, but I guess people dying in famine is just as good as people dying in aids.
As you might understand
cure for aids -> population boom, there's no more reason to use condom, now is there? -> even more people in overpopulated Africa -> even more people starve to death
I can't really see this resolving anything but in the western countries. It's definately not going to help Africa.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh my freaking Hell!!!!
Heres the deal, i was born in Zimbabwe... so dont start saying how do u know these things... Africa is NOT overpopulated, it is HUGE!!!! Did u know that Zimbabwe alone is 7 1/2 times bigger than the UK??? and there are only 14 million people in Zim compared to the 60 million in England.... AIDS is a HUGE problem in Africa, and one of the major problem is that people infected with Aids die slowly, after a few years of Poor health...this is a crippling disease in more ways than one as those people need care, this takes money and resources and channels it to an ultimate dead end, quite literaly.
Many of the problems in Africa are generated by conflicts, poverty and basic Uneducation, and although alot is being done by many governments to increase the rate and quality of education many governments are fighting a loosing battle due to the massive drain that Aids has on the population.
I think if an aids cure is found, it should not be used to make money off an already evermore crippled continent, but should be given almost like a vacination to once and for all rid us of Aids, like we did to the Chickenpox Virus.
Africa is a vast, beautiful and potentially wealthy continent, with friendly people, much more so than many other Western Countries, i only hope that in the future, Africa is aided to set itself in right, insted of being cast off as a third world no-hope continent.And irradicating Aids, wether through help of medicine or education will be just one step in the right direction
How do you figure? Aids is currently the only thing that keeps the population in check, but I guess people dying in famine is just as good as people dying in aids.
As you might understand
cure for aids -> population boom, there's no more reason to use condom, now is there? -> even more people in overpopulated Africa -> even more people starve to death
I can't really see this resolving anything but in the western countries. It's definately not going to help Africa.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh my freaking Hell!!!!
Heres the deal, i was born in Zimbabwe... so dont start saying how do u know these things... Africa is NOT overpopulated, it is HUGE!!!! Did u know that Zimbabwe alone is 7 1/2 times bigger than the UK??? and there are only 14 million people in Zim compared to the 60 million in England.... AIDS is a HUGE problem in Africa, and one of the major problem is that people infected with Aids die slowly, after a few years of Poor health...this is a crippling disease in more ways than one as those people need care, this takes money and resources and channels it to an ultimate dead end, quite literaly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've got a point. True, it's not that Africa is too small for the amount of people, it's just that there's not enough resources to keep that amount of people alive. I could be wrong, but what if Zimbabwe would suddenly have only 7 million people instead of 14? That would mean two times more resources(water, mostly) for that 7 million.
Now what if there would be no people dying because of diseases? We would have, 20? 30? 50 million people quickly? And my guess is, that those 50 million people would suffer a whole lot more, even without diseases, than those 14 million with diseases.
It's just my theory, but you can't fix Africas problems by curing aids. Besides, like Aegari said, aids isn't even a major sickness. Thank you for correcting me, as IIRC, diarrhea is the largest cause of death in the world, especially in Africa. Uneducated people let their fertilizers and own waste to go to rivers, afterwards they drink from it. This leads to diarrhea which weakens the immune system and is especially dangerous because of dehydration.
Conclusion: education is the key. Giving food aid or medicines wont break the evil circle in Africa.
Well I'm not sure what to make of that, but what they're saying is they could make medacine that could decrease the chance of HIV infection. I know there are a few biology buffs around here so what's your input on this?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd believe the report more if it didn't say "blocks the AIDS virus". IIRC, AIDS isn't a virus, it's a symptom. You can not catch AIDS in the same way you can not catch a runny nose - both are a symptom of the effects of the virus on the body.
I'm sure a biologist can advise as I'm just going back to my lectures of Biopsychology. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
However, if this is able to prevent the spread of HIV+ cases then all the better for us all.
I am not exactly a hardsciences person so I don't know to much.
If a cure/vaccine for aids is found... w00t gg modern meds (there is nothing much else to saY)
As for the term of 'the aids virus' I tihnk this is a term that is often used simply to refer to HIV.
A lot of illnesses such as cholera can be killed by subjecting them to bleach, acid, or high temperatures. But drinking a bottle of acid is hardly a good cure for anything.
My thing is philosophy, and while I may not understand how the cure came to be, I understand that if we find the cure for AIDS, we may very well be overpopulating the earth. By the year 2016, we are supposed to have a population so gigantic, food resources will be a serious problem. If we are including every HIV/AIDS patient who survives and has lots of children, we're talking about as early as 2012. Is this really the right thing to do?
I mean saving lives, that's all and good and everything, but in the long run, are we really saving lives? Maybe we're only making the rest of the majority of the world suffer a little more with less food. Which is better?
You should be a little more realistic anyhow and less pessimistic:
- No aids = more people
- More disgruntled people = revolution <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
While that is logical the people are likely to be <i>too starved</i> to have energy enough to make a revolution.
How exactly is it in Africa? Are there alot of those "villages made out of clay huts" which the news tend to show you, or are there big cities like any i-country which still suffer from the stereotypical problems(disease+famine)?
There are more options than leaving people to die a horrible death...
In England and Wales, with information gained from the 2001 Census, people are having less children so a start has been made there. However, we do need some form of population control at source rather than through illness. If people want to have children then a restriction would need to be made on the numer they can have.
In addition, we wouldn't want a disease that could, potentially, destroy all of mankind!
<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abstinence' target='_blank'>Dictionary.com refernece</a>
<a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abstinence' target='_blank'>Dictionary.com refernece</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't cure someone who has the illness so it's not a cure.
In addition, what about people who have received it from a blood transfusion? How is this meant to "cure" them?
To say that abstinence is a cure is to ignore the true facts about the virus, it's transmission and the effects it has.
You don't have to sleep around to catch it - a one night stand, even your first one night stand, could be the occasion that you catch it or any other STDs.
This belief that you <b>have</b> to sleep around to catch a disease is tripe. Yes, you are exposing yourself more (no pun intended) if you do sleep around, but a sensible approach to protect yourself, i.e. the use of condoms, will reduce the risk.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I meant "sleeping around" I meant bedding anyone not married to you at the time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This belief that you <b>have</b> to sleep around to catch a disease is tripe. Yes, you are exposing yourself more (no pun intended) if you do sleep around, but a sensible approach to protect yourself, i.e. the use of condoms, will reduce the risk.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Apparently "abstinence" means different things to different people. Don't sleep with anyone outside of marriage, and you'll be fine (because if you're getting married, you'll also be telling the other if you have any diseases).
This <b>is</b> the cure to aids. Within a few generations, there would be little to no aids left. People just don't want to control their urges and themselves - they want a magical drug to do that for them. AIDs is the consequence of a loose zipper!
Abstinence is a preventative measure, it is in no way a cure. And it wouldn't eradicate AIDs either. I think it comprises half of all contractions, and the other half comes from drug users. Trying to convince people not to have sex and not to do drugs is a Sisyphean ordeal, especially if they're in uneducated.
That's getting into semantics, isn't it? Why get picky when such a grand solution presents itself?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And it wouldn't eradicate AIDs either. I think it comprises half of all contractions, and the other half comes from drug users. Trying to convince people not to have sex and not to do drugs is a Sisyphean ordeal, especially if they're in uneducated.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regardless of that, if people would stop taking drugs and sleeping around, it would go away. Therefore, it fixes the problem. When did cures have to be easy?
Restrictions such as this do not ultimately help population growth, and neither does the cure or life-extending treatment of fatal diseases. This earth has a finite number of resources, and roughly infinite potential in the human race to procreate means that the more of us there are, the less all of us get (on average). Overcrowding has hit many places worldwide, and curing fatal diseases will make it worse. Guess what happens when the world's population has doubled again, as it has since humanity's beginning? By then, our resources will be <i>more</i> scarce, our population <i>more</i> demanding, and our standing of living <i>worse</i> overall.
Let AIDS run its course. It sounds cruel, but the ultimate effect has to be looked upon from the perspective of a planet-wide mentality. Would you cure AIDS now so that your children can starve later? Would you cure AIDS at the impovershment of the people who need the treatment? Or would you rather ease their pain a bit and let life run its course? Let a few die that the species may live?
That's getting into semantics, isn't it? Why get picky when such a grand solution presents itself?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And it wouldn't eradicate AIDs either. I think it comprises half of all contractions, and the other half comes from drug users. Trying to convince people not to have sex and not to do drugs is a Sisyphean ordeal, especially if they're in uneducated.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regardless of that, if people would stop taking drugs and sleeping around, it would go away. Therefore, it fixes the problem. When did cures have to be easy? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you have moral positions that make you incapable of posting in a scientific thread than spare the rest of us. There is nothing inherently wrong with sex, so there is no need to spread the abstienance propaganda since it has failed time and again.
Not to mention a good number of HIV is transmitted through needle sharing, and in the case of Africa there are enough children born with it to make "sleeping around" a moot point.
And the overpopulation argument doesn't really hold water since when a family can't feed 2 children they aren't going to have 5, and if they do they won't survive. To say we need life threatening diseases is the same as saying we have some sort of grand destiny which from a scientific standpoint is just silly.
Yes I started this thread with the idea to discuss the scientific merits of this particular find, not to debate moral implications of curing AIDS.
Just because you disagree with what I am saying, does not mean I shouldn't say it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is nothing inherently wrong with sex, so there is no need to spread the abstienance propaganda since it has failed time and again.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's failed time and time again because most can't keep their hands off each other. Abstinence would cure problems, if people actually tried it. Don't blame the cure for the lack of motivation to use that cure.
The thing that's wrong with sex is those that have sex outside of marriage. Don't believe me? We're talking about AIDs, aren't we? Case in point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not to mention a good number of HIV is transmitted through needle sharing,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh... okay, so that makes the root cause of AIDs moot? Stop using drugs! Ding ding ding - problem solved!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and in the case of Africa there are enough children born with it to make "sleeping around" a moot point.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps if the parents of such children would stop sleeping around it would stop! Good grief, it doesn't take a scientist to figure out this stuff!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes I started this thread with the idea to discuss the scientific merits of this particular find, not to debate moral implications of curing AIDS.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure how this makes a debate topic then. Are we all supposed to say "Yay, a cure was found"?
EDIT: However, so I don't sound like a total nag and come off totally arrogant, I'll bow out of this discussion unless I'm asked to respond to something. No sense getting banned or suspended. The attention to HIV/AIDs, and the way it has been portrayed on the media outlets is frustrating, and also disheartening. I find them morally bankrupt, and definitely blind to the real problem that causes AIDs. However, like most modern medicine, people seem focused on curing the symptoms, and not the root cause of the problem.
Bah, now I'm ranting again.