Slashdot Mirror


The Cure for Cancer Might be: HIV

RGautier writes "Wired News has published that Scientists have successfully modified the AIDS-causing HIV in such a way that it can attack metasticized melanoma (cancer cells). The impact of genetic research on cancer research is in and of itself amazing. To mix this with the strategy of using one strong enemy against another is brilliance! Research will continue, obviously, but they are already reporting success on living creatures." Just think: between HIV and carrots we'll be all set.

668 comments

  1. I have good news and bad news... by beatdown · · Score: 5, Funny

    The bad news is you have cancer. The good news is you have HIV!

    1. Re:I have good news and bad news... by xxxscoutxxx · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Cancer: Good news. "Reolysin" a treatment for 100% of ALL cancers. http://www.oncolyticsbiotech.com/ Scout

    2. Re:I have good news and bad news... by SeventyBang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm waiting for them to tell us cancer is the result of renegade stem cells. After all, stem cells "...can be used to create any other cell..." and should they get a little "goofy" or should something, whether it's environmental, ingested, genetic, or whatever else it might be, "reprogram" a stem cell (or more than one) and turn them loose - it's obviously part of the victim's body - so it's not detected as a foreign object - and it's all downhill from there.

      Perhaps the same logic needs to be applied to stem cells to deal with auto-immune diseases: MS, rheumatoid arthritis, etc. Reprogram the stem cells and see if they could be less disruptive than chemo and radiation.

    3. Re:I have good news and bad news... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      Mod parent to hell, please.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    4. Re:I have good news and bad news... by mickeyt2k · · Score: 1

      Realpolitik with viruses. Wonder if it works with mothers-in-law.

  2. Might want to downplay the HIV thing by geoffspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you're gotten rid of 80% of the virus, you might not want to market it as "derived from HIV". Really.

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    1. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by EaterOfDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe HIV-Lite? Or I Can't Believe It's Not HIV!

      --

      Crushing my karma one post at a time.
    2. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't really think it would make sense to downplay any involvement with HIV. Lets say they decide to call it something else and at a later point in time it's "revealed" that people are being strategically infected with HIV... even in a reduced state... don't you think people would be outraged that this information was withheld? I think the natural reaction from most of the public (through ignorance, of course) would be "why would they keep it from us... is there something they didn't want us to know?"

      Best to be as open as possible right from the start to avoid any misconceptions. (Or media backlash.)

    3. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by operagost · · Score: 1

      HIV - it's not just for opportunistic infections anymore!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Speare · · Score: 4, Insightful
      you might not want to market it as "derived from HIV"

      Why is that, exactly? Think of the other dreaded word which invokes a guaranteed knee-jerk reaction from just about anyone: radiation. What's the worst thing you can put in your body? Poison. Our current treatments for cancer involve heavy doses of radiation and heavy doses of toxic chemicals.

      As a society, we're pretty familiar with using some amazingly deadly tactics against cancer, and yet, you don't see a whole lot of healthy people screaming about their exposure to those deadly glowing, poisonous cancer patients.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    5. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by zev1983 · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for the topical version, I Can't Believe It's Not HIV Spray!

    6. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If you're at a bar chatting up some beautiful woman, which do you think is going to hurt your chances more?

      1. "I had radiation treatment which got rid of my cancer."

      2. "I got injected with HIV which got rid of my cancer."

    7. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by DigitalWallaby · · Score: 3, Funny
      HIV-Lite.

      Is that HIV without the adware?

    8. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While this may be good for curing cancer, I would fear if this tech got in the wrong hands:
      "Scientists could customize the system to target any protein on the surface of a cell"
      Target the protiens on a group of humans, Kurdish, Jewish, Korean, whatever. Many groups of humans have some genes that are particular to their genetic heritage. Target those geenes to make something worse, instant selective genocide.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    9. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by AviLazar · · Score: 5, Funny

      without the malware

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    10. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Ford+Fulkerson · · Score: 5, Funny

      HIV Reduced Media Edition?

      --

      Somewhere in the heavens... they are waiting.
    11. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

      Diet HIV!

      --

      +++ATH0
    12. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by NitroWolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're gotten rid of 80% of the virus, you might not want to market it as "derived from HIV". Really.

      But does it really matter to the people who would benefit from this?

      Doctor: You're going to die from cancer. However, we have this cure that uses the HIV virus. It probably won't kill you.

      Patient: Hmm, so you're telling me I'm going to die painfully from cancer, or I can take my chances with HIV with pretty damned good results. Let me think... Let me think... Nope, I think I'll take the cancer. Thanks though.

      If you're going to die anyway, you're going to grasp at just about any straw you can, even HIV.

      Trying to hide the fact that it's HIV derived would just be ASKING for lawsuits out the wazoo.

    13. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by sidepocket · · Score: 0

      HIV Five-O.

    14. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GNU/HIV?

    15. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahaha .. very funny, dude, very funny :)

    16. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by SpamJunkie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Kinda like Botox, the difference being that most people don't know what botulin toxin is to begin with, although the "toxin" part is a big clue. I have a feeling it'll be called something like HumaImmunex and most people won't actually make the connection to HIV.

    17. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by JaffaKREE · · Score: 1

      HIV Championship Edition: Hyper Virii

    18. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The field of cancer medicine is not a pleasant one. It is understood that some of the drugs are very dangerous, such as Rituxan, a drug whose web site claims that deaths have been reported within 24 hours of its administration. The risks of the drug will be the same whether or not it is an HIV derivative. In the commercialization process, they will conduct research to determine how or if the link to HIV should be disclosed. I'm not even sure how necessary that will be because we're not talking about a lifestyle drug here; cancer treatment is serious, risky business.

    19. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by cfortin · · Score: 5, Insightful


      That's what I thought, when I was working on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance ( NMR ) which was changed to Magnetic Resonance Imaging ( MRI ) because too many people were afraid of the word nuclear.

    20. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by coolcold · · Score: 1

      or HIV Reduced Virus Edition?

      --
      I am harvesting funny/good quotes. Please help by putting them in your sigs :)
    21. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by SwimsWithTheFishes · · Score: 1

      And how would it matter? It wouldn't.

      1. You've got Cancer. Not sick, but dead and don't know it yet.

      ************* OR **********************

      2. Get the HIV shot, cures the Cancer but you maybe get AIDS in 10 years.

      What would you do? Doh! It's a no brainer. Especially if you are in your 50's or later in life.

      Having the cure named HIV whatever won't matter. Most chemo drugs are poisons - the hope is the blood infused cancer tumor will absorb more poison the than rest of your body and the cancer dies but you don't. That's why chemo is so horribly debilitating, it's *almost* killing you.

      --
      *click**beep**beep* Scotty, One to Mod up!
    22. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Begossi · · Score: 3, Funny

      I`m personaly still recovering from the shock of being intentionally infected with envelope remains of the Polio virus, in my childhood.
      Outrageous! I demand reparations!

      --
      Friend of the Wise, Brother of the Brave.
    23. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by slimak · · Score: 2

      I many be wrong (an please correct me if so), but doesn't the term NMR come from the fact that the resonance occurs at an atomic level. NMR is not nuclear in the sense of meltdowns or radiation. I know that I would much rather have an MRI than an X-ray....but thats just me.

    24. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure

      but that wasn't the original point. The original point was that the descriptive name was changed (to one that highlighted different things and wasn't really any more or less complete) because of public fear over the N word.

    25. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HIV Reloaded. Okay, pretty obvious :)

    26. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      iHIV Mini. Available in 5 different mutations.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    27. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by kevlar · · Score: 1

      Now we can finally get rid of all those fucking white people!

    28. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Funny

      .... and where the backdoor has not been exposed to a malicious worm.

    29. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Nuclear Magnetic Resonance ( NMR ) which was changed to Magnetic Resonance Imaging ( MRI ) because too many people were afraid of the word nuclear.

      I've heard this several times. Does anyone know how exactly was it determined that "too many people were afraid of the word nuclear"? Or was there one marketroid who decided "nuclear" was too scary?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    30. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by northcat · · Score: 1

      Anyone stupid enough to be put off by "derived from HIV" would do the earth a great favour if they don't reproduce and just die (because of cancer in this case). And It's cancer, for fucks sake. Even the stupidest person on the earth will do enough reading and get enough advice to know that the cure will not give him AIDS. This is not like buying a soap or potato chips. And what do you mean by "market"? Everything is not a business, you know. And who modded parent as Insightful?

    31. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      you don't see a whole lot of healthy people screaming about their exposure to those deadly glowing, poisonous cancer patients.

      Carboplatin isn't infectious.

      Now, you and I understand that the HIV used for this therapy would be highly modified from the original plague, but I suspect that the majority of people wouldn't know (or care) about the differences. On the other hand, it's pretty well understood that most poisons are completely localized to the people who ingest them.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    32. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The resonance occurs at the sub-atomic level in the nucleus of the atom. Hence, one uses 'nuclear magnetic resonance' to accurately state the effect occurs in the nucleus rather than at the electron or atomic level. To be more detailed, NMRI exploits the effect magnetic fields have on the spin of the (charged) protons in the atomic nucleus.

    33. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by mog007 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Don't be so quick to pass it off. There's no telling what might happen with this HIV cure, what if you get a mutation, and you become infected with regular HIV? Sure, you won't get cancer, but you won't get laid anymore either.

    34. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1
      Without the virii ;)

    35. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by jd · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's ok, then. Texans are only afraid of Nucules, whcatever they are.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    36. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by NitroWolf · · Score: 1

      But you'll be dead either way, so how is that a bad thing? Take a chance at living, or die for sure?

      I'm gonna have to go with the "Take a chance," since death is apparently a pretty final solution to the whole mess. You can't change your mind later, whereas you can change your mind if you take the HIV solution.

    37. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Well, this way for cheap publicity (and desire to play god). There are plenty of other viruses that can be used as a template, but they chose the most inappropriate one. Reminds me of one of the first attempts to make a HIV vaccine in 1989. In that case some of the HIV surface proteins were introduced right into the region of genome instability of the polio virus. Forgot exactly which journal did I read that article, but I am still having shivers when I think about it.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    38. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are supposed to believe you worked in the field and cannot even spell the word nucular correctly?

    39. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Hmmm. I don't think that it would be as easy to turn it into a deadly weapon that way. But there probably are ways it could be done. If you were to modify it to target the appendix, or something else that you could ensure had already been removed from those you wanted to survive...


      Alternatively, someone with Sickle-Cell Anaemia could modify it to attack healthy bone marrow. The healthier a person was, the more deadly the attack would be to them.


      The problem (or, for humanity, the good thing) is that HIV is not very stable. It would be next to impossible to make an airborne strain of it.


      A far, far greater concern for humanity is that there are airborne strains of Ebola. If someone were to take an airborne Ebola and somehow merge in the targetting system in HIV, you could engineer a device capable of destruction on a scale Western civilization has no comprehension of.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    40. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and people from Georgia too. Carter pronounces it like Bush does too.

    41. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by eparusel · · Score: 1

      ... Kraft might have a thing or two to say about that!

    42. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Miriku+chan · · Score: 1

      you're not very good with that whole biology thing, eh? =)

      --
      shaolin punk, activist post-industrial
    43. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Some_Llama · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm caucasian you insensitive clod!!

    44. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they have no problem with Positron Emission Topography (PET)?

    45. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Well, this way for cheap publicity (and desire to play god). There are plenty of other viruses that can be used as a template, but they chose the most inappropriate one. Reminds me of one of the first attempts to make a HIV vaccine in 1989. In that case some of the HIV surface proteins were introduced right into the region of genome instability of the polio virus. Forgot exactly which journal did I read that article, but I am still having shivers when I think about it.

      Oh, for God's sake. (So to speak.) I guarantee you they're not using HIV for publicity -- a cure for cancer would guarantee publicity enough, no matter how they do it. And "playing god" has nothing to do with it either, unless you define any attempt to cure disease as such.

      They are using HIV for the very simple reason that there are no other known viruses which operate exactly the way HIV does, and because they believe HIV provides a unique opportunity to target cancer cells. If you go hunting elephants, you don't use a .22 -- you grab a rifle that has a reasonable chance to do the job.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    46. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      And curiously enough, Carter was actually a nuclear engineer...

    47. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

      A far, far greater concern for humanity is that there are airborne strains of Ebola. If someone were to take an airborne Ebola and somehow merge in the targetting system in HIV, you could engineer a device capable of destruction on a scale Western civilization has no comprehension of.

      Do you have links to airborne Ebola? That is very interesting and scary.

      What is the targeting system in HIV? I don't understand the ebola+HIV comment, but I'm curious what you meant.

      --
      The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    48. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Well no. You don't have to mix HIV and ebola to make ebola devastating. The problem with ebola is that it is SO simple it kicks every cell it invades into overdrive to produce more ebola. It has just enough proteins to latch onto a cell and do its job. By the time you realize you have ebola, you are as good as dead.

      HIV is the opposite extreme. It's latency period is so long that someone will be infected for years if not decades before the infection is detected. HIV is a large, complex, and fickle virus.

      There is already something airborne, virilent, and with a just short enough but just long enough incubation time. It's called influenza and it kills millions per year. And it has been killing people for as long as we have been keeping track of epidemics.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    49. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm, all of the above?

    50. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      How so?
      I think I'm dead on. While not easy, it's certainly possible.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    51. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1

      If you think you can mutate 80% of the genetic code back into it's original form, I have a single celled bridge in london you might be interested in buying.

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    52. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 3, Informative

      The word nuclear comes from the same place in both cases... a nuclear reaction happens in the nucleus of an atom and NMR is magnetic resonance with the nucleus. The problem, like the grandparent said is that people are terrified of the word nuclear and will raise a ruckus without even bothering to understand what its all about.

    53. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people have no idea what a positron is (except for some passing refference in that "I, Robot" movie.

    54. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      it's not spyware, it's just a virus

    55. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by lgw · · Score: 1

      Airborne ebola, from what I hear, is a common mutation. Very deadly to the village it turns up in, but it never makes it beyond that stage. A disease that spreads and kills too fast doesn't get a chance to reach a large population.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    56. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush is from connecticut or something.

    57. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Is that sig coincidental to the content of your message?

    58. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      Many groups of humans have some genes that are particular to their genetic heritage.

      Many groups of humans have certain genes that are more probable in their population group. There is no gene you can target that will kill all Koreans and not take out a fair share of Caucasians. Jews are even harder; given the number of converts both ways, and the relative rarity of Jews in the population, you'd probably kill more Caucasians than Jews. Arabs probably wouldn't be very safe, either.

    59. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, nobody's scared of the "nuclear" in the name.

      We've got a running joke here at Uni that goes something like: "Enn-emmm-arrrr".

      Read it out loud and you'll see why.

    60. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You niggers can't handle a gun and a bucket of fried chicken at the same time, much less advanced genetic experiments. I'm not worried.

    61. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by TummyX · · Score: 1

      No you're not dead on. You've bought up idea that's by no means unoriginal and by your own admission would not be easy to do. You used the fact that they could target certain *proteins* on the *surface* of the cell to somehow imply and project your alarmist illusion that they could somehow now just target certain *ethnically distinct* *genes* *inside* the cell.

    62. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There actually is a one in a million chance of getting the real polio from the vaccine.

    63. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      I think this might qualify as an urban myth.

      NMR was originally used for analysis of chemical samples. These are not scanned spatially, and so NMR itself is not really an imaging technology.

      The new name of "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" wasn't adopted for NMR, which is still called NMR. MRI instead describes a new completely new technology which incidentally relies upon NMR in the same way that PET scanning relies upon positron emission and CAT scanning relies upon X rays.

      The point being that the new imaging technology would have needed a new name anyway. Although the inventors would surely have avoided the word "Nuclear" for the obvious reasons anyway.

    64. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? The only place Ebola has ever been demonstrated to transmit by the aerosol route is in a laboratory (in a group of monkeys) and that experiment has never been reproduced (AFAIK). Not one case has ever been demonstrated in the wild. Not one.

      OTOH, isn't there a proven ebola vaccine now? Big news some years ago. And not of much use either. Ebola is one of the rarest diseases ever known to humanity. The odds of getting it even to a Central African is infinitesimal. Even if it were commercially available and you were planning to move to Kenya or Zaire for a few years, it wouldn't make much sense to get.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    65. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1
      As a society, we're pretty familiar with using some amazingly deadly tactics against cancer, and yet, you don't see a whole lot of healthy people screaming about their exposure to those deadly glowing, poisonous cancer patients.
      The guy's got a point. After all, it's commonly referred to as "chemotherapy", not "radioactive poison therapy".
      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    66. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And anyone who has watched an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. They talked about Data's positronic network many many times.

    67. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by hplasm · · Score: 0

      For a short time after it came out, it was actually called NMRI- the N for Nuclear was indeed dropped for PR anti-spin ( not connected to Proton spin ;> ).

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    68. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      because spyware doesn't necessarily have similar properties to a virus?

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    69. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      "Scientists could customize the system to target any protein on the surface of a cell" Target the protiens on a group of humans, Kurdish, Jewish, Korean, whatever. Many groups of humans have some genes that are particular to their genetic heritage. Target those geenes to make something worse, instant selective genocide.

      Yeah, there is one small problem with that though - There is more genetic diversity within racial/ethnic groups than between racial/ethnic groups. (see articles here, or here). So developing a weapon to target racial/ethnic groups (which are probably better conceived of as social constructs; doesn't make them any less "real" though) based on genetics would be very difficult.

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    70. Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      No, because HIV is a virus.. it was referring back to the original.. oh nevermind.

      "Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: you understand it better,
      but the frog dies in the process." - Mark Twain.

  3. In other news... by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...Smoking cures cancer, too!

    1. Re:In other news... by bmongar · · Score: 5, Funny

      I prefer cancer cures smoking.

      --
      As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
    2. Re:In other news... by dawnread · · Score: 1

      Yes, basically because the original guy had it all wrong and therefore his statement was nonsensical. With his 'joke', 'cancer cures cancer' would be just as appropriate.

    3. Re:In other news... by Jabolio · · Score: 1

      You know, death cures everything!!

      (of course, then you have to put up with the worms and bugs eating you when you're in the ground, nibble nibble nibble, which can hurt a lot, if you're not quite dead.)

      (or, if you prefer, incineration, where they put you in a furnace and burn you to ashes, crackle crackle crackle, which again, can hurt a lot if you're not quite dead.)

    4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know they probably will make that finding once tobacco is outlawed by the republicrats.

      *me ducks*

  4. It will never see the light of market shelves ... by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 0

    The FDA will never let them release this as a drug because they'd be releasing another virus to fight cancer, and even if they did, there was still a chance the HIV could mutate, and then we'd have even more problems to deal with ...

    --
    This signature was left intentionally blank.
  5. battlefield by SpongeBobLinuxPants · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Do we really want to turn our bodies into a battlefield for germ warfare?

    1. Re:battlefield by Ironsides · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You assume it isn't already. Remember what White Bloodcells do? Along with anti-biotics and vacines? All this is doing is adding in another weapon to the arsenal.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:battlefield by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      If I had an otherwise incurable form of cancer? Yes. Yes I would.

    3. Re:battlefield by i · · Score: 1, Informative

      They are already.
      The bacterias in our bodies outnumber the body cells.

      --
      Mundus Vult Decipi
    4. Re:battlefield by Quasar1999 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do we really want to turn our bodies into a battlefield for germ warfare?

      I ask myself that same question everytime I eat out... the answer is yes... yes I do... taco-hell is just too good to pass up, and the other germs I picked up from KFC and the chinese food place down the street will battle it out... ;)

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    5. Re:battlefield by imag0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do we really want to turn our bodies into a battlefield for germ warfare?

      Yes. You better believe it.

      After seeing my mother die from cancer I would give anything to make sure no one else would ever have to go through what me and my sister did.

      In short, hell yeah. Bring it on.

    6. Re:battlefield by Hyecee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the "slight" risk of contracting an incurable, terminal disease is worth the chance to be rid of an incurable, terminal disease. Really, what have you got to loose?

    7. Re:battlefield by Kplusplus · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of when Burns went to the doctor on the simpsons. He had every disease known to man, and all of them were so busy battling each other that he in turn was without detriment. Burns walked away with the idea that he was invincible despite what the doctor tried to say.

      --
      -"I'm one of those Mac people that will break a bottle on the bar and hold it to your throat for bad-mouthing my system"
    8. Re:battlefield by SpongeBobLinuxPants · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At what cost to our bodies? Yes, there are germs in us all the time, having a common cold knocks you down for a few days, a stomache virus, a week, what would cancer and (modified) HIV duking it out do to us? Already some patients opt not to hace chemo and other treatments because of the toll it takes on them. They would rather live a better quality of life for 6 months than be sick from a threatment and live 12 months.

    9. Re:battlefield by Wordsmith · · Score: 1

      If this really works, the cost to our bodies from letting the cancer go unchecked would be FAR worse? Have you ever seen what cancer does to a person? Particularly multiple cancers?

      How aobut endure a sickness and live a full lifespan? Or run a VERY slight risk of ill-effects and live the full lifespan? How do those options sound?

    10. Re:battlefield by darkmeridian · · Score: 0

      After seeing my mother die from cancer I would give anything to make sure no one else would ever have to go through what me and my sister did.

      And what your mother went through?

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    11. Re:battlefield by punkass · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I missed the part where the article said HIV-based treatment (or any other treatment) would be any more mandatory than chemo. Could you point it out?

      --
      "Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
    12. Re:battlefield by fail_miserably() · · Score: 0
      Do we really want to turn our bodies into a battlefield for germ warfare?
      Furthermore, what happens to these veterans(HIV) when the war is over? Do they get a parade or special lodging within our colons? Or will the govt. lie to them about further imminent threats and use all of their social security to send them out as a pre-emptive strike against a lesser power(the common cold)? What about post-traumatic cell disorder? TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS!!
    13. Re:battlefield by SpongeBobLinuxPants · · Score: 1

      We're just speculating on it however. According to TFA the first person that this kind of treatment was tested on died. We don't know what's going to happen when they try this new version in a human, we don't even know how rats respond to it. Maybe it's the miricle cure for cancer, hopefully, maybe not though. And yes, my grandfather died of cancer, one uncle died of cancer, another uncle was successfully treated for cancer, my father has a brain tumor.

    14. Re:battlefield by SlayerofGods · · Score: 4, Funny

      But white bloodcells and HIV have been fighting each other for so long can we really expect them to put aside their diffrences and work together for a common goal?

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    15. Re:battlefield by tommyth · · Score: 0

      Maybe the parent is flame-bait, but even if this HIV-cure-ish thing DOES cause the body to freak out (although as others are mentioning, our bodies are already constantly fighting off germs and the like), have you EVER seen someone die of cancer? I have, as I'm sure many unforunate people on here have, and it can be a very slow, painful to even watch process as the body slowly dies because one of it's organs isn't fucntioning properly. There's no way having the body fight off the cancer cells could make it any worse. Perhaps, in a worse case situation the person dies sooner (less painful), and best case they go through the same amount of suffering but live. Both of those options are better than death from cancer alone.

    16. Re:battlefield by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      Good news! With cloning, some genetic manipulation, and growing chambers, we can completely remove parents from the reproductive process - that way people will never lose mothers to cancer!

      Oh, wait, maybe we should be working to make sure no one else goes through what your mother and my mother (who, luckily has been ok for the last 10 years since losing a good chunk of lung) did ;-)

    17. Re:battlefield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of it like the Terminator in Terminator 2 and 3, they have been re-programed to help humanity instead of trying to destroy it.

    18. Re:battlefield by CyberKnet · · Score: 5, Funny

      Things will be reasonably quiet until a few outcast terrorist HIV strands decide to hijack an errant blood clot and crash it into the aortic valve.

      Following that, security will start "screening" the blood so finely that the backlog of blood waiting to enter the heart causes our blood pressure to skyrocket, causing us to all die early of heart attacks.

      But they'll tell us it's in our best interests, and we'll go along with it anyway.

      --
      Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
    19. Re:battlefield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "After seeing my mother die from cancer I would give anything to make sure no one else would ever have to go through what me and my sister did."

      Does it not matter what your mother went through, too?

    20. Re:battlefield by n1ywb · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's bullshit.

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
    21. Re:battlefield by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Maybe the parent is flame-bait, but even if this HIV-cure-ish thing DOES cause the body to freak out (although as others are mentioning, our bodies are already constantly fighting off germs and the like), have you EVER seen someone die of cancer?

      And malignant melanoma is one of the worst. Fast and deadly. Typically six months from diagnosis to death if it's already metastatic, if I recall correctly.

      And it can't be treated by most of the usual chemical and radiation therapies, because they tend to rely on the cancer cells being metabolically weaker than normal cells (due to being stuck in the reproductive stages). But melanoma still manufactures melanin, which is a process that gives it extra energy as a side effect. So it tends to be stronger than its neighbors.

      But what happened to the antibody-bound-to-toxin therapies? (Antibody to a receptor found on melanocytes AND melanoma cells, bound to a catalytic toxin or radioactive iodine.) I'd heard those were doing very well - then I stopped hearing about them. Did they not work after all?

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    22. Re:battlefield by pinqkandi · · Score: 1

      I agree 100%. I went through the same thing... you have a new perspective on life when see someone die in front of you.

    23. Re:battlefield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points, I'd waste them on this comment purely for the gaggities.

    24. Re:battlefield by porcupine8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Maybe you've never gotten chemotherapy. I have. IT SUCKS ASS. If there's ever any point at which your body is a battlefield, it's when you're getting chemo - it's working as hard as it can to kill your cells, and they're working as hard as they can to fight back. Growing back bone marrow that's been killed off hurts.

      If this HIV-derived therapy will make cancer die more easily from chemo and cause you to have to have less chemo (which, from the article, is how it sounds like it works), then really you're just shortening the war.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    25. Re:battlefield by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      About 90% of our bodies are bacterial based. Bacteria just don't know when to stop. So um, its kinda like a battle ground in there already. The most interesting part of using an HIV variant is that its RNA based. Other than HIV, there is very little known of RNA based anything.

      You know, I wonder if the students at MIT are accidentally ignoring the RNA part of the cell for logic gate applications?

    26. Re:battlefield by misleb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Isn't that what are bodies are already doing as we speak? There is a constant battle going on that you are not aware of. If this new HIV variant is otherwise inert, I don't see any problem using it to attack cancer cells. Although it would kinda suck to find that the HIV stuck around even after its job was done. Eventually everone would have it.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    27. Re:battlefield by i · · Score: 1

      Why is this rated troll ??

      THIS IS A FACT !

      Sigh !

      --
      Mundus Vult Decipi
    28. Re:battlefield by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

      Do we really want to turn our bodies into a battlefield for germ warfare?

      Yes. You better believe it.


      That was my response to this - "I/someone I love has cancer? Hell yeah, bring on a cure derived from elephantiasis-of-the-nuts if that's what it takes!"

      --
      Freedom: "I won't!"
    29. Re:battlefield by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha! Your mother died of cancer!

    30. Re:battlefield by armyofone · · Score: 1

      You're an Asshat.

      Yes, that's with a capital 'A'.

      --
      "A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
  6. If I had to choose between HIV and carrots... by RootsLINUX · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think I'd go with the carrots. I dunno, maybe I'm just weird.

    --
    Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
    1. Re:If I had to choose between HIV and carrots... by SmokeHalo · · Score: 0

      At least now there's an alternative for those poor cancer-ridden souls who are allergic to carrots.

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
    2. Re:If I had to choose between HIV and carrots... by operagost · · Score: 1

      HIV doesn't taste as good with ranch dressing.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:If I had to choose between HIV and carrots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You eat carrots with ranch dressing?

      I thought only my family ate carrots with ranch dressing.

      huh... small world.

    4. Re:If I had to choose between HIV and carrots... by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      At least now there's an alternative for those poor cancer-ridden souls who are allergic to carrots.

      Don't laugh, I'm allergic to carrots! It's a good thing I don't have cancer ^_^.

    5. Re:If I had to choose between HIV and carrots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make sure you lube it up real good first.

  7. Beta Material by superpulpsicle · · Score: 0, Troll

    When new treatments comes out, usually it has to go through the Drug administrations like 6x to see if it's $$$ profitable before it really reaches your local hospital.

  8. HIV vs Cancer by gbitten · · Score: 5, Funny

    The microscopic version of Alien Vs. Predator

    1. Re:HIV vs Cancer by prurientknave · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Mod Parent up as funny :D

    2. Re:HIV vs Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Regardless of who wins....YOU LOSE

    3. Re:HIV vs Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if they both win, you'd still be happier than if you'd seen the movie.

  9. Let me guess... by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 2, Funny

    The cure for HIV might be... Cancer?

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cure for HIV is $$$$$.

      But just treating it is only $$$.

  10. Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    we could find a way to use SCO agianst the MPAA...

  11. Article text by thedustbustr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Article text, in case of slashdotting:
    Sorry, that file was not found

    The file your browser requested could not be found on our servers. We may have recently moved around, renamed, or deleted certain files.

    * If you were looking for a particular article or topic, try using our search form in the header above.
    * If you clicked a link somewhere on our site and were led to this page, please let us know so we can fix our mistake as soon as possible.
    * Otherwise, try returning back to Wired News Home and browsing from there.

    --
    This sig is false.
  12. I can hear the doc now... by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I prescribe disease-riddled hookers. Take one after every meal."

    1. Re:I can hear the doc now... by DragonPup · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do I need a referral for my medical insurance?

      --
      "Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
    2. Re:I can hear the doc now... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      Funniest thing I've read all week...thanks for the post...

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    3. Re:I can hear the doc now... by karnal · · Score: 1

      You might need a divorce first.... because if you're still married, you'll definitely need medical insurance.

      --
      Karnal
  13. Re: by EaterOfDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    And the cure for HIV is Heart Disease!

    --

    Crushing my karma one post at a time.
  14. Amazing! by The-Bus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I saw this on Google News this morning and wondered why Slashdot hadn't picked up on it already. As soon as I read the headline and the article, I began to wonder... How safe is this to do this research?

    I'm not talking about the safety of recipients once this goes into the real-world (although that can be alarming), but about the research itself.

    I'm pretty far removed from science in any practical setting, but what are the procedures for this kind of research? I've seen too many movies like 28 Days Later to not imagine some accident or oversight to cause some sort of mutant airborne HIV.

    Also, does HIV even infect mice? I know there's a human/ape HIV and a feline HIV but I had not hear of mice HIV. Think of some sewer rat biting you...

    That's just my mid-day alarmist self. Note I'm not against the research, just wondering about it...

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    1. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feline HIV bears no resemblance to Simian HIV.

    2. Re:Amazing! by spleck · · Score: 1

      I assume that HIV doesn't infect mice in that it doesn't attack their immune systems. Considering this is an engineered HIV virus, its been programmed to seek out those cancer glycoproteins, no matter the host.

      I think ideally, they would re-engineer FIV or some other non-human immunodeficiency virus to cure cancer with less risk of virus reactivation, etc.

    3. Re:Amazing! by RpiMatty · · Score: 2, Informative

      Its called FIV not feline HIV. the H stands for human, and the F stands for feline.
      And there is no way to cross infect a cat with HIV or a human with FIV

    4. Re:Amazing! by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >I've seen too many movies like 28 Days Later to not imagine some accident or oversight to cause some sort of mutant airborne HIV.

      28 Days Later had zombies. Is that what you are afraid of? Zombies?

      You want scary? Take a look at the front section of any major newspaper and do some indepth research into its topic. Zombies are an entertaining distraction in comparision.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    5. Re:Amazing! by wfberg · · Score: 1

      Hospitals deal with thousands of blood samples on a daily basis. In-vitro research using blood, even HIV infested blood, is no more unsafe than handling all those blood samples - plus, you'd be extra careful about getting it splattered in your eye if you know it's infected.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    6. Re:Amazing! by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A bit of Googling provides multiple respectable sources stating that HIV is categorised as biohazard level 3. CDC has some information on biosafety (2.8MB - pretty slow) which includes requirements for handling of agents at different levels.

    7. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The types of medical research that are actually dangerous involve diseases that are extremely contagious to begin with, especially ones that are airborne or can be transmitted by sneezing etc.

      HIV doesn't seem like a likely candidate for becoming airborne. It's pretty big for a virus, and an unusually difficult disease to contract. The problem with it is that you can have it for a long time without knowing it, if you stick with the usual "of course I'm healthy, I feel fine!" naivety.

    8. Re:Amazing! by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      Hang out with someone dying of lung cancer. Comparatively speaking, getting turned into a zombie and then getting hacked into little bits by some chainsaw-wielding hero is a happy fate. Worse comes to worse, you escape the hero and have a happy undead existence eating brains.

      That's why horror movies don't really scare me anymore. The fates that await most people at the end of their lives are far more frightening.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    9. Re:Amazing! by tgibbs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm pretty far removed from science in any practical setting, but what are the procedures for this kind of research? I've seen too many movies like 28 Days Later to not imagine some accident or oversight to cause some sort of mutant airborne HIV.

      HIV is already widely spread in human populations all over the world, mutating rapidly, and under strong selective pressure from antiviral drugs. If it could easily mutate into an airborne strain, it probably would already have done so. The likelihood that modifying it for therapeutic purposes would accidentally turn it into an airborne strain is probably about the same as the risk that kid down the street customizing his car will accidentally turn it into an attack helicopter.

    10. Re:Amazing! by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      HIV mutates far faster in the wild than it will in the lab. If HIV was going to go airborne, it would do so without our help.

      Besides, HIV is comparativly weak. You need to be exposed to a large amount of virus to actually become HIV+. Even people stabbed with infected needles don't usually come down with the virus.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    11. Re:Amazing! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      What about catgirls? They might have a feline HIV, you insensitive clod!

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    12. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty far removed from science in any practical setting

      Which is exactly the problem.

      I've seen too many movies like 28 Days Later to not imagine some accident or oversight to cause some sort of mutant airborne HIV.

      You're welcome to spend rest of your days cowering in fear for FLAIDS, but fortunately for the rest of us, world does not work as dictated by your overactive imagination fed by stupid movies.

    13. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The likelihood that modifying it for therapeutic purposes would accidentally turn it into an airborne strain is probably about the same as the risk that kid down the street customizing his car will accidentally turn it into an attack helicopter.

      Am I the only who upon reading this analogy thought "Next week on Monster Garage..."?

  15. Cheap Prescription Drugs by kiwidefunkt · · Score: 5, Funny

    So when this hits the market, will HIV be cheaper in Canada than the US?

    --
    www.kiwilyrics.com - a wiki for lyrics
    1. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Score:10, teh funnay. Dude, you rock.

    2. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Joking aside I see this is research is being done at UCLA presumably with public funding or maybe charitable donations.

      I was just wondering if anyone has an educated guess how many medical and drug breakthroughs are happening in publicly funded institutions, the NIH being another example, and how many are actually developed inside the big drug and healthcare companies using private funding.

      I ask because in the face of the extraordinarily high cost of drugs in the U.S., HIV drugs in particular, the usual retort by Republicans is drug companies need those huge profits to do groundbreaking R&D on new breakthrough drugs. Drug companies have the highest profits and profit margins of ANY major industrial sector in the U.S. or at least they did before they started getting hammered when it turned out drugs they were pushing like Zoloft and Vioxx are potentially dangerous.

      I'm also curious how much of the privately funded drug company research is funded by the public through tax breaks, grants etc.

      To put it another way how much do drug companies profit on breakthroughs from publicly funded research.

      Another question what is the current ratio between drug company spending on advertising versus R&D. The never ending saturation TV ads, designed to compel American consumers to demand drugs from their doctors they may or may not need, must be costing billions and all those advertising costs which do no one any actual good are being tacked on to the cost of drugs and making seniors in particular pay through the nose for saturation advertising campaigns instead of drugs or drug R&D.

      My three step plan to drive down the cost of drugs and healthcare:

      A. Outlaw drug advertising just like ads for cigarettes and hard liquor. Its totally inappropriate and disceptive to advertise drugs using slick ads, like soda pop or underarm deodorant. Confine them to advertising to doctors and then only in the form of factual dissertations on the pros and cons of the drug, audited by a 3rd party for accuracy.

      B. Mandate that drugs and publicly funded health breakthroughs be provided to the public at cost or with a regulated profit margin.

      C. Rather than outlawing U.S. agencies, like Medicare, from negotiating fair prices for wholesale drug purchases, make it law that those agencies MUST negotiate fair wholesale prices, like Canada and most other sane nations do.

      --
      @de_machina
    3. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by Jasonv · · Score: 1

      It'll be legal in Canada, but it'll be banned in the US because it prompts a gay life-style.

    4. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but the US is drawing up plans to liberate much of Africa for their massive HIV reserves after the failed HIV-for-food programme.

    5. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by yourmom16 · · Score: 1
      My three step plan to drive down the cost of drugs and healthcare: A. Outlaw drug advertising just like ads for cigarettes and hard liquor. Its totally inappropriate and disceptive to advertise drugs using slick ads, like soda pop or underarm deodorant. Confine them to advertising to doctors and then only in the form of factual dissertations on the pros and cons of the drug, audited by a 3rd party for accuracy. B. Mandate that drugs and publicly funded health breakthroughs be provided to the public at cost or with a regulated profit margin. C. Rather than outlawing U.S. agencies, like Medicare, from negotiating fair prices for wholesale drug purchases, make it law that those agencies MUST negotiate fair wholesale prices, like Canada and most other sane nations do.

      Or they could just get rid of the patent system and competition will eliminate all those problems.

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    6. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by demachina · · Score: 1

      The argument and its probably a true one is if drug companies didn't have patents and exclusive rights to a drug for a period they would stop development of new drugs, and it is extravagantly expensive to get one through trials and FDA approval. Though it appears much of that process is a sham, and negative data on the safety of the drug is being routinely buried. The FDA is apparently largely funded by fees from drug companies which is a key reason they've started treating them like customers and not a target for disspassionate regulatory oversight.

      It is quite possible that drug development could be better done with public funding which might well be what you get if you killed drug patents.

      I think it would be somewhat less disruptive at least initially if you tried my 3 point plan and if it didn't work use the threat of voiding their patents as the sledge hammer to compel them to straighten up.

      Regradless none of its going to happen with the Republican's in power and it might not be any better if the Democrats wer in power. Another thing drug companies are using their ill gotten gains for is a massive army of lobbyists and huge campaign contributions so they can pretty much own Congress.

      --
      @de_machina
    7. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by thejoelpatrol · · Score: 1
      The drug companies certainly spend a lot of money developing the practical drugs that we use, but most of the research leading to them being able to get that far is publicly funded, either at public institutions or with public money at private ones. Without the basic medical research we taxpayers fund, the drug companies would have nothing, and yet we have to pay them high prices for drugs. We're paying twice.

      Don't believe me? Read all about it

    8. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is cheaper. Due to the differences in the currencies, scoring a hooker is cheaper in Canada than in the US. (Ohhhhhhh Canadaaaaaaa!!!!!)

      Sorry-couldn't resist!

      Missouri Mike
      (From the "Show-Me" state-show me yours, and I'll show you mine!)

    9. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by gwydion04 · · Score: 1

      Drug companies spend more on advertising than they do on basic research. Far more.

      They also pump research money into products they see as becoming cash cows - i.e. COX-2 inhibitors (Celebrex/Vioxx) and the statins.

      It makes good business sense, but bad health sense.

    10. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by glwtta · · Score: 1
      Or they could just get rid of the patent system and competition will eliminate all those problems.

      Um yeah, mostly by eliminating drug companies. Let's see, your company spends about 8 years and roughly a billion dollars developing a drug (that's the R&D costs, before manufacturing and sales and such) and as soon as it hits the market, it's drowned out by "generic" equivalents. Yes, that's pure motivation to get into the drug business.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    11. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was just wondering if anyone has an educated guess how many medical and drug breakthroughs are happening in publicly funded institutions, the NIH being another example, and how many are actually developed inside the big drug and healthcare companies using private funding.

      It's hard to draw any distinct lines here, most initial discoveries (and I mean truly novel breakthroughs, not just improvements to existing technology) are made in academia, they are usually reduced to practice in industry, and it's the industry again that makes the actual drugs. Getting products to market would probably be just as impossible without either one.

      Drug companies have the highest profits and profit margins of ANY major industrial sector in the U.S.

      And it's not hard to guess why: for a startup biotech company, the chances of success (ie brinning a drug to market before funding runs out) are basically zilch. I work for a small biotech company, the basis of our business model is that we will identify, out of the ~30,000 human genes those that are necessary for tumor maintenance, yet can be knocked out without major side-effects (crude as it is, this is leaps and bounds better than currently employed cancer treatments). Thing is, pesky biology gets involved: you can't really plan to spend X dollars and get Y drugs as the result; at the end of the day at this stage in development far more is dependent on pure luck than anyone would like to think.

      Taking the industry as a whole, whatever small percentage of companies do manage to come up with viable targets, will still need billions of dollars in funding and many years (sometimes decades) to actually develop drugs to them.

      It's not hard to see that where you have an expensive proposition with little chance of success, you need big incentives for anyone to actually attempt it.

      I don't know what Republicans have to do with anything (I am certainly not one), nor do I know how medicare works (or should work), nor do I have any strong opinions about advertising (though I'm thinking that I've never seen a TV ad for the vast majority of drugs out there); but I do know that you are not going to see any new drugs unless successfully developing them carries great rewards for those involved.

    12. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by demachina · · Score: 1

      "they are usually reduced to practice in industry, and it's the industry again that makes the actual drugs"

      I really doubt thats the case. Once the drug is discovered anyone can bring it in to production. I'm pretty sure the government/military has done it for things the military needs like vaccines.

      You could kid yourself and think drug companies and the FDA are necessary to establish efficacy and safety, but it in fact appears that system is deeply, deeply flawed, with drug companies successfully suppressing bad results and the FDA rubber stamping fraudulent studies because they have started working for the drug companies instead of being a dispassionate regulator.

      "but I do know that you are not going to see any new drugs unless successfully developing them carries great rewards for those involved."

      Or they are developed with public funding, since our government can sink billions of dollars in to high risk ventures with low probability of return. They already have in the past on things like building the Hoover Dam or space exploration.

      The return on investment of having our tax dollars could well be worth it. The cost of drugs and health care is a huge drain on our economy and competitiveness. If drugs were available for cost it might compensate for the cost in taxes.

      --
      @de_machina
    13. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1

      One problem is that the drug patent system is hopelessly corrupted. Rather than encouraging innovation it encourages rebranding. The drug companies meat and 'taters is not breakthrough drugs but new versions of old drugs, tweaked just enough to weasel a new patent. The FDA says that more than 70 percent of new drugs approved in the last decade "do not constitute qualitative improvements over existing treatments." Dennis Kucinich proposes (and has introduced legislation for) a system of public patents.

      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    14. Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The cost of drugs and health care is a huge drain on our economy and competitiveness."

      Yeah, but mos' everybody ends up in hospital sometime. The better the healthcare, the more likely you are to survive, and end up there again - taxpayer pays more. If your priority is competitiveness, then you're better off letting most chronicly ill people die...

      Still, maybe we'll eventually invent those magic-curing-ray machines they have on Star Trek.

  16. HIV and Carrots by your_mother_sews_soc · · Score: 4, Funny

    I knew this girl in college that did amazing things with candles and vegetables, including carrots. I know for a fact she won't die of cancer. She OD'd in '86.

    --
    My user name was a mistake. Input wasn't restricted, my bad.
  17. Does That Work Both Ways? by CheeseburgerBlue · · Score: 0, Troll

    Can I smoke cigarettes as a form of birth control?

    I need a handy disinformation pamphlet.

  18. The best medicine to a headache... by freedom_india · · Score: 0

    ..is guillotine. No head = No headache.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:The best medicine to a headache... by genner · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work. Your head stays alive for a few seconds and boy does it hurt.

    2. Re:The best medicine to a headache... by mrjb · · Score: 1

      I take it you must be speaking out of your own experience.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    3. Re:The best medicine to a headache... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you'd know this how, exactly?

  19. Just like the Simpsons by dr_dank · · Score: 1, Funny

    After the gorillas kill the crabs sent to kill the herpes sent to kill the flu sent to kill the acne sent to kill the hiv sent to kill the cancer, they'll just freeze to death once winter comes.

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  20. Mabye by uberjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess as long as they take care of the immunodeficency part, that might not be so bad. Wouldn't want to live in a bubble now would we.

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

    1. Re:Mabye by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the "immunodeficency part" a part of AIDS, not HIV? AFAIK AIDS != HIV, and HIV is a precursor to AIDS...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Mabye by uberjoe · · Score: 2, Informative
      HIV = Human Immonodeficiency Virus

      AIDS = Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

      HIV destroys your immune system and thereby causes AIDS. AIDS does not kill you. You die of complications due to AIDS, usually by catching a disease which is not fatal to a healthy person (cold, pnunomia), but because of your ravaged immune system is fatal to you.

      --

      The days of the digital watch are numbered.

    3. Re:Mabye by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      Human
      Immunodeficiency
      Virus

      --
      -mkb
    4. Re:Mabye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is so wrong it hurts. Please go back to writing Java code or whatever.

  21. Great news except for this small fact... by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Shades of Andromeda Strain, this story

    http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?template =Aids&slug=New+HIV+strain+found+in+NY&id=68437&cal lid=1 implies that HIV is becoming stronger at a time when we want to spread it by calling it a cure. I guess if you die early of the new more virulent HIV then you don't have to worry about cancer.

    --
    We have always been at war with Eurasia!
    1. Re:Great news except for this small fact... by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In a way that strain is a GoodThing(tm).
      Since it progresses faster (countable in months rather than years), it is more likely to eliminate its self, rather than stay silent and spread.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  22. This just in.... by MrCobaltBlue · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Next discovery is that Cancer cures HIV

    --
    mount /dev/me
  23. and cancer is the cure for HIV... by matt4077 · · Score: 1, Funny
    ... no person that died of cancer ever died of hiv.

    qed

  24. Good News vs. Bad News Joke by mrighi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Totally offtopic, but your joke made me think of another I heard somewhere.

    A guy goes to the doctor about a problem he's having. After a thorough examination, the doctor says to the patient, "I have good news and I have bad news."

    "Well doc, let me hear the good news first.", says the patient.

    To which the doctor responds, "Well, the good news is, we're going to name a disease after you!"

    1. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by mmkkbb · · Score: 4, Funny

      a guy goes to thailand and messes around with some girls. he comes back to the US and he sees that his dick is turning green. he goes to his doctor, who says "it will have to be amputated". he goes for a second opinion, with the same answer. devastated, he returns to thailand to see if a native physician is mroe familiar with his illness. he goes into an emergency room and sees a doctor who tells him, "your american doctors are wrong! you need no operation." the guy excitedly replies "what do i need to do?" the doctor says, "absolutely nothing! it will fall off by itself!"

      --
      -mkb
    2. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by shredwurzel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A Man goes to the Dr, the Dr says "There is good news and bad news" The bad news is, you have HIV. The good news is you have Alzheimers and will have forgotten the bad news by the time you get home.

    3. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I've got bad news and I've got worse news. The Bad news is, you've only got 24 hrs to live"
      "What can be worse than that?"
      "I've been trying to reach you since yesterday!"

    4. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by wizard_of_wor · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. The delivery goes like this: Doctor: "I've got bad news and I've got bad news. You've got Alzheimer's disease and you've got AIDS." Patient: "Well, hey - at least I don't have Alzheimer's disease!"

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
    5. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      How's this.

      Elderly John takes his elderly wife Margie to the doctor because she keeps forgetting things. Important things like who he is, and what her own name is.

      After an hour long examination the doctor sits John down and says to him "Your wife is showing signs of dementia. She is either in the early stages of alzheimer's disease or she has contracted HIV and the dementia is AIDS related."

      John asks "Well, doctor, what do we do next? We're on a fixed income and can't afford a lot of expensive tests."

      The doctor tells him "The cheap way is to take her to the mall and drop her off. If the police bring her home, she has alzheimer's disease and medicare will pay for treatment."

      John inquires "But what if she finds her own way back?"

      The doctor grimaces and says "Move out."

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    6. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

      One cow is talking to another in the barn and says, "I don't know what to think about this Mad Cow Disease. There are all these complicated scientific issues, economic issues, and political issues! What's a poor cow to think?" The other cow says: "I don't care; I'm a helicopter!"

    7. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by hdparm · · Score: 1, Funny
      I just have to post one that's even more offtopic - heard it on Billy Connolly's TV show:

      Guy goes to doctor and tells him: "Doc, I think I'm a moth." Doctor looks at him carefully and says: " You know what, that's quite possible but I may not be the best person to talk with about this problem. You see, I am only GP - you probably need to talk to psychiatrist." "Sure", says guy "I was on my way to him when I saw a light is on in your office."

    8. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a guy comes to a doctor and complains his testicle turned blue. doctor decides to operate and removes the testicle. in a month the guy returns and complains another testicle is now blue. doctor removes this one too. in yet another month the guy comes again, now his penis is blue. doctor looks at it and goes 'hmmm .. you really should stop wearing these pants, they are color-bleeding like hell'

    9. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by apankrat · · Score: 1

      - doctor, how much time do i have left ?
      - 9
      - 9 years ? 9 months ? '9' what ?
      - 8, 7, 6, 5 ..

      --
      3.243F6A8885A308D313
    10. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doctor: I have some good news and some bad news patient: OK start with the bad news doc: You have cancer pat: ..ah.. and the good news? doc: you see that nurse? pat: yes, so what doc: I think this evening I'll fuck her

    11. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by joshsnow · · Score: 1

      Another off topic one, from Lenny Henry: Man wakes up in a hospital bed, and sees a doctor. Doctor says, "We've got some bad news and some good news. Bad news is that we've had to amputate both of your legs" Man says, "what's the good news?". Doc says, "The man in the next bed wants to buy your shoes!"

    12. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Doctor: I have some good news and some bad news.

      Patient: OK, start with the bad news.

      Doctor: You have cancer.

      Patient: ...ah...and the good news?

      Doctor: I just saved a ton of money on my car insurance!

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    13. Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke by MSBob · · Score: 1
      - "Mary, what's the name of that German guy who keeps hiding my glasses"

      - "It's Alzheimer grampa, Alzheimer!"

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
  25. Admiration for Scientists by reporter · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I greatly admire the scientists, doctors, and nurses who are pursing research to convert HIV into a cancer fighter. Such research is dangerous for the researchers because they are working with live HIV.

    Even doctors and nurses who are not focused on research but who are focused on caring for HIV patients are, in my opinion, heros. They are willing to accept the risks that others shun. There have been occasional stories of nurses who accidentally prick themselves with needles used on HIV patients. Memory tells me that nurses dealing with high-risk patients are prescribed AZT in order to prevent infection. Can anyone confirm my memory?

    1. Re:Admiration for Scientists by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Such research is dangerous for the researchers because they are working with live HIV.

      Working with HIV is actually a lot less dangerous than a lot of other infectious agents. HIV is fairly hard to contract, compared to airborne or contact-transmitted diseases. For example, it dies pretty quickly when exposed to plain old air. It's only HIV's incurability and eventual fatality that makes it so hazardous.

      Memory tells me that nurses dealing with high-risk patients are prescribed AZT in order to prevent infection. Can anyone confirm my memory?

      That seems pretty unlikely, because AZT is pretty damn toxic. You wouldn't want to take it just as a precaution. It is true that health care workers who've been exposed (e.g. needle prick from an HIV patient) go on a short-term drug cocktail intended to weaken the virus enough for their immune systems to handle it before it gains a foothold.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    2. Re:Admiration for Scientists by TGK · · Score: 4, Informative

      A high dose of AZT following a possible HIV infection has been shown to dramaticly decrease the risk of infection. I work with children with cancer and/or HIV on a volunteer basis and we keep a fair bit of the stuff around for just that reason.

      That said, HIV isn't terribly dangerous to work with. Admittedly it's hella scary, but given that the bug isn't airborn and that we can ameliorate any infection with a huge dose of AZT those working with patients have little to fear.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    3. Re:Admiration for Scientists by Kplusplus · · Score: 1

      yes, yes they are when they have been exposed to risky cicumstances like teh one you mention. Not before. Recently teh government has allowed rape victims and people that have engaged in risky sex(unprotected) to also use the drug, except the government doesn't subsidize those uses.

      --
      -"I'm one of those Mac people that will break a bottle on the bar and hold it to your throat for bad-mouthing my system"
    4. Re:Admiration for Scientists by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      Doesn't AZT screw over your immune system enough that you false positive anyway?

    5. Re:Admiration for Scientists by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 2, Informative

      While I share your admiration, working with HIV is actually not all that dangerous to work with in a lab. HIV is, I believe (and I'm sure someone will correct me), a Level 2 Pathogen since it cannot live outside its host and requires direct exchange of bodyfluids to be transmitted. It's deadly, but not particularly virulent and has a long incubation period. HIV needs some extra procedures for handling and washing up, but thats it.

      Contrast with everyone's favorite Level 4 pathogen Ebola Zaire. Ebola Zaire can be caught through casual contact with an infected person or something they have touched (Ebola Reston is actually airborn, but only affects monkeys). It has a very short inclubation period and kills 90% of its victims, in about 10 days. This one is very virulent. Ebola Zaire needs an airtight, negative presure room and a person in a space suit to work with it.

      I do like the creativiity of understanding the mechanism of one "enemy" to use against another....Sun Tzu would be proud...

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
    6. Re:Admiration for Scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      That seems pretty unlikely, because AZT is pretty damn toxic. You wouldn't want to take it just as a precaution. It is true that health care workers who've been exposed (e.g. needle prick from an HIV patient) go on a short-term drug cocktail intended to weaken the virus enough for their immune systems to handle it before it gains a foothold.

      Quite right, AZT is used to prevent infection following a high-risk event (usually meaning an injury from an HIV contaminated needle, or HIV infected blood spray into eyes or mouth).

      It is certainly not given routinely as a preventative measure.

      Nor is it given alone. It is typically given in conjunction with 2 other drugs, most commonly lamivudine and indinavir (although there are several other regimens). The 'post-exposure prophylaxis' course is usually 1 month, with treatment to be started as soon as possible after contamination - in any event, this should be within 1 hour of the injury occurring.

    7. Re:Admiration for Scientists by bodrell · · Score: 1
      That seems pretty unlikely, because AZT is pretty damn toxic. You wouldn't want to take it just as a precaution. It is true that health care workers who've been exposed (e.g. needle prick from an HIV patient) go on a short-term drug cocktail intended to weaken the virus enough for their immune systems to handle it before it gains a foothold.
      AZT is pretty toxic, because it's a modified thymidine (the T in ATGC), so your body uses that instead of real thymidine when replicating DNA, I believe. But in RNA, the nucleosides at AUGC (uracil replacing thymidine), so I may be a bit mixed up. So your cells don't crank out working viral RNA, but the same mechanism prevents your body from making working RNA.

      I don't know how much of a role the patient's immune system plays in preventing infection.

      Also, I've debated this with one of my coworkers numerous times: whether a virus can be considered "alive" is questionable, so you might want to say that the virus is inactivated quickly when exposed to air, rather than "killed," which implies it was once alive. Or maybe you'd rather insist virii are lifeforms.

      --
      Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
    8. Re:Admiration for Scientists by quetzalc0atl · · Score: 1

      your cells don't crank out working viral RNA, but the same mechanism prevents your body from making working RNA.

      you are almost right...AZT actually terminates the synthesis of DNA, not RNA. (the reverse transcriptase enzyme translates the viral RNA to DNA, and this DNA then gets inserted into the host cell's genome).

      "wait a minute" - you say, how could DNA synthesis be terminated and the cell still live?!?! the answer most often given is that the reverse transcriptase enzyme has a stronger affinity for the AZT nucleoside analog than the normal cellular DNA polymerase. Few biochemists would actually believe this, and the high toxicity of AZT is a testament to this - if you take AZT, you will die.

      it is also interesting to note that nucleoside analogs such as AZT have been used in cell culture techniques since the 1950's to arrest cells in S phase for biological research. needless to say, it was quite a leap to suddenly make a "drug" out of a common laboratory technique...and infact AZT was first marketed as an antineoplastic chemotherapy drug in the 1970's before it was rejected by the FDA for killing too many of it's trial patients. Hey, no problemo, lets just wait 10 years and re-market it as an "AIDS drug". It is also somewhat humorous that they would claim on the one hand that the drug does not affect normal cellular DNA synthesis and then on the other hand they previously marketed it as an inhibitor of cell replication as an anticancer agent (meaning that it prevents cells from replicating their DNA - which clearly means that the claims of reverse transcriptase specificity were bogus!!)

      it is for such examples of plain-sighted backwardness that many have come to doubt the safety of drugs approved by the FDA, as is evident in the US national news every other week.

    9. Re:Admiration for Scientists by bodrell · · Score: 1
      you are almost right...AZT actually terminates the synthesis of DNA, not RNA.

      Thanks for the correction. I am now working full time in biology, but that is NOT what I studied in school. It's been a crash course in biotech, only without the cohesiveness and compehensiveness of an actual class. So there are big gaps in my biology knowledge.

      Your remark about AZT's other uses reminded me that thalidomide is back in use again, to fight cancer this time. Of course, it's now contraindicated for use in pregnant women.

      --
      Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
    10. Re:Admiration for Scientists by quetzalc0atl · · Score: 1

      yes, thalidomide was one of the shining examples of the importance of the FDA, since thalidomide was never approved in the USA while in Europe it was given a free pass. Hopefully, with some reform, the FDA can enjoy this status again.

      It is also interesting that it is only one enantiomer of thalidomide that caused the nasty birth defects, the other stereoisomer seems to not be associated:

      http://www.rlc.dcccd.edu/MATHSCI/reynolds/thalidom ide/chemistry/chemistry.htm

      Best of luck to you in your new career.

    11. Re:Admiration for Scientists by acz · · Score: 1

      AZT is one of the biggest scam.

      It was rejected many times before being used for HIV treatment.
      With cancer, the gamble for using a chemiotherapy drug is to kill the cancer before the chemiotherapy drug kills you. That's fine.

      With HIV, you take the chemiotherapy drug, AZT and they tell you to take it until you die because they say you will die anyway.
      Interesting concept isn't it.

      How many people died from AZT and not from AIDS?

    12. Re:Admiration for Scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if we can get AZT added to dishwashing liquid, that will solve the communal teacup problem

    13. Re:Admiration for Scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go home, Duesberg.

  26. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by XMyth · · Score: 1

    Do all viruses mutate? I thought many did not...if some don't then couldn't this particular strand be modified so it doesn't mutate?

    Just seems to me that if that were really a big problem they wouldn't even be working on this.

  27. So the next question is... by eth1 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Could mutated 'cancerous' immune system cells kill HIV?

  28. I'm not gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm not gay, my cock sucking is for medicinal purposes only.

  29. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Fwonkas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe I'm mistaken, but don't we use viruses as vectors all the time? Like in vaccines?

    --
    COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
  30. Would this spread? by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    Would this new strain of HIV be infectious?

    I'd presume it'd have to be. It must reproduce inside the body to hunt down and kill the cancer.

    It'd probably also be a hard thing to sell, if you could get it by screwing someone else who had it.

    1. Re:Would this spread? by k96822 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, great. If the future of medicine means that cures will be spread via sexual contact, I'm a dead man for sure!

    2. Re:Would this spread? by Acius · · Score: 1

      Ideally, the HIVLite reproduces itself by locking onto a protein which is found in the cancer cells themselves. One of the things that's so interesting about HIV is that it's pretty specifically targeted -- it only hits one particular kind of immune cell, thus breaking the immune system's chain reaction.

      So *if this is done right*, having sex with someone who has it would give you the virus, but it wouldn't cause an infection because you don't have the cancer cells so essential to its survival. And if you do have cancer, you just got treated for cheap/free!

      --
      Acius the unfamous
    3. Re:Would this spread? by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, either way you're screwed.

    4. Re:Would this spread? by ethx1 · · Score: 1

      All these comments on getting treated free by having sex infected with the new strain assume that the person has no other STDs. I mean it would suck if you got HIV to cure cancer and then got Herpes too!

  31. Glow-in-the-dark AIDS by flappinbooger · · Score: 1
    The scientists also inserted a glowing firefly protein into the virus to track its progress. They used a light-detection "cooled charged-coupled device," or CCCD, camera to look at the glowing protein inside live mice


    Now they're just showing off.
    --
    Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  32. New pick-up line(s) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Hey, Nice boots. Wanna fight cancer?"

    1. Re:New pick-up line(s) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So sex * does* cure everything!

  33. "Ahhh that's how it always starts. Then later..." by MetaPhyzx · · Score: 1
    "People might wonder if it's scary to use HIV as a therapy," said Irving Chen, who led the UCLA team. "But in actuality we have completely removed 80 percent of the virus. So really it's just a carrier."


    It' would be just our luck that in the remaining 20 percent lurks HIV"s ability to mutate and unleash some other horror. But hey, I guess turning one "enemy" of mankind against another enemy. I guess the guys working on this know the risks... so hey.

    I hope this holds significant promise, but considering this on the heels of the resistant HIV strain discovered/found in New York recently, it's just not the right time for PR spin on virii...
    --
    Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
  34. The enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Enemy(HIV) of my Enemy(Cancer) is my friend???

  35. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by bjwest · · Score: 0, Troll

    It doesn't mater what the FDA will or will not let them do. We will never see a cure for cancer - it makes them too much money treating it.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
  36. Nothing new really by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 5, Informative

    Gene therapy use lentivirus-based (HIV) vectors for quite some time now; it's nothing new really; a marketing team found the 'Cure Cancer with HIV!' twist interesting I guess.

    When pseudotyped with the right envelope, these virus can infect efficiently any type of cell. They can also transduce non-dividing cells, which is usefull. They lack almost every gene of HIV; they retain certain structures which allow packaging of the genome in the virus and the viral promoter, but that's about it. Viruses are packaged in special cell lines containing the viral components on plasmids most of the time, and preparations are tested for recombinants. Its the best technology out there, but its nothing new, really.

    1. Re:Nothing new really by EmagGeek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      *blink*

    2. Re:Nothing new really by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      Read with sigs enabled dude and you'll realise he knows of what he speaks :)

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    3. Re:Nothing new really by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      Um, or she of course...

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    4. Re:Nothing new really by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      That was an "I have no fscking clue what you just said" *blink*, not a "You can't possibly know what you're talking about" *blink* :)

    5. Re:Nothing new really by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      You'd think there would be a tremendous PR benefit to marketing the gene therapy vector by itself, so that when the vector is re-engineered for a specific purpose (like attacking cancerous cells), the marketing wonks can describe it as being derived from the earlier gene therapy vector. The marketing for the vector itself would of course indicate that the vast bulk of HIV's genes do not exist, and thus the vector avoids the stigma of the dangers of HIV, and the cancer treatment avoids mention of HIV altogether.

    6. Re:Nothing new really by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was more of an "I just had to re-boot my brain" *blink* I guess I should have followed it with a *stare* haha...

    7. Re:Nothing new really by SB5 · · Score: 1

      When they can infect fat cells then and only then will America be saved from McDonalds.

      --
      If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
      it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
    8. Re:Nothing new really by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      Don't worry - I didn't get any of it either :) Strangely enough my wife works every day with a doctor who cures (yes you read that right) HIV with a highly illegal treatment: ozone. It's very cheap to make, works like a charm and has had tens of millions of dollars of bad PR thrown its way by the drug companies...

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    9. Re:Nothing new really by yourmom16 · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as fat cells.

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    10. Re:Nothing new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as fat cells.

      I think he ment "fat cells" as in "cells that produce fat deposits", not "cells that get fat".

  37. Check you facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Virus's are already used to fight cancer. They already usd a modified cold virus as well as a few other types. They modify the virus to only attack cancer cells and inject you. so the virus does what it does best, but only attacks cancer cells. To date they have only used virus's that cause only minor illnesses such as the cold virus, that way if it did mutate you would get a cold at worst, but the technology exists to modify a virus enough so that you cou;d use a more dangerous strain, by the way, i am a Bio-chemical engineer and do do such things for a living...

    1. Re:Check you facts by TGK · · Score: 4, Informative

      Check your own....

      Generaly the virus used is the Herpes Simplex A virus due to the ease of genetic packaging.

      That said, no virus can be engineered to just attack cancer cells. Cancer cells are identical to non-cancerous cells in nearly all respects. The difference isn't in what they "look like" but what they do. Cancer cells do not (generaly) preform the task that their non-cancerous counterparts preform and instead divide rapidly.

      So the way you target cancer is targeting dividing cells. Since cancer cells divide more rapidly than non-cancerous cells they die off in higher numbers. Lather, rise, repeat. Eventualy you're out of cancer cells.

      The problem is that radiation and chemo make the patient very sick, and the dehydration effects tend to leave them weakened and unable to continue treatment. Chemo and Radiation thus become a balance between killing the cancer and killing the patient.

      A virus could be different because unlike the injestion of poison (Chemo) or exposure to Radiation, the body does not generaly react to viral infection with vomiting and other nasty side affects.

      The result is that you can get more cancer killing power per unit of patient killing power. This in turn translates to a higher cure rate for cancers.

      This is why stem cells are so interesting for curing cancers. Got a brain tumor? Great.... we'll zap the shit out of it and toss in some stem cells... in a few days you'll have regenerated the brain tissue and you'll be good as new. That's science fiction today, but it's well within the realm of possibility in a few years.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    2. Re:Check you facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got a brain tumor? Great.... we'll zap the shit out of it and toss in some stem cells

      Yeah, but you may not remember anything after that.

    3. Re:Check you facts by IdntUnknwn · · Score: 1

      Cancer cells do appear to be different from normal cells since they manufacture surface molecules at unusual rates. However, because these are molecules that appear in normal cells, viruses can't tell the difference between cancer cells and normal cells, so designing a virus to specifically target cancer cells would be difficult. But not necessarily impossible as you describe.

      There is an interesting strategy in development that will allow viruses to specifically attack cancerous cells. Basically, find a molecule that cancerous cells will absorb in extraordinary quantities. These molecules are absorbed in extraordinary quantities because of the fact that cancer cells manufacture surface molecules at unusual rates. Then manufacture a virus that will only be active in the presence of that molecule. The virus will generally only grow in cancerous cells, eventually killing them off.

      I don't know if this strategy is yet actively being used anywhere, or if it works as effectively as it sounds like it should. But once again, designing viruses to specifically attack cancerous cells is not impossible. Grandparent could very well be right.

    4. Re:Check you facts by TheWatchfulBabbler · · Score: 1
      It's not really science fiction at this point, either. Northwestern is doing an interesting clinical trial with Crohn's patients. Since Crohn's is an autoimmune gut disorder, the idea behind the study is to do a peripheral stem cell collection from the patient, then do immunoablation, effectively killing off the immune system's "memory." The harvested stem cells are then re-seeded to create new lymphocytes. Neat stuff, but they seem to have trouble attracting patients -- in part because there are so many therapies that it's hard to find patients who don't respond to *something*, and in part because the treatment is so extreme.

      Still, it's neater than futzing around with TNF-alpha antagonists and NF-kappa-b inhibitors (in a mad scientist kinda way).

    5. Re:Check you facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generaly the virus used is the Herpes Simplex A

      I don't think there is a virus called "Herpes Simplex A". I hope you are not like a medical student or anything.

  38. skeptical by to_kallon · · Score: 1

    they are already reporting success on living creatures
    IANAB but scientists cured cancer in lab rats years (literally) ago. i'm not saying this isn't a breakthrough, but you need to take this news with a grain of salt.

    --


    The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
    -Oscar Wilde
  39. An old phrase comes to mind by Marcus+Erroneous · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems like a good fit in this instance. Then again, your mileage may vary.

    --
    You must be the change you wish to see in the world - Ghandi
    1. Re:An old phrase comes to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We see how well that worked with Bin Laden and Hussein...

      I can see it now, we're gonna have preemptive strikes against the HIV Terrorists who literally live inside of us.

    2. Re:An old phrase comes to mind by coachvince · · Score: 0

      Not per Schlock Mercenary... "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy; nothing more, nothing less."

      http://www.schlockmercenary.com/

      --
    3. Re:An old phrase comes to mind by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      Strangely, that same phrase seems like it would fit well with Cancer and HIV working together against us.

  40. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by IIEFreeMan · · Score: 1

    They would never allow any vaccine if they were that superficial ... I hope they just evaluate the benefit/risk ratio as they are supposed to.

  41. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Jack+Taylor · · Score: 1

    But seriously, if it was that or death by cancer, which would you choose? I think a lot of people would go with this in medical trials even if the FDA didn't pass it.

    --
    One good turn - gets all the covers.
  42. Cell picture by RGautier · · Score: 1

    That will be an interesting cell picture - an HIV cell with a carrot cell attached to it...

  43. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

    Dunno - if cancer victims knew that catching the mutated form of HIV might cure them, they might be rutting in the streets.

  44. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by sameerdesai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Huh? And the flu shot you take is not a virus eh?

  45. Time to Market? by Tal0n · · Score: 1

    Perhaps someone out there can provide some insight for those of us not in the know. Lets assume for a second that they reach an acceptable level of confidence that this turns out to be an effective strategy for battling Cancer (and also that they can ensure that the HIV virus doesn't harm the patient). How long does it generally take for a strategy such as this to reach Cancer patients (and i don't mean as test subjects)?

  46. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by cluke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you for real? You think somebody is going to invent a cure for cancer, and the FDA would dare ban it? If you thought the black market for viagra was bad, it would be nothing on this.

  47. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Freexe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you have inoperable brain cancer and given the option to die in about a month or a 1% chance at the treatment mutating into HIV...

    --
    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
  48. This just in... New Cure for cancer. by Jacer · · Score: 1

    Death! That's right folks, those who die are 100% of the time spontaneously cured of all forms of cancer. Research suggests that death may also be the answer to several other of lifes problems, including but not limited to, Valentine's Day depression!

    --
    --fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
  49. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Genetically modified cells and viruses often mutate. scientists aren't certain, but they suspect that modification produces a less stable genetic code. But we are getting better at producing more robust modifications.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  50. The Simpsons were ahead of their time -- by oneiros27 · · Score: 4, Funny
    They predicted it 5 years ago --
    Episode 238: The Mansion Family
    Meanwhile at the Mayo Clinic, Mr. Burns is told he has every disease known and unknown to man, it's just that they are all existing and trying to get through the door together in something the doctor's call "Three Stooges Syndrome". The doctors do warn him that a stiff breeze could kill him.
    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    1. Re:The Simpsons were ahead of their time -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i see someone has a date for valentines day.

    2. Re:The Simpsons were ahead of their time -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, your mother. I hear she's dating most of /. now.

  51. Amazing things can be done with retroviruses by JoeBuck · · Score: 3, Informative
    Unlike "normal" viruses, retroviruses actually rewrite the DNA of the cells they infect. Perhaps some day you could be cured of a genetic defect by having a retrovirus rewrite the bad gene in every cell of your body, or at least enough cells to cure the disease.

    On the other hand, HIV mutates very rapidly, so attempts to control the cure, say, by having it die off when there are no more defective genes to rewrite might well fail (as any viruses that mutate in a way to work around the die-off mechanism would reproduce rapidly).

    1. Re:Amazing things can be done with retroviruses by menkhaura · · Score: 1

      These guys are wicked geeky. They are programming (actually, bug-fixing) the most perfect hardware eva: our own cells!

      --
      Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
      Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
    2. Re:Amazing things can be done with retroviruses by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      (I'll pretend that the parent said "DNA" instead of "cells", as it's the DNA that's being manipulated.)

      "Most perfect hardware ever"? Human DNA has a higher mutation rate than Mydoom.
      Oxygen is carcinogenic, which means that even in the most healthy environment you will inevitably develop cancer cells (luckily, the cells are capable of committing suicide (apoptosis), so the mutated cell will usually kill itself before it can reproduce).
      Out cells are not even capable of reliably making copies of the DNA - a lot of mutations are caused by incorrect DNA replication.

      I'm damn happy that computer hardware is not quite as fragile as our DNA is!

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  52. They do mutate a lot by aepervius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At least HIV mutate a lot, As Far As I Remmember. Also the cold virus (grippe?) mutate a lot this why you have to vaccinate every year AFAIR.
    mutability of influenza
    some propaganda but also speaks of HIV mutability. I did not have time to search for more HIV article but google is your friend.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  53. I think the point of the article is... by jamesbuko · · Score: 0

    they wont be able to find cure for cancer....ever

  54. Brilliance? by aprilsound · · Score: 5, Informative
    To mix this with the strategy of using one strong enemy against another is brilliance!
    As others have said, it sounds potentialy dangerous (mutation et al), but the idea of using something bad to treat something else bad is by no means innovative. A few examples:

    chemotherapy - is just poison. it works because the cancer cells absorb the poison much quicker than normal cells.

    radiation therapy - again, radiation by itself is bad.

    most over the counter acne treatments - are just some form or acid that kills the bacteria on the skin
    As for reengineering a virus to take on something else, while facinating, its hardly a new idea. If you are interested in this sort of thing and haven't read Orson Scott Card's Xenocide (part of the Ender Series), you might check it out.

    1. Re:Brilliance? by k96822 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be ironic if they found the cure for cancer was to stand really close to your microwave for a while?

    2. Re:Brilliance? by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      From your sig...

      2b | !2b...

      Oddly enough the lsb of the result ... is the inverse of the lsb of b. ;-)

      Whoa... I really should eat before posting...

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    3. Re:Brilliance? by k96822 · · Score: 1

      Hehe :-) I could have written it as : question = (b 1) | !(b 1) too, I guess :-)

    4. Re:Brilliance? by k96822 · · Score: 1

      Whooops, the < symbols were left out. I mean, question = (b << 1) | !(b << 1). Shoulda hit the preview button, I guess :-)

    5. Re:Brilliance? by kuzb · · Score: 1

      I like Orson Scott Card as much as the next fiction fan, but getting information on medical techniques from a fiction writer is kinda like asking my kid sister to repair my car.

      It's not that she's stupid, she's just not a mechanic.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  55. oh dear by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wired News has published that Scientists have successfully modified the AIDS-causing HIV in such a way that it can attack metasticized melanoma (cancer cells).

    So "scientists" is capitalized now?

    I guess that's fair, but not everyone believes in science so it might upset some people.

    --
    Direct away from face when opening.
    1. Re:oh dear by misleb · · Score: 1
      I guess that's fair, but not everyone believes in science so it might upset some people.

      You'd have to be an idiot to not believe in science (that it exists and makes valid and useful discoveries). Science with a capital S is something else entirely, though. It woudl seem to imply some kind of religion or life philosophy... and only an idiot would believe in it.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    2. Re:oh dear by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

      I guess that's fair, but not everyone believes in science so it might upset some people.

      Do they get upset before or after they warmed up their pizza in a microwave oven, watched an episode of Friends on their TV connected to their sattelite dish and grabbed their laptop to fetch the news about the science they don't believe in?

      Yes, I joke. And yes, I know you were poking fun too. And yes, again, I know those people really do exist. But how? It just doesn't make sense!

      --
      The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
  56. Re:"Ahhh that's how it always starts. Then later.. by dhakk · · Score: 1

    Using HIV's replication machinery as a vector seems risky to me as well. An adendovirus ended up deadly (1 person) as a vector in a previous trial. Imagine what could happen with a highly unreliable machinery like HIV has...

  57. How to cure cancer in one easy step! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    "But Doc, how're we gonna get ridda this tumor?"

    "Bend over, Billy. Bend over"

  58. Oh the humanity... by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 1

    I can see it now. New bar pick up lines:

    "No baby, we don't need to use a rubber, I gots da ANECDOTE in there, baby!" *zip*

    *shudder*

    1. Re:Oh the humanity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gots da ANECDOTE in there, baby!

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    2. Re:Oh the humanity... by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 1

      It was (perhaps bad) tongue-in-cheek/mockery of the kind of person who would say/do such a thing.

      Where's your sense of humour? (Or perhaps mine...)

  59. What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Funny

    They loved to push HIV and Aids as a desease that God sent to punish the immoral. Now that it could be altered to fight canser, does it mean that God created the desease and made it spread so we can put a lot of resources at it and find a way to turn it into a force for good? God expecting us to do good things it seems a bit far fetch.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hi, November called, it wants its rhetoric back.

    2. Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, your third grade school-teacher called. She regrets never taking the time to teach you how to spell.

    3. Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, the joke police called. They say jokes about telephone calls are stupid, especially if done in succession.

    4. Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But God already provided a cure for STDs like HIV. Its called "abstinence" and "monogamy".

    5. Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Good, My third grade teacher was the wose teacher ever.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, the police commissioner called. He said...

      sorry. looked like fun.

    7. Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by ab762 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now, if we could only engineer a virus that causes good spelling, punctuation, and grammar...

    8. Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by jmichaelg · · Score: 1
      Now, if we could only engineer a virus that causes good spelling, punctuation, and grammar...

      ...we'd use it to infect the slashdot editors first.

    9. Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Except for Dirty Needles, Getting bad blood infustions (both far more common in poorer countries), being born to parents who are alread HIV Positive.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monogamy is easy when you are abstinent. But how do you cure an STD with it? Just curious.

    11. Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by not getting one in the first place.

    12. Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. by StrongAxe · · Score: 1

      Now, if we could only engineer a virus that causes good spelling, punctuation, and grammar...

      Eye ham sure that day wood make a vax seen four it write a way. Ewe don't want sum thing like that infecting the hole population now, do ewe?

  60. Mis-titled article by rpdillon · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'm not too much in the know about bio-tech, but it seems that this HIV-transport-for-another-virus doesn't actually attack the cancer:

    The researchers programmed the altered virus package to attack a protein on the cancer cell surface called p-glycoprotein, which causes problems in cancer patients by shuttling cancer drugs away from the cell. In other words, p-glycoprotein causes resistance to cancer medication. Scientists could customize the system to target any protein on the surface of a cell, Chen said. He and his colleagues have seen success with about a dozen different molecules, including brain and other blood cells, he said.

    Except for the last sentence, it makes it seem as though this is only a way to pave the way for more conventional treatments. The last sentence doesn't make sense to me, given the context. I can understand how the proteins on the surface of a cell could qualify as "molecules", but then the structure of the sentence makes it seem like they're calling brain and blood cells molecules:

    He and his colleagues have seen success with about a dozen different molecules, including brain and other blood cells, he said.

    I'm still waiting for a virus that attacks the actual cancer cells. I remember hearing something about it a while back, but then it seemed to die off. Anyone been following it?

    1. Re:Mis-titled article by TheWatchfulBabbler · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You're absolutely right on the mark about the nature of the viral therapy. P-glycoprotein is an ATP-dependent drug efflux pump (part of the ATP-binding cassette family) present in a small number of cancer cells. Its main action is to remove drugs from cells before they reach their target, thus conferring multidrug resistance upon some cancers. (The name of the gene expressing P-glycoprotein says it all: MDR1, or "multidrug resistance 1.") Clinically, this means that physicians either have to abandon certain drug regimens, or increase drug levels in (often futile) efforts to get enough drugs into the cancer cells. Needless to say, oncologists *hate* Pgp.

      It wasn't until the mid-1990s that researchers were able to grow enough Pgp to analyze it using traditional methods, so we're really in the infancy of Pgp antagonists. This approach, if clinically successful, should radically improve the chances of many cancer patients.

    2. Re:Mis-titled article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm still waiting for a virus that attacks the actual cancer cells. I remember hearing something about it a while back, but then it seemed to die off. Anyone been following it?

      There's this from two weeks ago:

      http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2005-rst/2659.html

      Disclaimer: I heard about it because I work at Mayo.
  61. ob. simpsons reference by supersuckers · · Score: 3, Funny
    Doctor: Here's the door to your body, see? [bring up some small
    fuzz balls with goofy faces and limbs from under the desk]
    And these are oversized novelty germs. [points to a
    different one up as he names each disease] That's
    influenza, that's bronchitis, [holds up one] and this cute
    little cuddle-bug is pancreatic cancer. Here's what
    happens when they all try to get through the door at once.
    [tries to cram a bunch through the model door. The
    "germs" get stuck]
    [Stooge-like] Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo! Move it,
    chowderhead!
    [normal voice] We call it, "Three Stooges Syndrome."
    Burns: So what you're saying is, I'm indestructible!
    Doctor: Oh, no, no, in fact, even slight breeze could --
    Burns: Indestructible.
    1. Re:ob. simpsons reference by Kplusplus · · Score: 1

      yea, that's the scene I was talking about earlier.

      --
      -"I'm one of those Mac people that will break a bottle on the bar and hold it to your throat for bad-mouthing my system"
  62. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by TechnoLust · · Score: 2, Funny

    What, like sexually transmitted cancer?

    --
    "Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
  63. Pessimists are seldom the revolutionaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    subject says it all

  64. Hmm.... by JessLeah · · Score: 1

    Let's beta test this! You go first. ;)

  65. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by metsu · · Score: 1

    the success of this new treatment does not depend on morals.
    which is more profitable, short term cancer treatment or long term hiv(n' hybrids) treatment.

  66. Check you gramm'er by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Jesus, dude, your spelling is *atrocious*. I don't know if I'd trust a cure from someone who can't spell.

  67. Re: by suso · · Score: 5, Funny

    And the cure for Heart Disease is exercise, which means that we're all doomed.

  68. Nothing To See Here... by tilleyrw · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The Medical Indu$try in America is founded upon the idea of maintain a large pool of "sick" people.

    1. Without sick people buying medicines, there is no Profit.
    2. These medicines are only sufficiently effective to "ease" the trauma of the patients.
    3. These medicines will never cure the patients as such removes the profit margin.
    4. Therefore, the patients buy more and more "medicine", just to feel less sick.
    5. The Medical Indu$try PROFITS.

    End of story.

    --
    This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
    1. Re:Nothing To See Here... by Software · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you explain the polio vaccine? How about smallpox?

    2. Re:Nothing To See Here... by hrieke · · Score: 1

      Please mod the parent as a Troll, Ignorant or Tin Foil Hat.

      Please go on the records to state which medicians are only designed to ease trauma and not cure.
      (And don't you dare say 'diabetes' or the like, since those are a body's failure and are not currently cureable.)

      --
      III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    3. Re:Nothing To See Here... by tilleyrw · · Score: 1

      Easily. This was before the E$tabli$hment of the modern Medical Indu$trial Complex.

      Next question.

      --
      This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
    4. Re:Nothing To See Here... by tilleyrw · · Score: 1

      Try research Bikram Yoga and other alternative cures...

      A closed mind gathers no wisdom, Grasshopper.

      --
      This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
    5. Re:Nothing To See Here... by hrieke · · Score: 1

      Allow me to get a shovel, cause it's getting rather deep with the dung here.

      Just so you know where I stand:
      I work in Health Insurance, I own stocks in pharama, and have many, many friends who work in research. On top of that, my mother has lung cancer and most likely will be dead in 6 months.

      Now Yoga, which is wonderful- as an exersise and life style, does keep you health. So does eating right, taking walks, not smoking (or stopping), taking plenty of water. These things will help your body stay health.

      These things will not cure cancer, HIV/AIDS, the common cold, flu, cure diabetes, etc.

      And to even think that pharma industry wouldn't develop cures is just plain nuts. HMOs wouldn't allow it, other pharmas wouldn't allow it, FDA wouldn't allow it, Congress wouldn't allow it.
      If some company develops a cure for Shingles, you'd better believe that they'd take it to the market, because if they've figure it out, someone else can figure it out, and it will come to the market.

      Research is published and reviewed- so people know what is going on in the medical field, and know what drugs are being tried and how those drugs work. And if these smart people think that some company is pulling their punches, so to speak,

      Your sig is correct- a closed mind certainly doesn't gather wisdom. Please learn to think things out and look at it from all angle before talking- otherwise you look like a complete idiot.

      --
      III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    6. Re:Nothing To See Here... by hrieke · · Score: 1

      Screwed up... Research is published and reviewed- so people know what is going on in the medical field, and know what drugs are being tried and how those drugs work. And if these smart people think that some company is pulling their punches, so to speak, then all hell will break out.

      --
      III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    7. Re:Nothing To See Here... by Software · · Score: 1

      When was the medical - industrial complex established? Who established it? Where was it established? Why? Who is part of it? Who is not?

  69. Simpsons by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does the next step involve gorillas?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    1. Re:Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in the winter, the heart disease simply freezes to death.

    2. Re:Simpsons by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      No, but it comes with a free frogurt!

  70. Ridiculous Theory by dawnread · · Score: 1

    So to make sure that everyone becomes immune to cancer, they purposely 'infect' a few hot guys and chicks with this new HIV and tell them (and all the general public) to go out and get fscking!!

  71. If they are sucessfull.. by gmuslera · · Score: 0, Redundant

    that would be the first sexually transmitted cure?

  72. My kind of medicine by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Finally, a sexually transmitted cure!

    "*cough* *cough* Time to get my prescription refilled."

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  73. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by the+unbeliever · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fetuses are, for the most part, tumors...

    Pregnancy, the only STD with a 100% mortality rate!

  74. Melanoma is cancer. It is NOT ALL cancer by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary of the article (and many of the comments) would have you believe this is a potential "cure for cancer".

    Melanoma is a subset of the set of all cancers - specifically, it is a form of skin cancer - more specifically, it is a cancer formed from the skin cells that give skin its pigmentation.

    Melanoma is NOT *all cancers* - thus even if this modified virus will kill 100% of all melanomas and have 0% harmful side-effects this does NOT make it a "cure for cancer" - merely a "cure for a type of cancer".

    The will need to generalize this virus to attack ALL cancerous cells, and NOT to attack any other cells.

    Now, if you can work out how a virus can tell the difference between a cancerous cell and a normal but rapidly reproducing cell, you have a Nobel prize awaiting.

    1. Re:Melanoma is cancer. It is NOT ALL cancer by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not engineer different viruses to attack different cancers? This way we could deal with less variables (ie: lots of different cells being attacked while others being left unharmed) and still get good results.

      I would much prefer being treated with a virus if I knew it had one function and did it well, rather than 100 different funtions that it may or may not do well.

      --
      Silly rabbit
    2. Re:Melanoma is cancer. It is NOT ALL cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does it baffle you that the flu vaccine doesn't prevent you from getting ALL forms of the flu?

      Or that cold medicine doesn't really treat you of the common cold, but merely dullen the symptoms?

    3. Re:Melanoma is cancer. It is NOT ALL cancer by porcupine8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, that's pretty much what they're doing with chemotherapy. The problem is, just b/c you've got something that treats one kind of cancer doesn't mean it'll be equally easy to find something to treat any other kind of cancer.

      Some cancers have cure rates of well over 80% - we happen to have found the right mix of drugs for them. Unfortunately, that hasn't helped us much in finding the right mix of drugs for many other cancers, which still have very low survival rats.

      You're absolutely right, that's how this problem has to be attacked - but it's not as simple as you make it sound. Maybe modifying a virus to attack a different cancer will be easier than modifying chemo regimens - but probably not.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    4. Re:Melanoma is cancer. It is NOT ALL cancer by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that hasn't helped us much in finding the right mix of drugs for many other cancers, which still have very low survival rats.

      For some reason I have to think of a Rambo-like rat fighting for it's life in the middle of a war with noting but an army knife. In the jungle. Maybe it has a machine gun.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    5. Re:Melanoma is cancer. It is NOT ALL cancer by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Melanoma yes, but the viral target, P-glycoprotein, is commonly found in many types of cancer. The treatment was tested on metastacized melanoma cells, but they had to pick something after all. They also successfully targeted 12 other proteins, so there's no reason to believe this is limited to melanoma.

  75. A scientific explanation by adeydas · · Score: 5, Informative

    80% of the virus has been completely removed and it is just now a carrier. Besides it has got a sindbis cloak that affect only insects and birds, so I believe that the person vaccinated wouldn't contract HIV. Ofcourse there are chances of mutations but when the virus is so weak, its like 0.001%.

    1. Re:A scientific explanation by bitswapper · · Score: 2, Funny


      Would that be like zero-carb HIV? Or HIV98se?

    2. Re:A scientific explanation by emc · · Score: 0, Troll

      HIV-SiR
      with big jap vinyl stickers

    3. Re:A scientific explanation by Funkitup · · Score: 2, Interesting

      there are chances of mutations but when the virus is so weak, its like 0.001%.

      What does that mean? 0.001% it will mutate into a killer virus per patient? Per hour? Ever?

      If it's per patient then that doesn't seem like an acceptable risk to me - we don't want any new weird strains of HIV around?

    4. Re:A scientific explanation by caino59 · · Score: 2, Informative

      too late - there's already new strains running around...

    5. Re:A scientific explanation by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      The viral payload for this thing is seriously reduced. But hey, if I had cancer I'd take the chance.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    6. Re:A scientific explanation by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      Then it becomes a matter of, will you pass on the virus to others after your treatment, or will they be able to provide an antibody that will allow the immune system to latch onto and destroy the modified virus?

    7. Re:A scientific explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, considering that HIV isn't a disease, of course those vaccinated won't contract it.

      The "strength" of the virus is a meaningless quantifier, and even if it weren't, it wouldn't correlate whatsoever to the rate of mutation (where did you pull that .001% number anyway?)

      Your explanation is scientific - to the extent that it is demonstrably false in several places.

    8. Re:A scientific explanation by Paddo_Aus · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of when Queensland (Australia) had an infestation of cane beetles. (They eat the sugar cane.) Some genius came up with the idea of importing cane toads to eat the cane beetles. It worked, but once the toads wiped out the beetles, they moved on to eating small native wildlife. I think they expected the toads to die out once the beetles were eradicated. Cane toads are now such an infestation, that in sporting circles, Queensland players are referred to as the "cane toads" by fans from other states.

      Given that nature will adapt, I doubt the probablility of mutation is as low as 0.001%, and I'd rather die of cancer than become the petri dish for a new super-virus.

    9. Re:A scientific explanation by cyb97 · · Score: 1

      Didn't the aussies learn anything from the little Rabbit escapade

    10. Re:A scientific explanation by thesonicboom · · Score: 1

      Or, what if its harmless to humans but it propagates through humanity destroying cancer?

    11. Re:A scientific explanation by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. We'll only use it on the really bad cancer.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    12. Re:A scientific explanation by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but what did you think ebola was for?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    13. Re:A scientific explanation by Znork · · Score: 1

      Get ready for a lawsuit. Any spreading around of that virus is a patent violation, so keep your bodily fluids to yourself.

  76. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by aprilsound · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The FDA would have to be very politicaly sensitive and short sighted to make such a call. It's not as though the FDA doesn't understand disease, after all, yogurt contains active bacterial cultures, but they are good for you, so I don't see how a virus, much less one that has to be sexualy transmitted and has had 80% of its genetic material removed (TFA), would be too big a hurdle.
    As long as they arent foolish enough to market it as modified HIV.

  77. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FDA doesn't make anything from treating cancer. I'm sure you'll come back with how the businesses control the government and all that bull, but please, shut up and read government rationals for what they do and stop going to conspiracy theories instead of thinking things through.

  78. fight fire with fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kind of fight-fire-with-fire thing has been around for a while with cancer. Another virus that attacks cancer was discovered a while back, http://www.netera.ca/reovirus/

  79. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by TGK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What you're talking about is Class A Experimental Therapy. It's heavy stuff and ranks up there with "hell if I know, maybe this'll do something" as far as the wealth of medical knowledge associated with it.

    As drugs and techniques prove themselves they move down the ladder until they're used to treat the general public.

    Of course, patients are only give the option of highly experimental methods once the tried and true stuff has failed.

    The only people exposed to this will be the ones who allready have a death sentence from their cancers.

    Sometimes cancer forces people into rough decisions. A friend of mine chose to accecpt a bone marrow transplant from an HIV positive doner because it was her only chance to beat her leukemia.

    She's doing fine now, but she's on AZT and all kinds of other antivirals now to stave off AIDS.

    --
    Killfile(TGK)
    No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  80. Wow ... by ggvaidya · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now where's that "+0 Creepy" moderation button?

    It's 2am, and I did not need those images before going to sleep :S.

    1. Re:Wow ... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      You didn't scroll down far enough.. it's "-0 Creepy"

  81. Very long by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Finished drug product take a long time sometimes as much as 10 years to come to the mass(sic) market. This could be potentially far longer since 1) this is not even a finished product only some research which might or might not pan out, have to be peer reproduced etc... 2) this is more than a drug, this is a retrovirus therapy and you bet the FDA and other local country equivalent will want to CYA since this is very novel.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  82. Is there any chance... by jalet · · Score: 1

    ... that HIV appeared as a natural "evolution" in humans to fight the increasing number of "cancers", and that maybe the actual HIV pandemy is the result of humans actually "adapting" (as usual by letting the unprepared vast majority die and only let a few "super" humans survive) ?

    --
    Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    1. Re:Is there any chance... by jamesoutlaw · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This link has some interesting information about the origin of HIV... including this:

      Three of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are as follows:

      1. A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo
      2. HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
      3. HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.

      Analysis in 1998 of the plasma sample from 1959 was interpreted5 as suggesting that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s, which was earlier than had previously been suggested. Other scientists have suggested that it could have been even longer, perhaps around 100 years or more ago.
  83. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  84. Of course by Kohath · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Do we really want to turn our bodies into a battlefield for germ warfare?

    In a war, the important thing is whether or not you win.

  85. Now all we have to do.... by rel4x · · Score: 1

    ..is modify some form of cancer to attack HIV. IAMAD (I am not a doctor), but it seems to me they would both attack eachother, until one was eliminated. At that point though, the survivor would be A LOT weaker than it would've been otherwise. Or it could have the same effect as anti-biotics, and make the survivors stronger...hmm...any input guys?

    --

    Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
  86. You remember? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You remember, how antibiotics would end deseases?
    You remember, how certain chemicals would end demages to crops?

    And what has happened? Bacterias adjusted to antibiotics, those chemicals turned out to cause more danger to humans than the benefits to the crops were...

    The more we understand, the more dangerous our new experiments are becoming.

    I am quite reluctant to hear how we want to use one organism to kill an other in the name of creating cure. Nature seems to always pull an other trick from the hat, just when we thought we got it all.

  87. Exercise by tepples · · Score: 5, Funny

    And the cure for Heart Disease is exercise, which means that we're all doomed.

    Oh really? Don't geeks have Dance Dance Revolution?

    1. Re:Exercise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Do people still play that?

    2. Re:Exercise by Universal+Indicator · · Score: 1

      I have a DDR controller that lets you dance with your fingers instead of your feet :-)

    3. Re:Exercise by Surye · · Score: 1

      You mean... a playstation controller?

    4. Re:Exercise by karnal · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's called a woman.

      --
      Karnal
    5. Re:Exercise by balloonpup · · Score: 1
      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
    6. Re:Exercise by Una · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the flash version doesnt count.

    7. Re:Exercise by SoTuA · · Score: 1
      Sorry, the cure for Heard Disease is good excercise, not epileptic-like spasms and shakes.

      Oh, and healthy diet, so we are double-doomed :D

    8. Re:Exercise by Jerf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ha. I knew it. Part of the definition of "good exercise" is that it has to be boring.

      I guess that heart beating and sweating and stuff for easily the recommended 15-30 minutes at a time isn't enough... it overloads the easily-overloaded "fun" receptors on the heart and other muscles and cancels out all of the other benefits. The fact that I'm feeling better is also an illusion brought on by excessive fun, which can of course cause hallucinations.

      If you're not slamming you feet on hard concrete and hating every minute of it, unless you let go of your sanity and use the cognitive dissonance of "Why the hell am I doing this?" to convince yourself that, logically, you must be having fun, you're not really getting exercise.

      Although, maybe I'm jumping the gun on this post. Having heard of neither Heard Disease nor excercise, maybe I'm accidentally reading into what you were saying. Maybe excercise really is the cure for Heard Disease, probably helps Caner too, which I hear is really vicious. (You haven't lived until you're under attack by a Heard of Caners, either. Damn, man, now that's sickness.)

      Thanks for setting me straight, Dr. SoTuA.

    9. Re:Exercise by Just+Another+Perl+Ha · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sorry, the cure for Heard Disease is good excercise, not epileptic-like spasms and shakes.

      Tell that to my wife (a victim of heart desease for the past four years) who suffered her fate due to myocarditis brought on by a normal case of the flu... and not a poor diet or lack of excercise. Except for her failing heart (now pumping at a whopping 30%) she's the picture of perfect health. Her doctors keep wanting to use her as a poster-child to inform otherwise healthy women of their risks.

    10. Re:Exercise by bjohnson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of the risks of what?

      Contracting myocarditis, which they can't say how she got, where she got, and which little or nothing can be done for?

      how s her example supposed to help, other than illustrate that horrible things can happen to people without warning.

      I'm sorry for her, but her case is just not the norm.

      The vast majority of heart disease in this country is brought on by a sedentary lifestyle, poor diet and smoking.

      All three of these factors are readily curable without the intervention of a health organization, pricey pharmaceuticals or endless doctors visits.

    11. Re:Exercise by Just+Another+Perl+Ha · · Score: 1
      Agreed. Which is why she doesn't go along with the Doctor's dog-n-pony show (which both she and I agree are really more for them to fill their coffers than to bring awareness to heart desease).

      My main point was to show that heart desease isn't in and of itself caused by irresponsible behavior but rather that it can still afflict those who are otherwise in perfect health.

    12. Re:Exercise by sploo22 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to hear that. You both have my sympathy, and I sincerely hope she recovers.

      --
      Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
    13. Re:Exercise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real geeks build a machine to play the game for them.

    14. Re:Exercise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't geeks have Dance Dance Revolution?
      Geeks? No. Dorks? Yes.
      Sorry. I couldn't resist. ;)

    15. Re:Exercise by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who needs Dance Dance Rev. when we have our patented "one hand" navigational system when locked up in our room? My right arm is almost as pumped up as Tyson's =)

    16. Re:Exercise by Yakko · · Score: 1

      Pay me to do exercise that's not fun and eat food that tastes like crap, and we'll talk.

      On the other hand, you couldn't pay me to start smoking. :o)

      --

      --
      Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
    17. Re:Exercise by IainHere · · Score: 1

      Ha. I knew it. Part of the definition of "good exercise" is that it has to be boring.

      I guess that heart beating and sweating and stuff for easily the recommended 15-30 minutes at a time isn't enough... it overloads the easily-overloaded "fun" receptors on the heart and other muscles and cancels out all of the other benefits. The fact that I'm feeling better is also an illusion brought on by excessive fun, which can of course cause hallucinations.


      I assumed you were talking about sex. Reading the parent, I find out that you're all talking about something called Dance Dance Revolution. How very... slashdot.

    18. Re:Exercise by SoTuA · · Score: 1

      maybe I'm jumping the gun on this post.

      You think? ;)

      (Note to self: put LOTS of ":)" and ";)" for the slashdot crowd ;)

      Thanks for setting me straight, Dr. SoTuA.

      Hey, I like that! "Dr. SoTuA... paging Dr. SoTuA!" :D

    19. Re:Exercise by tepples · · Score: 1

      the flash version doesnt count.

      That's why I don't play FFR. I play the Free simulator StepMania instead, and I use a BNS DX pad.

  88. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by aprilsound · · Score: 1

    A vaccine is just a crippled or weak version of the same virus that triggers an immune response; this is quite different.
    The article is proposing that a new virus would be intentionaly released into humans that would attack cancer cells.

  89. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by amerinese · · Score: 5, Informative
    You're mistaken =). Some gene therapies use viruses as vectors, but of course that's rare as hell. Vaccines use weakened or disabled ("dead" if you consider the virus to have ever been alive in the first place) forms of a virus to get your immune system to produce antibodies that will also work next time around when you are exposed to the real thing. This works because your body can sit around and make antibodies without having the virus reproducing rapidly and generally causing havok. When you're exposed to the virus for real, your body already has figured out how to recognize the virus and has a stock of antibodies it can immediately use on it.

    Using a virus as a vector refers to inserting a payload into the viral sequence (the desired DNA or RNA), which then gets inserted into the cell's genetic sequence as the virus inserts itself.

    So basically I think there's quite a confusion here. I mean, it sounds like we're using one enemy to fight another, but if we can figure out how to get HIV to fight cancer, this new HIV won't go out there and suddenly turn regular HIV into good HIV that kills cancer. In fact, I don't know if it's such a good idea to use one enemy to fight another besides the fact that it sounds ironic. I would've thought that HIV would be one of the worst candidates with its fast mutational rate and ability to attack T-cells making it extremely dangerous. Obviously though, there must be some properties of HIV that make it a good vector in this case.

  90. OUCH! by kryocore · · Score: 1

    When I first read crabs I thought about the kind that have pinchers and live in the ocean...

  91. Will they give you the injection by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    having you bend over and sticking it in your ass?

  92. A serious subject... by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1
    But I can't help but be reminded by the Simpsons. Somehow introducing one disease to kill another seems like a bad idea!

    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 unleash 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.

  93. Ready Tin-Foil Hats by ReadbackMonkey · · Score: 0

    This is an interesting idea; for a business model.

    Hypothesis, lets say a cancer patient on average dies after 5 years of treatment using chemo, etc., on the other hand lets say an HIV patient on average dies after 20 years of treatment. If one can "cure" the other by infecting them with a disease that extends the expected life by 15 years, there is value for the patient. They get an extra 15 years of life, but during this entire time they have to take drugs to treat the "cure". Thus the pharmaceutical companies get an extra 15 years of treating a patient. Is this the intention with this kind of research?

  94. Finding Patients... by theehunto · · Score: 1

    Finding willing patients will not be difficult due to the unfortunate fact that cancer can get so bad there is no turning around. Patients are most often willing to try anything as a final act of desperation.

  95. Three Stooges Syndrome by gremlins · · Score: 1

    Like they say in South Park "Simpsons did it". I recall Mr. Burns going to the Mayo clinic and finding out he has every disease known and unknown to man, it's just that they are all existing and trying to get through the door together it's just that they are all existing and trying to get through the door together in something the doctor's call "Three Stooges Syndrome".

    --
    just because your a schizophrenic doesn't mean people arn't really out to get you
    1. Re:Three Stooges Syndrome by dawnread · · Score: 1

      It appears you suffer from cut and paste syndrome ;)

    2. Re:Three Stooges Syndrome by gremlins · · Score: 1

      hey at least i cited my source, sort of...

      --
      just because your a schizophrenic doesn't mean people arn't really out to get you
  96. why didn't I think of this? by briancnorton · · Score: 1
    To mix this with the strategy of using one strong enemy against another is brilliance!

    Why didn't I think of pitting my level 19 HIV against a mere level 16 cancer? I mean it has a level 7 interferon that gets +3 against malignant tumors and everything! Now if only I could get my tuberculosis to do battle with that cowardly gonnorhhea...

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

    1. Re:why didn't I think of this? by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      Why did I suddenly get an image of the tablets being shaped like 16 sided dice?

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  97. good news! by Roskolnikov · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good news, we have a cure for your cancer.

    Bad news, Bruno here is going to administer it.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  98. old Russian idea by peter303 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not exactly HIV, but some European scientists, particularly in the eastern block have been promoting the use of "phages", or general viruses for all kinds of things like killing bacteria and cancer. This idea was somewhat popular before the distillation of antibiotics in the 1930s, then retreated to the backwaters. Its been reviving as more bacteria develop resistance to all of the antibiotics.

    1. Re:old Russian idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so actually in soviet russia virus cure you?

    2. Re:old Russian idea by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      The 'phages' story is even more cute. I once saw a documentary about a team in a Russian hospital that harvested those phages from the sewage system of the hospital. The reasoning behind this was that to find the bacterio-phages (sp) that are most effective, you will find them where there's plenty of prey, namely in the hospital itself. If you have an outbreak of some bacteria in a hospital, you will find its enemies near the exhaust pipe. I thought that this was extremely clever.

    3. Re:old Russian idea by Dr.Ruud · · Score: 1


      Not really started in Russia:

      Historical Context of Phage Therapy

      More: BBC

  99. Mutating HIV here, today :( by marcello_dl · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Multi-drug-resistant HIV strain raises alarm

    The coincidence that an engineered HIV against cancer comes around just when another HIV mutation appears on the wild... Where is my tinfoil hat?

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  100. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    worse still, imagine if the HIV mutated in such a way that it spread cancer like HIV is spread. That would be harsh!

  101. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    On a side note, I just saw (briefly) a tv report that there is another strain of AIDS, and this one is immune to all the current drugs on the market. This is one persistant bastard.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  102. Brain Cells? by afish40 · · Score: 1

    Scientists could customize the system to target any protein on the surface of a cell, Chen said. He and his colleagues have seen success with about a dozen different molecules, including brain and other blood cells, he said.

    I, for one, welcome our new brain cell-eating viral overlords.

    --
    Thanks a million. Push Start to replay.
  103. Kinda like Osama vs USSR by Macrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using one bad thing against another bad thing doesn't always work out too well.

    1. Re:Kinda like Osama vs USSR by susano_otter · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but using nothing against a bad thing almost never works out well.

      Besides, if we're talking about a straight trade here, you can keep your powerful and imperialistic totalitarian regimes with their vast arsenals of nuclear weapons. I'll take my chances with the guy whose air force consisted of four hijacked passenger jets.

      Ooh. Do you think somebody is making a horrible mistake by using Osama against the U.S.A.? I wonder who it is. China? Saudi Arabia? France?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  104. Gotta say it... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 0

    Called it. When I was eight. I'm obviously a medical genius.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  105. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Freexe · · Score: 1

    Some chance of surviving is better than none, and even conventional treatments aren't without risk and if this new treatment has a increased chance of survival, then it should be looked into and not dismissed just because its uses HIV as a base to its structure

    --
    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
  106. Due out next month by Jozer99 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Due out next month is a study that shows amazing results curing AIDS by implanting tumors into HIV positive patiences...

  107. No its the Reovirus by reovirus1 · · Score: 1

    Much safer, not genetically engineered and at some point most of us have already been exposed to it. Already proving to be highly effective in human clinical trials. Slashdot has covered this before.

  108. Re: by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

    If anyone has ever seen the documentary, "The Gift," on the Sundance Channel, then you would know that there is an entire subculture in the gay community that is deliberately *trying* to get AIDS. Naturally, that's just a small segment of the community and they do not represent the gay community at large.

  109. New idea, old idea by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    scientists have been using virii to cure certain diseases. For example, bacteriofages are a rather nifty alternative to antibiotics.

    So they've just taken this approach and used HIV as their "fage". "canceriofages" if you prefer.

    HOWEVER... something scares me. What happens if the modified HIV's mutate for any reason? i.e. in a pantient who already has HIV? (Or i'm just thinking FUD?)

    I say we need more studies on the possible side effects of this new cancer "vaccine". Just to be safe.

    1. Re:New idea, old idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's "bacteriophage."

      And an anti-cancer one might be called an "oncophage," considering the study of cancer is "oncology," and a doctor who treats cancer is an "oncologist."

  110. Re: by naros · · Score: 1

    Is this really a solution or just another to prolong ?

    --
    Benjamin Arai http://www.benjaminarai.com
  111. Re:"Ahhh that's how it always starts. Then later.. by nucal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The reason that the adenoviral therapy killed Jesse Gelsinger is that they a) used a form of the virus that causes an immune response b) miscalculated the dose that they gave him and c) injected it directly into his hetatic portal vein (right into his liver).

    This is a big problem with adenovectors - even in the best cases, patients will get at least a little sick from them. There are next generation forms that are less toxic, but these are still in development.

    The real advance here was that they were able to combine the minimal "cell killing" aspect of HIV with another virus, Sindbis, to create a gene therapy that is relatively benign. They then modified that to target this to specifically kill a certain type of tumor. Previous attempts at HIV-based gene therapies proved to be too toxic.

    Of course this was all in mice, which don't get AIDS from HIV. Whether it would in people is another story.

  112. Ok, I'm scared by Spackler · · Score: 1

    Just last Saturday every paper in Boston was crowing about a new killer HIV strain. It was on the nightly news as well. Now, you are saying that they have been doing research into using HIV as a cancer killer. Where did I leave my plastic bags and duct tape. I need to seal my house right now.

    1. Re:Ok, I'm scared by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 1

      That "killer HIV strain" is totally bogus. They had a meth addict who died after destroying his immune system. The fact is, if your immune system is overactive or damaged, you will test positive for HIV (just like if you're pregnant).

  113. This sounds good, but by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

    just as long it's not to be administered in suppository form.

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  114. so..., by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does having a smoke after boning a hooker cancel eachother out?

  115. Don't fear this, Fear Avian Bird Flu by purduephotog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This research, while initially scary, is relatively safe due to the safeguards in place.

    What you need to fear and what the general population doesn't understand is that chickens overseas are the perfect breeding ground for the next epidemic. At least one case exists where two people caught the flu bug from an infected person... who got it from a chicken.

    Can you imagine what wouldve happend had that inital carrier been infected with, say, influenza? A nice, ripe virus that mutates every year and at the drop of a hat... now being fed genes that can expand it's payload a millionfold.

    What do you think a flu vaccine would cost then? Assuming, of course, that the 20% mortality rate would be realistic...

    Anyways- this research doesn't scare me. They aren't talking about mixing different diseases yet that have radically different vectors (think Clancy). But should they try to pull this stunt with common flu, chicken pox, small pox, HIV, bird flu, and rabies... and let them stew... then we're in trouble. Byebye world population...

    1. Re:Don't fear this, Fear Avian Bird Flu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't saying avian bird kind of like saying tuna fish?

      person A: look, an eagle
      person B: that's an AVIAN eagle baby

    2. Re:Don't fear this, Fear Avian Bird Flu by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Informative

      At least one case? hahaha, ALL flu comes from overseas chickens which has jumped to humans who spread it to other humans, EVERY YEAR. And tens of thousands die from this, EVERY YEAR. *yawn*

    3. Re:Don't fear this, Fear Avian Bird Flu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's time to quit fucking chickens, then. #$@#$ flu...

  116. MOD PARENT REDUNDANT by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    (Argh! This feels like commiting suicide - requesting to mod down my own post... boo hoo. This happens for not RTFReplies like the one about the russians and the phages above).

    Anyway, I just RTFA, and they say they removed 80% of the virus' code and used the rest as a carrier. As for the envelope, they used another virus' envelope to provide stability. Guess that takes the FUD away.

  117. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you thought the black market for viagra was bad, it would be nothing on this.

    L@@K Here .'``'-._.-> We've Got the BEST Dea1s on your Can-cer Kure Meds!!!! Only Most P0tent H,I,V strains! Lowest Pri_ces!!

  118. why am I having flashbacks by khelms · · Score: 1

    to the old Star Trek episode, Miri?

  119. Easy solution by 2names · · Score: 1

    We inject the modified HIV virii with nano-time-bombs so that they "expire" before they can reproduce. In fact, it could be set up that the beginning of cell replication kicks off the "expiration" mechanism. But, IANAB.

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
  120. Melanoma is one of the most dangerous cancers by MSBob · · Score: 4, Informative
    This is very good news indeed as melanoma is a very difficult cancer to get rid of.

    Unfortunately a fellow geek has a case. Check out his weblog here.

    Basically make sure you get all suspicious looking moles checked by your doctor before it's too late. Melanoma is only life threatening when it spreads beyond the initial site.

    --
    Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
  121. no one is going to take this drug by kendoka · · Score: 1

    well, if you had cancer i guess you might say what the hell, right? =) IMHO, while it may be scientifically novel, trying to explain to the average person why you're injecting them with HIV is like trying to explain DNA analysis to the OJ Simpson jury. It'll be something they'll have to downplay in the commercial drug..

  122. Ah. This is why Steve Jobs is still alive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple Zealots are safe from cancer !

  123. isnt this like Sony vs Microsoft? by doormat · · Score: 1

    You put two powerful enemies up against each other and hope they destroy each other. Right?

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  124. Re: by EaterOfDog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, the modding on this stupid post of mine is exciting! +1 Funny and -1 Overrated are running neck and neck! GO +1 FUNNY GO!
    Yes, Mondays are slow here.

    --

    Crushing my karma one post at a time.
  125. Cancer Cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Benny Hinn has been curing cancer for years you fools!!

  126. CANCER VS HIV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This summer... Coming to a theater near you!

    Whoever wins, we lose!

  127. in people already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any chances this is related to the new quicker-killing strain of HIV already recently diagnoses in people?

    1. Re:in people already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7007

  128. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    The Cervical Human Papilloma Virus is sexually transmitted and causes cervical cancer.

  129. How Do I Get It? by PhyrricVictory · · Score: 0

    OK, but I'm not doing a dude to get it. Hope it comes in a pill form for somthing.

  130. Another, safer virus also cures cancer by bshroyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    At least, that's what the initial results of the studies show.

    The human reovirus has shown dramatic promise in early oncolytic trials. Some great pictures can be seen here .

    The virus itself is non-pathogenic, lives in the bowels and lungs, and it's believed that most adult humans have been exposed to it during their lifetimes. Contrast this with HIV...

    I've been watching this technology for a couple of years now it's slow going to get through clinical trials, but there's good evidence that reovirus may be able to treat 2/3 of all cancer out there , with little or no adverse side effects. Where it is not 100% effective, and radiation therapy is also prescribed, reovirus has been shown to be a good radiosensitizer.

    Aside from reovirus, we're hearing more and more stories like this every year. I have a strong feeling that we'll have a cure for 90% of all cancer within the decade.

    --
    The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
    1. Re:Another, safer virus also cures cancer by Froomb · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the reovirus is exciting. If it had been developed by an American company instead of a Canadian firm from Alberta, we'd be seeing cover stories in all the major news weeklies and on 60 minutes. I only fear that the FDA is moving too cautiously now to give such innovative therapies the fast track approval they deserve.

  131. HIV vs stage 4 melanoma? by MSBob · · Score: 1

    Given the life expectancy with either HIV or metastasized melanoma I'd take HIV any day of the week.

    --
    Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    1. Re:HIV vs stage 4 melanoma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and how about both? What happens when the success rate is less than 100%, hmm?

  132. Marketing by GunFodder · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not "heavy doses of radiation", it's radiotherapy. And no one takes "heavy doses of toxic chemicals"; they get chemotherapy. From now on "genetically altered HIV virii" will be known as Happy Fun Gene Therapy.

    1. Re:Marketing by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Might be for the best...

      Didn't someone once say 'The human race will only know peace when there is just one human left'?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Marketing by TOakes · · Score: 1

      That's Optimistic.

    3. Re:Marketing by karnal · · Score: 1

      If that one person were me, I'd go insane.

      So no, I don't feel the human race would be at peace.

      --
      Karnal
    4. Re:Marketing by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      From now on "genetically altered HIV virii" will be known as Happy Fun Gene Therapy.

      Actually, that's probably what they would call it in Japan.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    5. Re:Marketing by lgw · · Score: 1

      From now on "genetically altered HIV virii" will be known as Happy Fun Gene Therapy.

      The instructions clearly said "do not taunt Happy Fun Gene Therapy!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Marketing by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Don't we frequent Slashdot readers get a lot of face radiation already?

    7. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virii? What are that?
      (This plural form doesn't exist. For explanation look at older news.)

    8. Re:Marketing by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      English is as english is used. Enough people seem to think it's correct. We all know what they mean. Let's just let them use it, ok?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    9. Re:Marketing by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't worry--the one remaining human won't be you.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    10. Re:Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember that if you are going to get hired to work with others, you need to communicate clearly and quickly so as not to waste everyone else's time and money due to YOUR inability to choose words with the correct meaning.

      Sure, language is a living thing, but why would you choose to be the part that is sloughing off all the time.

  133. Hard to make HIV any more mutation-prone. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    Genetically modified cells and viruses often mutate. scientists aren't certain, but they suspect that modification produces a less stable genetic code.

    In the case of HIV, the virus is ALREADY extremely mutation-prone. If I remember correctly, the reverse transcriptase enzyme (the one that makes the initial-infection copy) averages more than one error per copy.

    The virus compensates for this by having TWO copies of its genome - not so much for error correction as to have a significant chance of having a working version of each enzyme when it has infected a cell. (This also lets it form hybrids when two different versions infect the same cell.)

    The result is that it actually evolves resistance to the antibodies the body throws at it during the course of the infection. And also that the infection is slow - but eventually overwhelms the immune system with a mob attack of divergent versions of the virus. A typical late-stage patient may have three or more viable variant populations, each capable of infecting other people.

    If they ARE using pieces of the AIDS virus in their construct, I certainly hope one of the changes they made is replacing this error-prone enzyme with a more accurate one from another virus.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Hard to make HIV any more mutation-prone. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

      If they ARE using pieces of the AIDS virus in their construct, I certainly hope one of the changes they made is replacing this error-prone enzyme with a more accurate one from another virus.

      Should have RTFAed. It sounds like they are using the transcriptase in question, errors and all, but left out the genes for the rest of the virus - assembling the surface from parts made elsewhere. So the thing doesn't have the mechansim to reproduce - just the mechanism to install the payload genes.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  134. The REAL good news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is that the cure for cancer is sexually transmitted!*

    Sure as hell beats chemo!

    *Of coarse I didn't RTFA.

    1. Re:The REAL good news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and, what about the poor little kiddies that are under the legal age? they all have to die do they, you cure cure man/woman.

    2. Re:The REAL good news... by gwydion04 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it'll counteract the sexually-transmitted cancers, such as cervical cancer. One does not get cervical cancer without being infected with human papilloma virus.

    3. Re:The REAL good news... by Inominate · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you pay the licensing fees for thier patents whenever you have sex. (Not an issue for most here though)

  135. No thanks. by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    If I was presented with this situation, I would rather take my chances with traditional chemo or whatever. But a big giant HELL NO to this thing.
    This is the worst idea I have ever heard of.
    NO ONE is going to go for this except people that already have HIV.

    How revolting... ick!!!

  136. Beneficial effects of smoking by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "When chronically taken, nicotine may result in:
    • positive reinforcement
    • negative reinforcement
    • reduction of body weight
    • enhancement of performance
    and protection against:
    • Parkinson's disease
    • Tourette's disease
    • Alzheimer's disease
    • ulcerative colitis and
    • sleep apnea.
    The reliability of these effects varies greatly but justifies the search for more therapeutic applications for this interesting compound."

    -"Beneficial Effects of Nicotine" (Jarvik, British Journal of Addiction, 1991)

    Not listed here is an obscure type of stroke that occurs with less frequency in smokers.

    I started smoking out of sheer desperation with ulcerative colitis about ten years ago. The ulcerative colitis went away, but then I was left with a disgusting two pack per day habit for two years that probably did more damage to my health. I should have tried chewing that gross nicotine gum instead. (Crohn's disease OTOH has a high incidence among smokers so it isn't exactly a total win.)
    1. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by MPHellwig · · Score: 1

      Health benefits from smoking are probably because you will not live _long_ enough to get any _elder_ diseases.
      Yeah stopped smoking one year ago ,after 10 years of smoking.

    2. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know what you mean. It seems like nicotine is, possibly in addition to other things, a really interesting antifungal drug. And just like ulcers can be caused by H.Pylori, I think there are a lot of other problems caused by fungi like Candida which doctors simpy fail to address (claiming that it's part of the natural bacterial flora).

      Doctors have their collective heads up their asses as far as Ulcerative Colitis goes, I think, just as they did with uclers and H.Pylori.

      I tried to get an article on phage therapy posted a while back. I think it would bring up some interesting responses. But the editors nixed it. Maybe I'm just not good at submitting stuff.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    3. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by Warskull · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind many of the negative side effects are not caused by the nicotine itself, but how it is absorbed. Yes, smoking isn't good for you. However if significant research says nicotine can help in some situations ways to take it without the negative side effects of smoking can be developed.

    4. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      The woman who holds the world record for longevity was a smoker. Nicotine (as opposed to tar) does have some beneficial effects. It's strange, my chem professor talked about how chemists either died young or lived forever. Wonder if it's the same here.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    5. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by Naomiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Smoking also apparently helps control schizophrenia. Or perhaps a more exact way of putting it is that schizophrenics who are smokers do worse when they don't smoke. Most schizophrenics are smokers, just because of the tough circumstances under which they live, but I cannot cite for that. I just know that every schizophrenic that I have ever known smokes, and I have read studies about schizophrenia and smoking. Unfortunately, I read these studies way before the internet, so I cannot provide links.

      --
      "Yes, I am a lawyer." - Star Jones
    6. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before the Internet? I've been on the internet since 1973 huh huh huh huh huh

    7. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      I started smoking out of sheer desperation with ulcerative colitis about ten years ago.

      I think I solved it the mystery:

      "Sweet smell of colitis, rising up through the air"

    8. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      It seems like nicotine is, possibly in addition to other things, a really interesting antifungal drug.

      It's a great insecticide- this is what it's supposed to be for, in nature. You can't spray a nicotine solution on fruits and vegetables but for flowers it's OK. I don't know if it's still used, but florists used to use it all the time.

      There was a great story about this that I heard from a professor in college. Some florist (in the sixties I think) was spraying nicotine on his flowers, and the spray bottle leaked a little puddle onto the table and he sat on it. Now one of the weird things about nicotine is that it penetrates the skin very easily, and enters the bloodstream- which is how those patches work. So the nicotine solution soaked into the guy's pants and wetted the skin on his butt, entering his bloodstream. A few minutes later someone called the ambulance because he started overdosing on nicotine, which is not pleasant- the symptoms are fairly obvious, including heavy nausea and vomiting, and a nicotine overdose can easily kill you. So the ambulance arrived, and took him to the emergency room where they injected him with some sort of parasympathetic blocker, and monitored him until he stabilized. A nicotine overdose is life-threatening but surprisingly easy to treat. After he seemed OK, he was discharged and went home. They gave him all his stuff back, including his pants, which he put back on... oh no! Back to the ER.

      And just like ulcers can be caused by H.Pylori, I think there are a lot of other problems caused by fungi like Candida which doctors simpy fail to address (claiming that it's part of the natural bacterial flora).

      Supposedly ulcerative colitis is an autoimmune disorder that happens as a result of our coevolution with helminthic worms that live in the gut. In third world countries it's rare. A recent clinical study found that an experimental treatment with pig worms was successful in alleviating the symptoms. They used pig worms, and not human worms, because they didn't want the worms to stick around too long after the study was over. Don't laugh, you'd swallow worm eggs too if you were weak and anemic from bloody diarrhea. Or you might start smoking if you were desperate and didn't know about the worm thing.

      Doctors have their collective heads up their asses as far as Ulcerative Colitis goes

      I was prescribed sulfa drugs for UC which did absolutely nothing for years except color my palm yellow- the pills stain your skin when you pour them from the bottle into your hand. Both my parents had ulcerative colitis and it made me miserable when I had it. I used to know where all the bathrooms on campus were and I had to solve the traveling salesman problem each morning on my way to each class as I ran from bathroom to bathroom- that was the only way I could get around. I'd have to stop at all the bathrooms to lose blood at each one. I must have lost a lot of weight, though.

      So I started smoking, and not only did I look really cool! (yeah right), there was no more bloody diarrhea. I could sit through a movie without having to go to the bathroom. Although I'd have to leave the damn movie to smoke instead. If the UC ever comes back, I'm using gum or something- I was able to control myself with disgusting stuff like smokeless tobacco- but I learned that I can't trust myself with cigarettes. The dose is easy to unconsciously titrate to just where you like it- which is what makes cigarettes so much more addictive than other forms of tobacco, since nicotine has a complicated dose response curve and produces the greatest reinforcement when you reach the "sweet spot". Smokeless tobacco is more clumsy- I would overshoot all the time and end up with vicious nausea. It was still addictive, but I didn't really become hooked until I switched to cigarettes.

    9. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      No, no, that's "colitas", which the Eagles' road manager translated for them as meaning "little buds".
      I'd rather have colitas than colitis!

    10. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by TheRagingTowel · · Score: 0

      I think you should have emphasized that smoking is beneficial only to UC patients. Not for any other disease. The mechanism involves some enzyme in the liver that reduces the inflamation in the colon, only in UC patient.

      I know, because I volunteered to a research concerning this phenomena, and I got a very lite case of UC myself.

      --
      4Z5TX
    11. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      I think you should have emphasized that smoking is beneficial only to UC patients. Not for any other disease. The mechanism involves some enzyme in the liver that reduces the inflamation in the colon, only in UC patient.

      Camel Special Lights 100s
      You've come a long way, baby... no more bloody diarrhea!

    12. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    13. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by elronxenu · · Score: 1
      It's strange, my chem professor talked about how chemists either died young or lived forever.

      Hi! What's your name and what do you do?

      Hello. I'm Al, Chemist.

    14. Re:Beneficial effects of smoking by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      They were using nicotine bug bombs 8 years ago in our High School greenhouse, if that means anything. I don't know about now.

      Any clue how harmful nicotine is outside of being addictive? Honest question. I don't know.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  137. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by BTWR · · Score: 5, Insightful
    thats a typical conspiracy theory idea - along the lines of "they cured polio, so they lost out big on all the treatment money!"

    Well, that may be true for the dozens of pharmaceutical companies that made polio-reducing drugs, but Lederle, the company which marketed the (oral) polio vaccine made KILLING by selling 3 or 4 doses to all 6 billion people on the planet!

    Same thing for an HIV cure/vaccine. Dozens of companies would no longer have a source of income, but the ONE company that creates (and patents) the vaccine will guarentee to sell 50 billion units over the next 40 years (assuming, like most vaccines, that it takes a few doses and booster shots to achieve the desired effect).

    Plus, as a medical student, I happen to know for a FACT that people in my school are working on HIV vaccines. "They" aren't preventing this type of research.

  138. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The popularity of quack cancer remedies is directly tied to the general public not realizing this. If a cure could be proven to work--no matter if it were some kind of wonder-herb or "drug" or hitting yourself in the head with a brick--then not only would the FDA throw open the doors, but the guy who discovered it and the company who produced it would make a lot of money. You cannot expect to ban a cancer cure and have it stay banned. If plutonium was shown to cure cancer, then you'd just have to get your therapy on a military base.

    It doesn't work in reverse: because people selling fake cancer remedies are making money, that DOESN'T mean their product works. Please, please, please, do your research.

  139. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by TheViffer · · Score: 1

    If I could, I would give you a +5 for the truth.

    My wife treats patients with Kemo, and the pain and suffering some of these people go through is off the chart. Many times she treats patients that they clinically know have zero percent chance of recovery.

    Knowing you would die from the cancer well before the HIV would you not give it a shot? I think the overwelling answer would be Yes!

    Unlike many procedures and treatments, this would be one in which there would not be any lack of willing participants.

    --
    -- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
  140. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by zymurgyboy · · Score: 3, Informative
    This isn't using the virus in the same a way a vaccine does, which is to ilicit a response to unmodified, killed virus by your immune system.

    This genes that cause immunosuppression in unmodified HIV have been removed in this case and replaced with something else that sepcifically targets the cancer cells themselves irrespective of your natural immune reponse.

    When they prefect the "targeting" bit with cell receptor proteins, I'm wondering what the next step will be. Maybe have the vector modify the genes in the cancer cell to stop producing the homones that cause unrestricted tumor growth? Or perhaps hijack the cancer cell to produce something like the chemicals used in a chemotherapy regimin within your own body; perhaps in smaller, less toxic doses that naturally taper down as the cancer cell count abates? Who knows?

    --
    If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
  141. HIV virus approach is inferior to many other virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many other virus approaches being pursued both in the lab and in clinical trials. At the forefront, is the Reovirus. This naturally occuring virus has a remarkable ability to infect and kill cancer cells, without affecting normal, healthy cells. Here is a before and after picture of a terminal patient with an actively growing neck tumour that had failed to respond to conventional treatments. This tumour was eliminated with only a single injection of the Reovirus. Researchers at Oncolytics Biotech have shown that the Reovirus can kill many types of cancer, including breast, prostate, pancreatic and brain tumours. Human clinical trial results indicate that there are no safety concerns and that the reovirus shrinks and even eliminates tumours injected with this virus. Numerous other third party studies show that the reovirus should be an important discovery in the treatment of 2/3 of all human cancers.

  142. Sounds like another HIV Scam by acz · · Score: 0, Troll

    The HIV virus has never been isolated, there is at least 2 reward ($20,000: The Huw Christie Memorial Prize and the 1000 The Jody Wells Memorial Prize>)
    $20,000 reward for the first person to succeed in doing so.

    "If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
    Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

    "Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classicalvirology."
    Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.

    PETITION OF SUPPORT

    In science, no theory should be immune from challenge, and debate over an issue affecting millions of lives should never be declared over. I support South African President Thabo Mbeki's intention to investigate the definition, causation, treatment and prevention of "AIDS".

    1. Re:Sounds like another HIV Scam by acz · · Score: 1

      moderated as troll? whatever.

  143. Why is political rhetoric limited to November? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be one of those who's only interested in politics every 4 years when it resembles the Super Bowl or the World Series, right?

    Why don't you go cheer for a team or something.

  144. If you have cancer by iamacat · · Score: 1

    You sure as hell don't care if your cure is derived from HIV, or what you need to do to get infected/cured.

  145. RTFA by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

    Scientists could customize the system to target any protein on the surface of a cell, Chen said. He and his colleagues have seen success with about a dozen different molecules, including brain and other blood cells, he said.

    They tested it on melanoma. Nowhere in the article does it say that the method only works for melanoma. Also, they imply that it could work on other kinds of cancer.

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  146. the art of war by narcc · · Score: 1

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

  147. Ob. Simpson reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    QUIMBY
    For decimating our pigeon population, and making Springfield a less oppressive place to while away our worthless lives, I present you with this scented candle.

    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 unleash 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.

  148. A few other ideas... by Reignking · · Score: 0

    I have a few other ideas as to how to kill cancer:
    Jump off of a bridge
    Head-on collision with a tractor-trailer
    Rip off the mafia

    --
    One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
  149. HIV CE by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    HIV CE?

    HIV Embedded?

    HIV Millenium edition?

  150. [OT] Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs by suwain_2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Completely off-topic, but:

    www.kiwilyrics.com - a wiki for lyrics

    Do you know how long I've been saying, "Someone should make a Wiki for song lyrics?"

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  151. Oblig. Simpsons ref... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    http://www.snpp.com/episodes/5F22

  152. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

    They allowed someone who was HIV-positive onto the marrow donor registry? Or was it someone she knew personally? I can't register just b/c I've had cancer, and the cancer wasn't even in my bone marrow (though it's a type that could have been).

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  153. Distribution by maddh · · Score: 1

    Would unprotected sex spread the cure to others? That might hurt their revenue model if it was ever marketed.

    1. Re:Distribution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have looked into that and have modified the virus so that it cannot be sexually transmitted, thus protecting their intellectual property.

  154. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh? And you have never seen someone come down with the flu due to having a flu shot?

  155. And another thing by xant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People who have cancer serious enough to require this step are going to die, soon and painfully, from their cancer. In that position I know what my attitude would be: "Cure me or kill me. It's a win-win from my point of view." (paraphrasing House, M.D.)

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    1. Re:And another thing by lineman60 · · Score: 0

      you missed the part where the partents sue you after they are cured form cancer bucouse you gave them a form of hiv.:-(

  156. penicillin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    penicillin is derived from mold, it does not mean penicillin is mold. 20% of the new virus is similar to aids.

  157. Jails now Healthier than Hospitals by syntap · · Score: 2, Funny

    What a headline that would be.

  158. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Are you for real? You think somebody is going to invent a cure for cancer, and the FDA would dare ban it? If you thought the black market for viagra was bad, it would be nothing on this."

    You know that is a first. A comment that is WAY underated a +5. Very well put.

  159. What's the likelihood it would mutate? by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

    HIV likes to mutate. So, what's the likelihood the cancer-fighting HIV variant would mutate into a deadly variant? If I had cancer, it might be worth it if there's a risk, but it's still good to know.

    --
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    1. Re:What's the likelihood it would mutate? by shadowsurfr1 · · Score: 1

      You have a point there. Unless made in such a way to prevent that mutation, it could take on a mind of its own and do whatever it wants becoming more deadly than the cancer itself.

  160. Sexually Transmitted? by gaintner · · Score: 1

    Whether this particular attempt works or not, the idea of introducing sexually transmitted vaccines/cures has a lot of interesting social implications. Not to mention a whole new breed of bad pick up lines.

  161. BOTOX, anyone? by mbaciarello · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Botox® is the commercial name for Clostridium Botulinum toxin -- a very possibly lethal one, too, if taken in appropriate doses.

    Just in case the layperson didn't know what the active ingredient is, it's got a self-explaining "*TOX" in its name. Now, that doesn't sound very reassuring, right?

    However, its name hasn't prevented it from becoming one of the most popular drugs in the US at the moment, with people paying outrageous money for a very simple injection - of a poison. There are even (mentally ill|desperate) people resorting to homemade products and ending up in intensive care units, if not dead. All this to be given poison and iron out a few wrinkles?

    I guess this shows that when there's both a scientific (and marketing?) interest, doctors and media are more than able to convince their patients that a "poison" or dangerous substance is for their good (looks.)

    1. Re:BOTOX, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice it is not sold as "Botulism for wrinkles". If you asked those who took the injections, what the injection was, I doubt 20% would know what it really was.

  162. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, we're not all doomed - if all slashdot users were to disappear I think human reproductive rates would continue essentially unchanged.

  163. Huge health risk by GunFodder · · Score: 3, Funny

    Zombies are a major health risk. Their predilection for eating brains makes them an ideal vector for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, AKA Mad Cow Disease, thanks to the bizarre bits of protein known as prions.

    1. Re:Huge health risk by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I better get off of my zombie brain diet, then.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    2. Re:Huge health risk by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      Zombies are a major health risk. Their predilection for eating brains makes them an ideal vector for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy,

      That proves it: BSE isn't just dying; it's undead.

  164. "she swallowed the spider to catch the fly" by Eric+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Poor old woman, I think she'll die.

    1. Re:"she swallowed the spider to catch the fly" by oojah · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that made me smile.

      --
      Do you have any better hostages?
  165. Like I've Always Said by nate+nice · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    AIDS is the cure for all the worlds problems and Mother Earth knows this. I guess I really am a bit synical.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  166. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Didn't they basically rubberstamp a drug with an 80% success rate against leukemia a while back? They're not evil, just beurocratic.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  167. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

    if the payload has been removed (not disabled), how could it mutate into something dangerous?

  168. Awful joke. by scovetta · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Sir, I've got bad news. You've got cancer and Alzheimer's."
    --"Well at least I don't have cancer!"

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
    1. Re:Awful joke. by MSBob · · Score: 1

      -"Mary what's the name of that German guy who keeps hiding my reading glasses?"
      -"Alzheimer grampa, Alzheimer!"

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
  169. cocktail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    there's a 72 hour window with a ~90%+ success rate on stopping the infection. doctors/at-risk professionals have been using it for years...down side is that it's basically the same course of drugs you take for the real thing and lasts at least a month. not fun side effects either. i had a possible exposure once, odds of 1/500, declined the cocktail.

  170. Misleading title and commentary by Spazed0ut · · Score: 1

    It is important to note that Melanoma is one form of cancer (it is a skin cancer) http://www.melanoma.com/melanoma/isMelanoma/index. jsp. It is misleading to suggest this represents a possible solution to all types of cancers.

  171. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For such a short post, the parent is riddled with an astounding amount of misunderstandings. First off, RTFA. Unaltered HIV does not fight cancer. Second off, you have no fundamental understanding of evolution; e.g., giraffes didn't get longer necks because they needed them to reach up to the higher branches of trees. Some mutated randomly, and just so happened to be able to reproduce better because of greater availability to resources. Anyway, there is no way that a virus could be a part of human evolution, because adaptation and evolution are genetic--they result from beneficial traits that are passed on from parent to child--and our genes do not (normally) code for viruses (unless they are infected by one) and can therefore not pass on a gene for a virus to offspring. Again, even if HIV were an "adaptive trait," cancer is not killing off the "unprepared vast majority" of humans at all, and especially not before they are able to reproduce and pass on their genes, which is what evolution cares about. Also, there are not an "increasing number" of cancers; cancers have been around since multicellular life sprung up, and there has always been (at least) one type of cancer for every cell type in the human body.

  172. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think somebody is going to invent a cure for cancer, and the FDA would dare ban it?

    The tinfoil hat crowd thinks this has already occurred.

  173. sad by absurd23 · · Score: 0

    While I applaud this development, it's too bad that there is very little attention on cancer prevention.

    Because, of course, prevention brings no profit.

    According to my insurance agent (yeah, I know, a highly scientific source) a white male has 100% (one hundred) percent chance of getting cancer by the age of 65.

    On the other hand, according to my 73 year old Tai Chi teacher, that's bullsh*t.

  174. Other oddities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, that brings up a strange thought:

    Could this virus also spread, and cure cancer in those the patient has contact with? The really odd thing is, how do the people who make the virus get paid for it when you can, perhaps, get the treatment via other means--that is, by contracting the virus from a carrier?

    Curiouser and curiouser...

  175. Yeah, they were only... by cnelzie · · Score: 1

    ..afraid about having to pronounce it though..

    New-Kew-Lar?

    New-Que-Ler?

    New-Clear?

    Anyway...

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    1. Re:Yeah, they were only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should check a dictionary, then. The correct way is:

      nü-klE-r

  176. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very on topic, since it seems that HIV helped her overcome cancer. I guess the technique is ready for the general public.

  177. Headline translation: Death cures everything by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    Diagnosis: Patient has [insert disease]
    Prognosis: Not good
    Action: Kill patient
    Result: Patient no longer has [insert disease]

    Victory! Just like Iraq!!! LOL!!!!111 ;P

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  178. This is a REALLY REALLY REALLY bad idea! by voss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They are taking a form of the HIV virus and wrapping it inside a virus wrapper of a virus that is carried by BIRDS AND INSECTS! Imagine if they made a mistake...you could potentially have a version of the AIDS virus that could be transmitted by insects or worse yet...spreadable by birds...undercooked poultry could have a whole new problem!

  179. The cure to windows might be: ... by bathmann · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Syphilis?

  180. misspelling in summary: metastasised by toby · · Score: 1

    Sorry to get all pedantic.

    --
    you had me at #!
  181. This isnt new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Believe it or not, this isnt a new concept - using HIV as as a vehicle to attack cancer has been tossed around for years.

    Even older, of course, is the concept of using a really bad thing, modified to be not so bad, to attack cancer. One of the first incidences of this that I can think of off the top of my head is the modification of the Diptheria toxin by a company in Boston... they put the toxin in a delivery system that was built to attach and deliver the toxin to cancerous cells that had a high enough concentration of IL2 receptors on the cell wall.

    The concept was revolutionary - and the company raised a TON of cash from many sources in its crusade to end cancer.

    "Seragen, Inc., is the leader in the discovery and development of a new class of therapeutic products known as fusion toxins. Fusion toxins consist of fragments of diphtheria toxin genetically fused to a hormone or growth factor that targets specific cell surface receptors. Six fusion toxins have been created using the company's proprietary technology. Each has potential applications in a wide range of diseases, many of which are incurable or inadequately treated by existing therapies."

    the company doesnt have a marketable product by the way - it ended up being a giant sinkhole... brilliant but useless.

  182. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always knew exercise would cause cancer.

  183. I've been expecting this by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    HIV has many properties that might be desirable for gene delivery. And by the time we cure HIV, we'll probably know more about it than almost any virus. So it is fairly inevitable that it will eventually be engineered into a therapeutic agent.

  184. I can see the commercial now.... by ss_Whiplash · · Score: 1

    ....so ask your doctor today about cancerex! (may cause headache, nausea... and long, slow, death.)

  185. The lizards are a godsend. by Blob+Pet · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    "...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
  186. Built in vaccine syringe by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Although it would kinda suck to find that the HIV stuck around even after its job was done. Eventually everone would have it.

    Actually, this would probably be a good thing. First off, I have to belive that the first thing to go in that 80% of genetic material removed, was the part that makes HIV such a problem. Second, even if part of that was left, the virus is designed to only target cells with a particular protein structure, one that is basically unique to cancer cells. So, assuming that we all got "infected" with this virus, via the normal HIV means, this would mean that we all become immune to the types of cancers that carry this particular protein. (Except slashdotters, of course, they would never get "infected")
    The guys working on this stuff are pretty smart, if the average slashdotter can think of the problem with giving people the HIV virus, I'm sure one of the researchers came up with it, and worked out a solution before UCLA's gene therapy lab opened its collective mouth.
    This sounds very promising, if it does turn out to kill several cancers, not have any really bad side effects, and be transmitted via sex; imagine how much good it would do. They would simply have to give the virus to a part of the population, and then just left those people pass it along. And think of the new pickup line, "Hey baby, want to get vaccinated?"

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
    1. Re:Built in vaccine syringe by misleb · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It is not uncommon for humans to introduce one pest to get rid of another just to find that the new pest is just that, a pest. AFAIK, we can't know for sure all the long term effects of being infected with an engineered HIV. What if it is one small mutation away from causing some serious problems? 5 billion walking petri dishs seems like a pretty good opportunity for such a mutation. Scientists are doing some really amazing things, but they can screw up royally just like anyone else. Pardom me if I don't have absolute faith. I wouldn't fully accept this new cancer treatment unless I could be assured that the virus will die off or self destruct once the job is done. Seems to me like it would die off in the absense of its preferred home, cancer cells, but I'd like to know for sure. ANd of course, IANAB.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  187. How else can we use this strategy? by Lost+Phoenician · · Score: 1

    Can we cure italian driving with russian car technology? Windows XP? How would you cure XP? Can anyone else think of self cancelling technologies?

    --
    Its later than you think.....your watch has stopped.......
    1. Re:How else can we use this strategy? by caffeineHacker · · Score: 1

      XP is easy to cancel out.

      Connect it to a broadband connection with no protection and wait for a couple hours. The influx of virii will cancel XP and you won't be able to get on the internet anymore. Problem solved!

    2. Re:How else can we use this strategy? by Lost+Phoenician · · Score: 1

      So true.........is it not arguable that XP itself is a virus tho ?

      --
      Its later than you think.....your watch has stopped.......
  188. lets hope they don't product a much worst version by Locutus · · Score: 1

    Messing with an already deadly and tough virus is dangerous. Isn't there recent news of a new strain of HIV spreading now?

    It does sound promising for the fight on cancer but very dangerous too.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  189. Endogenous viruses by Linuxathome · · Score: 1
    Anyway, there is no way that a virus could be a part of human evolution, because adaptation and evolution are genetic--they result from beneficial traits that are passed on from parent to child--and our genes do not (normally) code for viruses (unless they are infected by one) and can therefore not pass on a gene for a virus to offspring.

    Normally I don't reply to AC posts as they usually are useless, but in this case I just had to inform /. readers that you're wrong. Just do a search for "endogenous viruses" in pubmed.org or scholar.google.com and you'll see what I mean:

    Many retroviral sequences have become permanently integrated into the human genome as human endogenous retroviruses, or HERVs.
  190. Sexually transmitted vaccines- I love it! by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    If you can spread treatments through a virus, you can "seed" virus-spreaders with those treatments, or even vaccines.

    Imagine the day when you can go out and pick up a hooker, and gain immunity to various diseases.

  191. Re: by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    eh... wouldn't the average reproduction rate (or x/1000) increase?

  192. What's next? by KinkifyTheNation · · Score: 1

    Next we'll get an article saying "Jumping off a building may kill cancer".

  193. oops Asian by purduephotog · · Score: 1

    Thinking Avian, meant Asian ... sorry about that.

  194. Don't forget there is no proven link between . . . by ElephanTS · · Score: 0, Troll

    HIV and AIDS. Seriously this hasn't ever been shown.

    In this paper I would like to present the evidence available to me in support of the hypothesis:
    (a) that AIDS is a typical example of epidemic hysteria;
    (b) that the epidemic has at its core an unconscious group delusion, which can be called the group-fantasy of scapegoating, according to which the poison feelings of the entire group are injected into containers who are called scapegoats and whose destruction rids the group of these bad feelings and insures its purification of guilt and sinfulless;
    (c) that the same fantasy complex underlies this scapegoating ritual as was found for leprosy during the Middle Ages and early Renaissance;
    (d) that the proximal and distal causes of the tensions giving rise to the epidemic can be found in the group psychology of the United States and (to a lesser extent, inasmuch as they follow the cultural lead of America) the West since World War II;
    (e) that among the more important distal causes are the effects of the following drastic changes in cultural ethos: the development of nuclear arsenals with a potential for obliterating the world, and the changes this has forced in the psychology of warfare; the introduction of birth control and the invention of "recreational sex"; positive changes in the mental health of American women over the last 35 to 40 years, culminating in the women's liberation movement and the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the US. Constitution; and the "liberation" of various disenfranchised groups such as blacks and homosexuals;
    (f) that the proximal cause can be found in a vast, society-wide conservative swing (or neo-popuhst trend) in public opinion since 1977, cumininating in the Reagan years and the Central American conflict;
    (g) that the combination of these unconscious group tensions brought about a subtle and sophisticated, but nevertheless sacrificial witch hunt, in which the participants were the Moral Majority and an assortment of other conservative groups (as hunters) and the nation's drug addicts and homosexuals (as hunted);
    (h) that both of these subgroups are ardng-out group-sanctioned and group- delegated roles, which acting-out takes place mostly outside of awareness;
    (i) that these attacks resulted in an epidemic of depression based mostly on shame;
    (j) that the core sign of AIDS, the reclusion of cell-mediated immunity, is one of the typical vegetative signs of a severe depression (the mechanism of which will be the focus of the medical companion piece to this paper);
    (k) that the epidemic represents, in the group's unconscious fantasies, an equivalent of war, during which the group keeps carefull count of the sacrifices;
    (1) that most of the members of the group (the U.S.A.) are in a regression vis-a-vis this phenomenon, a trance state which is noticeable in a certain suspension of logic in the lay press and in the medical literature;
    (m) that there are powerful forces at work to delay the solution of the puzzle posed by this epidemic and to obscure its group-fantasy origins, since the epidemic itself is a wished-for solution to pre-existing conflicts;
    (n) and finally that, since the epidemic is psychogenic, the prediction can be made that the group will decide when it should be over (when they have "had enough"), a decision which will be broadcast to the group members through the media, so that after a suitable lag period (based on the time needed for the T-helper lymphocytes to be restored to previous levels of functioning) the epidemic will resolve and the incidence will descend from epidemic to endemic levels.

    --
    spoonerize "magic trackpad"
  195. so the cure for cancer will spread sexually?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey baby if you have the disease i've got the cure..

  196. No, that's not how it works. by jd · · Score: 4, Funny
    It's not "Happy Fun Gene Therapy". For a start, McDonalds owns the words "Happy", Kiss trademarked "Gene" and Selective Service patented "Fun".


    Recent market research shows the phenominal popularity of words that connect with Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter. Furthermore, they also show the connection with immortality or avoidance of death by characters in those phenomina.


    As such, the best possible name is Darth Voldemort's Precioussss One Ring Remedy.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:No, that's not how it works. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >As such, the best possible name is Darth Voldemort's Precioussss One Ring Remedy.

      Of course, with HIV we know which Precioussss One Ring we're talking about ;-)
      Apologies to all those who contracted it at birth. Or via transfusion. Or... etc.

  197. Re:Don't forget there is no proven link between . by kronocide · · Score: 1

    Sorry, that's not a "paper" and there is no evidence, just random, lunatic assertions. (Did I just state the obvious?)

    The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS (National Institute of Health):
    http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm/

  198. Re:Too Bad HIV Doesn't Exist by the+gnat · · Score: 1

    Hmm.... be nice to see one electron microscope picture of the organism... "HIV".

    Are you the only person on the planet who hasn't heard of Google?

    Retard.

  199. HIV manmade? by havarv · · Score: 1

    The first thing that hit me was wouldn't this be an argument that HIV really is a manmade virus released into the wild by an accident. One can speculate that it could have been an experimental cure fore cancer.

  200. hetatic = hepatic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hetatic portal vein
    Hepatic?

    1. Re: hetatic = hepatic? by nucal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was a typo ... sorry about that.

  201. Look now! by kronocide · · Score: 1

    How this thread turns into Conspiracy Theory Galore. Why can't someone mention HIV without the woodwork squeeking?

  202. Re: by baudbarf · · Score: 1


    Doctor: We call it, "Three Stooges syndrome".
    Mr. Burns: So, what you're telling me is...I'm indestructible.
    Doctor: Oh, no no. Even a slight breeze could...
    Mr. Burns: Indestructible.

    --
    You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
  203. about them nasty little killers by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    Melanomas metastatize very easily and kill you effectively. But since they're on the skin(mostly), they can be spotted early. Only, (and i'm not a doctor)

    - they are often allowed to evolve for a long time. It's just a little spot that 'changes' a bit, and you 'd feel ridiculous if you go to a doctor with it.

    - I think the width of a melanome is not such a big factor for assessing risk, but the thickness is. The signal to go to a dermatologist is a nevus that "changes".

    - not all skin cancers are melanoma. Most skin cancers are a spinocellular carcinome, less lethal, and basocellular carcinome , which eats away locally but does not 'travel'. You really need a lot of dedication to have that last one kill you.

    1. Re:about them nasty little killers by OverCode@work · · Score: 1

      But if you do ever end up with a case of melanoma, don't throw up your hands and panic. My case is in a partial remission, and there's a good chance it'll stay that way until a complete cure is available. (Which, at the current rate of research, might be sooner rather than later.)

      Chemotherapy is very nasty, but it did stop my tumors from growing. I'm currently on a much less nasty maintenance treatment that will hopefully keep them that way. I'll gladly live with daily interleukin-2 shots and a couple of nights on an IV every few months if it means I won't be eaten alive by tumors.

      That's my blog, by the way.

      -John

    2. Re:about them nasty little killers by Mard · · Score: 1

      Argh I was halfway through reading your blog, and came back to see the responses to the original post. Thanks for the spoiler! :\

      --
      DRM = Digitally Restricted Media. This is a viral sig, pass it on.
    3. Re:about them nasty little killers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's my blog, by the way.

      And a bloody awesome one it is. Thanks for the read and best of luck.

    4. Re:about them nasty little killers by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      It's remarkable news. That they're able to control the tumors now is quite an advance compared to a few years ago. Last I heard was interferon treatment, which didn't work all that well(by itself).

  204. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It all depends who offers the FDA the largest bag of money. From watching the news over the past 6 months, it sure looks like a few popular drugs were approved, that should never have left the lab.

    The opposite is also true, if the "cure" gets discovered by some obscure hippy, who won't sell out to one of the massive pharmacos, it will never leave the lab. Why? Name a single pharmaco that doesn't get massive funding to "search for a cure". Too much money on the table here people for the truth to ever come out.

    No tinfoil hats here. Doubt it? Try a search for "THC kills cancer cells in mice". Never heard of it before? Funny that. I guess if you spend billions telling people that this "drug" is evil, it would look pretty bad admitting that it has many medicinal uses. Fill in whatever pro legalization rant in here that you want.

  205. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Suidae · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is the body good at dealing with things like colds, but can't seem to handle things like common bacterial STDs? Or, is it actually good at dealing with them, but occasionally runs into a strain it can't handle and which then causes symptoms?

  206. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by TGK · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was someone she knew personaly.... an older sister I think (imagine being her parrents... I don't know how they dealt with it).

    As a cancer survivor myself, I know where you're coming from. Though... I can see why they wouldn't want a leukemia patient giving blood/marrow!

    I'm trying to think of a cancer that isn't in the marrow by default but can show up there easily short of matastization and I'm coming up blank. What did you have?

    --
    Killfile(TGK)
    No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  207. obligatory simpsons reference by acid_andy · · Score: 0

    Chief Wiggum: Fat Tony is a cancer on this fair city! He is the cancer and I am the... uhhh... What cures cancer?

    --
    Your ad here.
  208. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by TGK · · Score: 1

    It's very on topic. There's a lot of fear about using a virus as frightning as HIV to fight cancer. I'm simply pointing out that I've known people who've chosen to be infected with live, real, deadly HIV rather than submit to a death from cancer. Effectively staving off death for 10+ years.

    Would people use a modified, assumed harmless type of HIV to fight cancer? If they'll willingly give themselves a full blown and deadly strain of the virus to buy 10 more years you can be damn sure they'll try a supposedly neutered version.

    --
    Killfile(TGK)
    No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  209. Re: by Boyceterous · · Score: 1

    The good news is you have cancer, and we can cure it.
    The bad new is you're going to get a rather painful series of injections from Sid here...

  210. FYI: Cancer kills Heart Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cancer cells eat up so much energy that there comes a point where the only energy left is that of fats in our circulatory system. But of course this is only good if we survive the cancer, unless it's nature's way of prep'n it for someone else.

  211. MOD PARENT WAY WAY UP! Moles == latent danger... by SoTuA · · Score: 1

    Do check out your moles. If you have lots of them, photograph them regularly to check if they are growing. If they are growing, have them cut out, ASAP.

    (I've had about 9 moles surgically removed in the last few years... the scars are a bitch, but when moles decide to start mutating into funny shapes because they are bored with being round, well, cut me up doc!)

  212. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

    Hodgkin's lymphoma. Getting into the bone marrow doesn't really count as metastasis in lymphomas, since the bone marrow is sort of part of the lymph system, or something... But most of the time it stays in the lymph nodes themselves.

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  213. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/ a/2005/02/14/MNGUKBANK31.DTL&type=printable

    Can't believe the connection has not been drawn yet.

  214. Re:Too Bad HIV Doesn't Exist by cannuck · · Score: 0

    I suppose you are not retarded - because you can read. So here's a web page below with many links about HIV=AIDS. Here's some quotes ferom that page: "Alex Russel is offering £10,000 Reward for the first person who can prove that HIV exists." (Apr.2 02) "During the past 20 years HIV-AIDS research has shown to a line of critical scientists again and again that the existence of HIV has not been proven without doubt, and that both from a aetiological (causal), and a epidemiological view, it can not be responsible for the immunodeficiency AIDS. In view of the general accepted HIV/AIDS hypothesis this appeared to me so unbelievable that I decided to investigate it myself. After three years of intensive and, above all, critical studies of the relevant original literature, as an experienced virologist and molecular biologist I came to the following surprising conclusion: Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/award.htm

  215. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by toy4two · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the episode on the Simpsons with the run away lizard population.. Skinner: "Well, I was wrong; the lizards are a godsend." Lisa: "But isn't that a bit shortsited? 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."

  216. So Duesberg is just crazy/wrong then. by jp10558 · · Score: 1

    So scientists have been able to isolate HIV now... That clears some things up for me (FARK lead me astray).

    And HIV definately leads to AIDS...

    http://www.duesberg.com/books/pdbinvent.html

    Well, good to clear that up then.

    --
    Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  217. The enemy of my enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is my friend?

  218. DDR without the appearance of grand mal by tepples · · Score: 1

    Sorry, the cure for Heard Disease is good excercise, not epileptic-like spasms and shakes.

    If you don't want to look like you're having a seizure, then just stay off the 10-footers. There are lots of 8-foot heavy songs, and Max 300 and LoM are still great fun on standard.

  219. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thats a typical conspiracy theory idea

    Maybe.

    But have you...

    Tried to buy, or even change health insurance lately?

    Paid cash for a couple of prescriptions?

    Tried to keep your same doctor after changing insurance?

    Seen the increase in drug advertising.

    Read about the drug recalls.

    Seen how the FDA operates.

    The list goes on and on...

    If you had these experiences you'd understand the skepticism...

  220. Botox by Rufus88 · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, consider that many people routinely obtain Botox (Botulism Toxin) "treatment" for cosmetic purposes.

  221. Agreed - Mod Mod Mod! by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

    My father had a mole on his leg that got bigger and bigger. He fnially had it removed but no further treatment was ordered. It wasn't until he began fracturing vertebra in his back that someone figured out something was wrong (his Chiropractor of all things!). Seems he has cancer in his spine that started with *drumroll* the mole on his leg! The original doctor was quite difficult to work with and in the end was probably negligent but frankly pursuing him when you've got cancer eating your spine is sort of a low priority .

    Needless to say - had my Father been more diligent and perhaps the Doctor a little swifter he'd be doing MUCH better than he is today. He's alive but it's not much of a life and certainly nothing like what he had before when he was healthy as a horse. Be careful out there...

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    1. Re:Agreed - Mod Mod Mod! by easter1916 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your father attended the same physician who failed to diagnose my brother's pneumonia last summer. He's dead at 42...

    2. Re:Agreed - Mod Mod Mod! by SoTuA · · Score: 1
      He fnially had it removed but no further treatment was ordered.

      He didn't get a biopsy for the extracted mole? My biopsies (sp?) said that I was lucky, I got it removed when it was getting ready to turn malignant... (it was the size of a pencil eraser on my jaw - left an inch-long scar due to its diameter)

      I constantly monitor my other moles... my wife monitors my back moles, although all she's finding is hair these days :'(

    3. Re:Agreed - Mod Mod Mod! by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I'm not sure. However I can tell you that this thnig was FAR bigger than a pencil eraser. Judging from the hole they left in his leg taking it out it was at least an inch or three around :-O They took a decent chunk out of him and declared him good to go! A year later he began breaking vertabra while lifting weights and it was downhill from there. They did an operation where they drew marrow, then killed his, then replaced it with his own marrow that put him into remission but now a few years later it seems to be back.

      All in all this is a BIG mess. Had he been more proactive in the first place or the Dr. a little more diligent about the mole he would've been much better off. No way in hell do I wish this fate on even the worst person - it's living hell.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    4. Re:Agreed - Mod Mod Mod! by SoTuA · · Score: 1
      Jeepers!

      I'm sorry to hear about your case. Any doctor that takes something THAT size from you and doesn't ask for at least one biopsy is a walking health hazard.

  222. Bad Game Reference ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To any who might see this on the web someday...
    ... In Deep, Menacing, Gravly Voice ...
    "But the Frogurt is also cursed..."

    Oh and kill the gnomes!

  223. Re:0.001% ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The chances of a highly genetically deleted virus acquiring all the genes it would need to be pathogenic again are much lower than this. It would have to recombine with an intact virus. This would mean you were independently infected anyway.


    Think about though. Would you board and airplane if it had a 0.001% chance of crashing?

  224. Is this research related to Vectorized HIV? by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

    Your comment made me think, and in fact question, how these scientists came to modify HIV to target cancerous cells. The research, it would seem to me (altough IANAGR), would be identical to vectorizing HIV (changing the HIV virus to target specific genecodes).

    Perhaps what you are describing has already been done and the cure for cancer is just a nice byproduct of the original research?

    My god, I do need a tinfoil hat, huh?

    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    1. Re:Is this research related to Vectorized HIV? by fmileto · · Score: 0

      IANAGR = I am not a genetic researcher?
      Man, I spend too much time reading slashdot. These slashcronyms are starting to make sense.

    2. Re:Is this research related to Vectorized HIV? by Toloc · · Score: 1
      slashcronym!! ... that's made my day. Now I can go to bed. :P

      WYIAA/.A

  225. Re:HIV vs. Cancer vs. Nanobots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The microscopic version of Alien vs. Predator vs. Terminator

  226. New strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hardly. We've been using one strong enemy to fight another strong enemy for years. That's what chemotherapy and radiation therapy do. You try to kill the cancer without killing the patient.

    A lot of our prescription medicines are actually poisons if they were in slightly larger doses.

    I'm on three antibiotics right now and they are working on the infection, but, damn, I feel as bad as I've ever felt simply from the side effects.

  227. Great news! by easter1916 · · Score: 0

    The cure for cancer is HIV? That's great news! That calls for a high five, I think! That's right, a HI-5. A HI-V.

    Even I don't think I'm funny any more.

  228. Promises by clawsoon · · Score: 1

    Like fusion, the cure for cancer is only a few years away.

  229. Cure for excersise by daddymac · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, the cure for excersise is death, and we all get that eventually.

    --
    If something I said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, I meant the other one.
  230. And there are positive side effects... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    Just think, you would be rid of cancer, and you wouldn't have to worry about dirty needles when shooting up with hobos.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  231. In other news... by fabu10u$ · · Score: 1

    Dearth of cancer in South Africa. Film at 11.

    --
    They say the mind is the first thing to ... uh, what's that saying again?
  232. Link to the Primary Source Paper by quetzalc0atl · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/n m/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nm1192.html

    Lentiviral vector retargeting to P-glycoprotein on metastatic melanoma through intravenous injection

    Kouki Morizono1, 2, Yiming Xie1, 2, Gene-Errol Ringpis1, 2, Mai Johnson3, Hoorig Nassanian1, Benhur Lee1, 4, Lily Wu3 & Irvin S Y Chen1, 2, 5

    1 Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics, University of California, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA.
    2 UCLA AIDS Institute, University of California, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA.
    3 Department of Urology, University of California, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA.
    4 Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA.
    5 Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA.

    Correspondence should be addressed to Irvin S Y Chen syuchen@mednet.ucla.edu


    Targeted gene transduction to specific tissues and organs through intravenous injection would be the ultimate preferred method of gene delivery. Here, we report successful targeting in a living animal through intravenous injection of a lentiviral vector pseudotyped with a modified chimeric Sindbis virus envelope (termed m168). m168 pseudotypes have high titer and high targeting specificity and, unlike other retroviral pseudotypes, have low nonspecific infectivity in liver and spleen. A mouse cancer model of metastatic melanoma was used to test intravenous targeting with m168. Human P-glycoprotein was ectopically expressed on the surface of melanoma cells and targeted by the m168 pseudotyped lentiviral vector conjugated with antibody specific for P-glycoprotein. m168 pseudotypes successfully targeted metastatic melanoma cells growing in the lung after systemic administration by tail vein injection. Further development of this targeting technology should result in applications not only for cancers but also for genetic, infectious and immune diseases.

  233. Now we just have to figure out a way . . . . by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

    To have cancer cure HIV and we're good to go.

  234. Simpsons Quote by ArtimusArchmage · · Score: 3, Funny

    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 unleash 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.

    1. Re:simpsons quote by Bad+Ad · · Score: 1

      pretty sure its save to say it didnt retain the formatting.

  235. In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cure for Internet Explorer is Outlook.....

  236. Enlighten us please by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

    Could you clear that up a little? How is that treatment done and what are the effects of this? If that may be a silver bullet, please let us know. Illegal or not, but if I knew a cheap and substantial cure for every HIV+ in the world, I would go to prison *and* hell to make it known to everyone...

    1. Re:Enlighten us please by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      Sure. Good introductions to the concept here and here. This particular doctor (as well as another one I've come across) uses autohemotherapy: you draw about half a pint of the patient's blood, infuse it with ozone, and then put it back. In someone who's pretty far gone, the blood is almost black. After the ozone treatment, it's cherry red. Oxygen treatment achieves the same sort of thing but is not nearly as efficient because ozone is trivalent and breaks down quickly to an O2 molecule and a single, highly reactive oxygen atom. It's this atom that does all the cleaning up - oxidation is one of the most powerful bactericides, fungicides and anti-virus agents known.

      Is it a silver bullet? I don't know. All I know is that a) the science behind it makes perfect sense and b) the results I've seen speak for themselves.

      if I knew a cheap and substantial cure for every HIV+ in the world, I would go to prison *and* hell to make it known to everyone...

      Great - go for it. Just prepare for a massive, dirty and vicious assault on your career, reputation and morals by the pharmaceutical industry. These guys sometimes make the CoS look like a charity.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    2. Re:Enlighten us please by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot. I'm still a bit sceptical but ozone can't be harder to a patient than AZT, I suppose. For someone with a terminal illness, no hope is too small to pursue and this hope seems not-so-small. Ozone is used in water purification and disinfection worldwide, so it sounds viable to purify blood samples. The worst that could happen would be a literal massacre on red and white blood cells in the removed portion of the blood. Possible negative effects would not be worse than those experienced by a blood donor, the amount of blood and blood cells lost would be about the same. This effect would be easily checked with the most basic lab equipment: let volutary patient donate blood, check under microscope for living blood cells, process with ozone, check again for blood cells and if the blood cells are alive and well, infuse it into the patient again, very slowly or in small portions at first. If patient survives with no adverse effects on 10ml, try 50. Repeat in increasing steps until adverse effects surface for up to 100 percent of the donated blood. If that poses no harm to the patient, repeat it for two weeks and then check blood samples and HIV-loads. If there's anything measurable: rinse, repeat until HIV negative.

      Except for the HIV loads per ml blood, everything could be carried out by low or no-budget medical labs. If this treatment has even a hint of medical importance it could never be supressed. Not in the 3rd world and not in our countries.

    3. Re:Enlighten us please by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot. I'm still a bit sceptical but ozone can't be harder to a patient than AZT, I suppose.

      Pleasure. Ozone is an irritant to the lungs if inhaled in large quantities but that's about it. AZT is an industrial poison rebadged as far as I'm concerned.

      The worst that could happen would be a literal massacre on red and white blood cells in the removed portion of the blood.

      Not sure what you mean - ozone is non-toxic to normal healthy human cells.


      If that poses no harm to the patient, repeat it for two weeks and then check blood samples and HIV-loads. If there's anything measurable: rinse, repeat until HIV negative.


      Yes. I think it takes about three months to zap HIV. Lupus and some forms of leukaemia take longer.

      Except for the HIV loads per ml blood, everything could be carried out by low or no-budget medical labs. If this treatment has even a hint of medical importance it could never be supressed. Not in the 3rd world and not in our countries.

      The cases I'm talking about are in the third world (I live in Africa). The doctor in question gets all his patients from people who have pretty much given up hope - AZT and neviropene have burnt off all their hair and skin and intestinal linings without doing much about the infection. So he gets people who are at the end of their tethers - both on life and psychologically.

      If this treatment has even a hint of medical importance it could never be supressed. Not in the 3rd world and not in our countries.

      Ozone treatment is popular and well-known in Europe.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
  237. Heh heh heh. by the+gnat · · Score: 1

    So Duesberg is just crazy/wrong then.

    Both, actually. I should know - I work in his department. I've heard some ridiculous crap come out of his mouth that makes it clear he hasn't been paying very much attention to the field of molecular biology. Some of his statements about cancer are even worse than his HIV theories. I feel really sorry for the undergrads he teaches (the grad students TAing usually have to cover for his incompetence).

    So scientists have been able to isolate HIV now...

    And have for years, despite what certain idiots claim. Even Duesberg agrees that HIV has been isolated - he just doesn't think it causes AIDS.

  238. Re: by seek31337 · · Score: 1

    I don't know why she swollowed the fly...

    --
    No SIG for you!
  239. Re: by seek31337 · · Score: 1

    er, swallowed

    --
    No SIG for you!
  240. Cornholing will cure colon cancer too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will wonders never cease?

  241. there was already a viral cure by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    I'm not all that impressed by a "cure" that uses HIV. Both in that I don't trust it to be safe, but also in that there has already been knowledge of a much safer virus that can cure cancer for several years. At first glance one might think that we don't already have the older cure since it's naturally occuring and so the medical industry can't patent it and make millions from everyone who needs it, but look at other recent patents for naturally occuring things argues against that. Sure, with all of the different cancers we may need more than one treatment, but why does there not seem to be lot of research on this promising approach that might give us one real cure rather than tinkering with something as dangerour and unstable as HIV?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:there was already a viral cure by vidarh · · Score: 3, Informative

      And if you'd bother to RTFA you'd see that the current approach focuses on using the Sindbis virus for delivery. Sindbis itself is not a full cure - it attacks cancer cells but is by no means guaranteed to be sufficient to destroy a tumour. That is why researchers are now looking at using it for delivering other "payloads" that are more lethal to the cancer cells. Many of these would toxic to normal substancs in the body, but using Sindbis allows focused delivery, potentially massively reducing the damage to the body.

  242. other errors in Wired article by bodrell · · Score: 1
    This article was too dumbed-down to be useful to me. The author couldn't seem to get all the details straight. For example:

    The scientists also inserted a glowing firefly protein into the virus to track its progress. They used a light-detection "cooled charged-coupled device," or CCCD, camera to look at the glowing protein inside live mice. Because the protein was attached to the gene therapy, the researchers could see that the treatment had hit its mark.

    First, what freaking protein are they talking about? Luciferase (a non-fluorescent enzyme) does come from fireflies, but you can't visualize it without luciferin, and it doesn't seem reasonable to pump a mouse full of luciferin for visualization. I'm thinking it was more likely Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP), which comes from a jellyfish, not a firefly. And it really makes no sense at all to say that a protein is attached to a gene therapy. Here is a paper about using luciferase, but I don't see any mention of using it in vivo in mice.

    Also, both luciferase and GFP produce green light, which is readily absorbed by tissue. If it were infrared, it would be more believable. Maybe they removed the tumors and put sections into dishes of luciferin? Hard to say with such scant information.

    To answer your original question about whether the virus actually attacks cancer cells, well, cancer is a class of illnesses. Generally one of the important regulatory proteins is screwed up by DNA damage, so the cells become immortal. Depending on the mechanism by which the cancer became immortal, the treatment will vary. Cancer cells are totally screwed up. They have indeterminate numbers of chromosomes, they overexpress certain proteins by the truckload, and some of them (such as the HeLa cell line, named after the dead woman from whom they were taken, Henrietta Lacks) can be easily cultured in vitro. The article specifically mentioned metastisized melanoma, which I guess overexpressed this p-glycoprotein. You'd have to change the target to be appropriate for the type of cancer.

    --
    Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
  243. Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are they positive this might actually work? ;)

  244. Some people... by jonfields · · Score: 1

    My grandfather unfortuntately is out of options. He's done with Chemo and the cancer is still there. He has no options left except to live out what little time there is left. But if this really does help cure the cancer. I think he just might consider trying HIV instead of cancer.

  245. I have a better cure... by nwbvt · · Score: 1
    Lots and lots of fatty foods.

    You will probably die of a heart attack before you even get cancer.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  246. correcting myself re. luciferase by bodrell · · Score: 1

    My mistake. It is perfectly fine to use luciferase / luciferan for live-animal imaging. The company Xenogen seems to specialize in the field. I guess they do inject the mice with luciferin, and I guess the photons are able to get outside of the mouse tissue. At least some of the photons.

    --
    Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
  247. I can see it now... by jisom · · Score: 0

    lawsiuts for treating cancer without a licsense
    but with sex

  248. Research shows saliva causes stomach cancer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but only when swallowed in small amounts over long periods of time

  249. Actually, it's fact now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is why stem cells are so interesting for curing cancers. Got a brain tumor? Great.... we'll zap the shit out of it and toss in some stem cells... in a few days you'll have regenerated the brain tissue and you'll be good as new. That's science fiction today, but it's well within the realm of possibility in a few years.


    Leukemia treatment (particularly for ALL Philly. pos) can and does include Bone Marrow Transplants - except that now they do Stem Cell Transplants instead of taking the Bone Marrow.

    Thus, the patient is zapped by raditation (full-body) and chemo (cytotoxin) while the donor is giving up their Blood Stem Cells (different than Embroyic Stem Cells). After the bone marrow dies, the stem cells are transplanted and in a few weeks you're back in business.

    (Of course, this ignores Graft verses Host (GVH) disease.)
    1. Re:Actually, it's fact now... by TGK · · Score: 1

      Also common in AML treatments if I'm not mistaken. You're right on this, but I pointed to brain tumors because the brain is, today, one of the most difficult portions of the human body to do anything to without permenently screwing it up.

      Your point is well taken though, stem cell transplants are saving lives today.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  250. Luciferase vis technique by TheWatchfulBabbler · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's a technique developed by Xenogen; I've seen it show up in several recent conferences and papers, but I'm not up on the details. It does use in vivo expression of luciferase plus intraperitoneal administration of luciferin, plus what I assume is a *very* sensitive photon detector. There was an article in PNAS a few months ago where they used this technique.

    I do agree that the article is badly done, but Wired isn't really known for its rigor.

  251. More effective.... by Frohan · · Score: 1

    I would think that a more effective approach to the cancer problem would be preventitive gene therapy. Since cancer seems to be genetically caused by improper oncogene coding, I would like to believe that the retrovirus (HIV) could be use to correct the genetic problems. I know we're a long way off from this (considering most of the oncogenes have not been properly identified), but I'm sure this will be the future (rather than using HIV to cure AIDs) By the way... oncogenes are those oncogenes control proper cell division (when the oncogenes are messed with, cancer cells result)

  252. Cheap prescription drugs - sigh not in my lifetime by hung_himself · · Score: 0

    How many medical and drug breakthroughs are happening in publicly funded institutions, the NIH being another example, and how many are actually developed inside the big drug and healthcare companies using private funding.

    Depends what you mean by "develop". Essentially all leads come from publically funded research. The companies have neither the inclination to fund such financially risky ventures nor the expertise to carry it off. When there is a chance that a lead will lead to a payoff then the companies take over which IMHO could be more efficiently done by NIH given the proper investment. After all, they do the first part any way why not the profitable part as well?

    I doubt that this will happen in my lifetime. Even less radical solutions such as shorter patents and mandatory licensing to generics are unlikely to occur any time soon. This was the system in Canada until pressure from the pharmaceuticals (and a very poor excuse for a Prime Minister) forced a change to a more American system and higher prices. The FUD here in the US is of the highest quality - noone talks about big changes in the system that would really reduce drug costs. Instead what passes for debate is diverted to red herrings, like negotiating better prices in bulk or importing drugs from Canada (and whether this is safe - big eyeroll...).

    Perhaps the rationing that is being imposed by health insurers or eventually by Medicare will force people to think out of the box when their cancer pain medicine costs $100 per pill - but I'm not hopeful. The miniscule reaction to ENRON tells me that the blinders affixed pretty tightly...
  253. Glow-in-the dark shots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article mentioned the altered virus was embedded with a glow-in-the-dark gene. I would not at all mind getting a glow-in-the-dark shot (assuming it was not also HIV)!

  254. Melanoma does not always start in the skin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not all melanomas start in the skin, only cutaneous melanoma (by far the most popular form of melanoma).

  255. Re:Too Bad HIV Doesn't Exist by cannuck · · Score: 0

    Here's a place to get a better "picture" of the notion of HIV=AIDS. It's presented by the Perth Group at the Royal Perth Hospital at http://www.theperthgroup.com/FAQ/question3.html "The Perth Group of was formed in 1981 at the Royal Perth Hospital, a public teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Western Australia. The three original members are the leader, biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, emergency physician Valendar F Turner and Professor of Pathology John Papadimitriou. Over the years several other scientists have contributed to or joined the Group. These are physicists Bruce Hedland-Thomas, David Causer and Barry Page, Florida USA biochemist Todd Miller and Colombian physician/medical researcher Helman Alfonso. The Perth Group has published scientific papers and letters in peer reviewed medical journalsas well as in the popular press. Two of the group are invited members of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel and have presented our material in various forums including the Presidential Panel and via satellite at the Geneva International AIDS Conference. "

  256. I can see the pickup lines already... by Drakonite · · Score: 2, Funny

    "I had HIV therapy, want me to cure YOUR cancer?"

    --
    Shoot Pixels, Not People!
  257. where do i sign up for the beta test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well?

  258. Better yet.... by halfridge · · Score: 1

    HIV will only cost $5.95*http://www.giantmicrobes.com/professional/hi v.html

    *=plus S+H

  259. Re:Excercise by idono · · Score: 3, Informative

    You could've saved yourself a few bucks... Stepmania http://www.stepmania.com./

  260. simpsons quote by Bad+Ad · · Score: 1

    Burns: Well, doc, I think I did pretty well on my tests. You may shake my hand if you like. Doctor: Well, under the circumstances, I'd rather not. Burns: Eh? Doctor: Mr. Burns, I'm afraid you are the sickest man in the United States. You have everything. Burns: You mean I have pneumonia? Doctor: Yes. Burns: Juvenile diabetes? Doctor: Yes. Burns: Hysterical pregnancy? Doctor: Uh, a little bit, yes. You also have several diseases that have just been discovered -- in you. Burns: I see. You sure you haven't just made thousands of mistakes? Doctor: Uh, no, no, I'm afraid not. Burns: This sounds like bad news. Doctor: Well, you'd think so, but all of your diseases are in perfect balance. Uh, if you have a moment, I can explain. Burns: Well ... [looks at his watch] [the Doctor puts a tiny model house door on his desk] Doctor: Here's the door to your body, see? [bring up some small fuzz balls with goofy faces and limbs from under the desk] And these are oversized novelty germs. [points to a different one up as he names each disease] That's influenza, that's bronchitis, [holds up one] and this cute little cuddle-bug is pancreatic cancer. Here's what happens when they all try to get through the door at once. [tries to cram a bunch through the model door. The "germs" get stuck] [Stooge-like] Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo! Move it, chowderhead! [normal voice] We call it, "Three Stooges Syndrome." Burns: So what you're saying is, I'm indestructible! Doctor: Oh, no, no, in fact, even slight breeze could -- Burns: Indestructible.

  261. Finally by saboola · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can use this to get rid of these damn midichlorians. I am getting pretty damn tired of lightning bolts flying out of my hands.

  262. Re:Nuclear? by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 1

    Don't you mean Noo-ku-lar? Not quoting anybody in particular...

  263. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by gwydion04 · · Score: 1

    The flu shot is a killed virus. You cannot get the flu from it, but it is made from "chopped up" flu virus. Flumist nasal spray is a weakened (and cold-adapted) virus. You get slightly sick from it. I took it a couple months ago, since I work as a med student in a family med clinic and they were out of the shots.

  264. More Awful jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, the doctor says he has good news and bad news. The patient asks for the bad news first. Turns out he only has 30 days to live. Geez, he says, what could the good news be? Well, says the doc, the days are getting longer.

    P.S. The one good thing about alzheimers is that you get to meet so many new people!

  265. Re:Excercise by balloonpup · · Score: 1

    I don't see any fingerdance pads there o.O

    Stepmania's quite fine, and in fact, I play both. More variance that way. I prefer playing on a console, though. Computer's for work and pretending to work (see: Slashdot). No, I don't mod my consoles. Laziness, mostly...

    --
    I sing the doggie electric!
  266. What about rare cancers? by Slime-Half · · Score: 1

    Why not engineer different viruses to attack different cancers?

    I think this is a great idea, but it does worry me in that it would be so specialized...what would happen to rare cancers who might benefit from a more universal treatment (different chemos, different types of radiation, etc.)? Without a huge increase in cancer research funding, I would be nervous about something that might divert money from research that could help more than one cancer type, and thus more people. (I'm speaking as someone with a rare cancer with currently barbaric modes of treatment, ie amputation of hip and leg, parts of lung, etc...).

    It's a sticky question, though, because everyone wants cancer to be irradicated. Even if only the "popular" types of cancer can be treated with a virus of this sort, that would be best for society as a whole. And maybe then there would be money and attention freed up for the rest of us once those cancers are gone.

    Of course, if there was a big increase in funding for these projects in addition to current research on chemo agents, for example, this wouldn't be much of an issue.

    To get back to the article, if this could be made to apply to other forms of cancer, I think it would have huge benefits. Some cancers (like mine) are chemo-resistant...having something that opened up the option of chemo could literally mean the difference between life and painful death.

    Just my random thoughts on the issue...

    --
    Voices--Art, Poetry, Photography
  267. Re:Too Bad HIV Doesn't Exist by the+gnat · · Score: 1

    I have heard of the Perth group many, many times - every AIDS denialist posting on Slashdot thinks they're being really insightful by mentioning them. And they have next to zero scientific credibility; some of the claims I've read have been just dumb. Why should I take anything they say seriously? Especially when I just posted evidence that contradicts what you were saying? And what's your expertise in molecular biology that led you to critically re-evaluate the HIV/AIDS hypothesis?

    I have a BS in mol. bio and am working towards a PhD, so I'm not some ignorant idiot who believes everything a scientist tells me. I've read the claims of the denialists, and they're full of holes.

  268. conservatives gotta be loving this... by Moustache+N+Tits · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ... it kills homos AND cancer?!

  269. Actually, the Cure for Heart Disease is Herpes! by patentlysilly · · Score: 2, Informative
  270. Re: by Upaut · · Score: 1

    And the cure to exersize is jolt cola, that causes cancer...
    And the circle is now complete.

    --
    3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
  271. Re:"Ahhh that's how it always starts. Then later.. by susano_otter · · Score: 1
    Using HIV's replication machinery as a vector seems risky to me as well.

    The way I see it, before I die, that statement will be roughly equivalent to "using the wheel as a mode of transportation seems risky to me as well".

    Soon replication machinery such as this will be the fundamental principle of all kinds of medicine and, increasingly, tools.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  272. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That you were rated +4 insightful is so scary. Doesn't say much about the biological knowledge here on slashdot. Did everyone here just sleep through their bio classes in college? Isn't an intro to biology class still required in most accredited universities?

  273. Optimists are seldom the revolutionaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Optimists are seldom the revolutionaries. Optimism vs pessimism is irrelevant to science. It may help you pick up some girls though.

  274. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that harsh. Either way you're dead. HIV will normally give you a few more years, but quality of life can be pretty bad for much of that time.

  275. enee-menee-miney-moe.. by Mahamadmustafa · · Score: 1

    hmmm.. should i wear the black shoes, or the white? and should i bring my cancer to the party, or my hiv..?

  276. Yet another one... by ReKleSS · · Score: 1

    A man goes to a doctor for his regular checkup. The doctor tells the man that he has good and bad news. The man is greatly excited when the doctor tells him that his penis will be 3 inches longer and an inch wider. Naturally, the man asks the doctor what the bad news is. He replies, "malignant."

    --
    md5sum -c reality.md5
    reality: FAILED
    md5sum: WARNING: 1 of 1 computed checksum did NOT match
  277. Not new by xgamer04 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To mix this with the strategy of using one strong enemy against another is brilliance!

    Ever heard of phages?

    --
    When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
  278. Re:Too Bad HIV Doesn't Exist by cannuck · · Score: 0

    1. Why don't you point out all of the Perth Group's errors (full of holes). By the way Nobel Laureate for Chemistry, Dr. Kary Mullis states in his book "Dancing Through The Mind Felds" and in many of his public appearances including NPR - that there not one scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer review that shows that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS". Dr. Mullis earned a Ph.D. degree in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley later became a postdoctoral fellow in pediatric cardiology at the University of Kansas Medical School, with emphasis in the areas of angiotensin and pulmonary vascular physiology - followed by two years of postdoctoral work in pharmaceutical chemistry at the University of California. Does Dr. Mullis trump your almost PhD. ;) 2. What is Truth? Is that a value held highly? a) Is it true that 50% of all master theses are cooked? b) Is it true that the NIH gives $300,000 hunks of tax money to people who state that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. (How many people lie for less money?) c) How many CEOS do you know who haven't lied - in order to make big bucks? d) What have you learned about corporate lying (ENRON, WORLDCOM and hundreds (thousands?) e) How often do scientists lie about problems related to the drug industry? f) and so on ..............

  279. +1 FUNNY by scum-e-bag · · Score: 1

    That was +1 FUNNY

    --
    Does it go on forever?
  280. leet? by Agret · · Score: 1

    "We've got good news and we've got bad news"
    "Whats the good news?"
    "We cured your cancer"
    "The bad news?"
    "You now have HIV"

    --
    Have you metaroderated recently?
  281. Russians and Retro Virused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The russians before the fall of communism were using retro virus rather then antibitoics to find alternative cures for common deseases. The Scientists would go to the local sewer collect some gunk and seperate viruses and apply them against various deseases to see which one killed the infection agent or infected cells. They planning to apply this to variuos different applications (including cancer) unfortunatley democarcy arrived and they lost their funding. I heard some american venture capitalist went over to see if they could fund the project but it didn't quite work and they left empty handed. This was in a documentary on t.v many years ago but I've not heard of anything since until i read this slashdot story.

  282. Targeting specific populations by Hungry+Admin · · Score: 1

    Well, if some Arab nutcase decided to attack Jewish people with this technology, he'd also kill most of the Arabs - they are the same genetically.

    --
    Be who you are and say what you feel, because the people who mind don't matter, and the people who matter don't mind.
  283. One left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Didn't someone once say
    'The human race will only know peace
    when there is just one human left'?"

    Only if that person is a necrophiliac.

  284. Who owns the HIV virus ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who owns the copyright of the original HIV virus ?

    Has it been patented ?

  285. Re:"Ahhh that's how it always starts. Then later.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent is probably correct, that this statement will seems silly in the long run, but I think GParent is looking at it from the view of using nuclear power to generate electricity in the early 1940's... eventually turns out to be a fair idea, but not unreasonable to see as risky.

  286. Ebola is nasty, but it's still just the boogieman by Vacindak · · Score: 1

    Actually, my understanding was that they had an experimental vaccine, but no good way to test it on a large enough scale to really prove it works. I mean, who wants to be injected with bits and pieces of just about the deadliest disease known to man? It's very likely to be the sort of vaccine that gets injected into USAMRIID soldiers and pretty much no one else.

    In any case, I believe that there have actually been two known cases of provably airbourne Ebola. The most well-known case involved a monkey holding area of sorts, in Reston, Virginia. They discovered that Ebola was being transmitted from cage to cage without any contact between the monkeys, everyone panicked, but then they later discovered that the strain couldn't infect humans for some reason. Several people were infected, but never displayed symptoms of the disease.

    The other case involved a nurse in Zaire IIRC. The strain was named after her - Ebola Zaire Mayinga. Apparently this nurse ran around the city for a few hours while infected before they found her. Somehow she managed to fail to infect anyone, despite the fact that Ebola Zaire Mayinga is probably the nastiest strain of the virus that we currently know of.

    I think it's safe to assume that Ebola Zaire, and especially the Mayinga strain are probably airborne, at least to a certain extent.

    Also, I know for a fact, that your statement about the experiments is inaccurate. It's close, but not quite correct. What we have never seen is proof of airborne infection in humans in the wild. But this isn't much of a surprise -- the virus moves fast enough that, by the time you have competant observers, there's enough of the virus around that it's impossible to prove that transmission was airborne. In the lab, every single strain of Ebola has demonstrated itself to be capable of transmission by aerosols. And to the best of my knowledge, the experiments were reproduced. Check google scholar to be sure perhaps?

    In any case, Ebola is a lot worse than you make it out to be, and even if it weren't airborne, the nature of crashing out is such that any lack of airborne ability would hardly slow the virus' spread much. When someone ejects infected particles all over you, some of those particles are going to end up in your eyes, nose, mouth, etc. You're a very lucky person if someone crashes out near you and you don't get infected.

    But as others have mentioned, Ebola is incredibly rare. It kills far too effectively to really pose a epidemic-scale threat. Ebola has been the topic of numerous conspiracy stories as well as a Tom Clancy novel, video game, etc. It's a boogieman story meant to scare little children, really. The possibility of genetic modification has been brought up many times before, and usually with people being worried that Ebola might become more resilient and better able to infect via aerosol. However, the real threat would be someone modifying the virus to have a longer dormancy period.

  287. Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, sometimes comments are rated not so much on their correctness, but on the discussion they provoke.

    +X Insightful is called that for a reason, and not +X Correct.

  288. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the cure to heart disease is cancer.

  289. Re: by nickco3 · · Score: 1

    Is this really a solution or just another to prolong?

    In human medicine there is no such thing as a real solution, they are all "just prolongs".

    --
    -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
  290. Re:Ebola is nasty, but it's still just the boogiem by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

    The most well-known case involved a monkey holding area of sorts, in Reston, Virginia.

    That strain of Ebola is harmless to humans. So who cares? The only real case was in a USAMRIID lab with the Zaire strain of Ebola. Quite pathogenic to humans! That is kind of scary but it has never been reproduced to my knowledge. Although neither can it be easily explained away.

    The other case involved a nurse in Zaire IIRC. The strain was named after her - Ebola Zaire Mayinga.

    WRONG. That is totally wrong. That nurse was in direct contact (duh, she was an African nurse working with Ebola patients) with the virus. There was absolutely no evidence of airborne transmission.

    Apparently this nurse ran around the city for a few hours while infected before they found her. Somehow she managed to fail to infect anyone

    Yes, that is because the only Ebola strain that is aerosol transmissable is the Reston strain which so far has only proven dangerous to monkeys.

    The fact that that nurse was able to walk around a major African city for as long as she did and share a soda and a sandwich with someone and not transmit it to anyone are actually evidence of exactly the opposite. An aerosol infective virus would have been transmitted to someone.

    Also, I know for a fact, that your statement about the experiments is inaccurate. It's close, but not quite correct. What we have never seen is proof of airborne infection in humans in the wild.

    That is completely untrue. Where are you getting this from anyway? If you are talking about the Reston strain then who cares? That is not dangerous to humans.

    to the best of my knowledge, the experiments were reproduced.

    Bullshit. Go ahead and cite them then. And I'm sorry but Google is not in fact a research tool. About this kind of subject you will find mostly incorrect 5th hand sensationalized information based on works of fiction and lots of speculation filtered through many different people. Those are not facts.

    In any case, Ebola is a lot worse than you make it out to be, and even if it weren't airborne, the nature of crashing out is such that any lack of airborne ability would hardly slow the virus' spread much.

    "Crashing out" is not nearly as dramatic as you make it out to be. In fact not all Ebola victims die from blood loss. I can only hope that none of your "facts" are derived from The Hot Zone, because that was a work of complete fiction. There was almost nothing in that book that was not wildly exaggerated for dramatic effect. The descriptions of the way people died in particular were far more dramatic than in reality. Ebola just doesn't kill that way. That's not the reality.

    It kills far too effectively to really pose a epidemic-scale threat.

    Actually that's not true. Ebola victims can be infective and walking around for quite a long time. As long as a week or two. More than long enough to infect countless others if the virus were airborne infective. The main reason that Ebola is not a large threat even in Africa is that it can be stopped so easily with simple barrier nursing procedures as described by the CDC on their website. Every epidemic was simply a matter of primitive hospital conditions and lack of common sense.

    However, the real threat would be someone modifying the virus to have a longer dormancy period.

    Two weeks is more than long enough. If the Zaire strain could be modified to make it infective through the air, not just in one isolated lab experiment but in real world conditions, it could be an incredibly dangerous pathogen, and an excellent virus to use for terrorism purposes.

    The problem with Ebola from a city wiping perspective is that it is just not infective enough. In fact it is actually surprisingly difficult to get.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  291. Re:Excercise by tepples · · Score: 1

    Look in front of you. Fingerdance pad is between the Ctrl key and the 0/Ins key.

    Another advantage of StepMania is you get to play songs that would never show up on the console versions.

  292. Re:Might want to downplay the nuclear thing by hung_himself · · Score: 1

    You have to remember that the first machines were used almost exclusively in cancer wards, and at a time when radiation therapies were more prevalent and with more side effects than they have now. So I think the idea was to reassure patients that this was not some sort of whole body radiotherapy that would make them sick...

  293. Re:0.001% ??? by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

    I'm having a flu right now so please excuse me if I don't get my math skills together right now... but 0.001%... doesn't that mean one in every 100'000 planes would crash? Damn right I am boarding that plane especially when you consider that the local mafia wants to shove some explosives up my arse. Never forget the threat cancer poses if you don't do anything about it. If you were dying from cancer and had the chance of either solving the problem or a 0.001% chance that it might get worse... I don't know if all else fails you can still buy a gun and end your life if it really comes to this worst case scenario. If it comes to my life I'd probably take a 50/50 chance.