Slashdot Mirror
Three-Dimensional Structure of HIV Revealed
Mutatis Mutandis writes "The BBC is reporting that a team of scientists from Oxford, Heidelberg and Munich has created the first accurate three-dimensional images of the HIV virus. The virus was found to have an average diameter of 125 nanometers, well below the wavelength of visible light. In the past the structure of viruses with a regular structure has been produced by 3D reconstruction techniques that work on a set of electron microscopy images of different viruses, but the irregular structure of HIV does not allow this. Scientists have now used a tomography technique that employs a series of images taken from a single virus, somewhat similar to the better known X-Ray CAT scan, but on a quite different scale." Structure also has a video of the 3-d rendering available for download. Relatedly an anonymous reader writes "A research team at Brown University has genetically modified bacteria found in yogurt so that the bugs produce a protein proven to block HIV infection in monkeys. The results offer hope for a microbicide that can prevent the spread of HIV, which now affects about 40 million people."
now every grad student taking a bioinformatics class gets a pop quiz tomorrow!
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
the bugs produce a protein proven to block HIV infection in monkeys
...but what about treatment for those that don't believe in evolution?
clearly, another example of the scientific elites pushing their liberal agenda
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
When can I buy the plushie?
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
...zzzz....
All this, just to say the scientists can now _see_ the virus?
I guess that tricky wavelegnth of visible light thing had them befuddled.
No sig.
No sig necessary.
I remember hearing this fringy-sounding stuff that HIV hadn't been proven to cause AIDS, and that a Nobel prize winner -- the guy who invented PCR -- was in agreement.
One of the complaints was that nobody had bothered to isolate HIV, infect creatures, make sure they got AIDS, and so on -- the sort of things that scientists do to prove that something "causes" something.
Among other things, there was the complaint that some people have HIV, but don't get AIDS. And others have AIDS, but no HIV.
Does anyone know why they didn't bother to follow the normal procedures before deciding that HIV was the culprit? That just seems odd.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Does that mean we can start using it in Counterstrike mods?
I live in Belgium, a country that takes pride in its high quality of education. But just yesterday a survey showed that about 70% of the youth doesn't have a clue how you can contract HIV, and a very high percentage takes no protective measures at all. Staggering numbers for a developed country. One of the people that was involved in organising the survey said this was partly to blame to the false sense of security. Rumors about new cures, tales about how good the HIV treatments work. Youth these days seems to think it isn't that deadly after all, at least not deadly enough to be very wary... Sensibilisation campaigns seemed to be inadequate to change this view.
can't wait for google to make google hiv so I can fly around on it surface.
The results offer hope for a microbicide that can prevent the spread of HIV, which now affects about 40 million people.
I'm assuming this means that it would help already-infected individuals to contain and/or resist the virus? Personally while it might be a nice addition to existing safeguards (being careful of partners, condoms, etc) I wouldn't exactly trust eating yoghurt to keep me safe from HIV.
Frink: Take an ordinary double-helix ...
Wiggum: Woah! Slow down there egghead.
How come AIDS targets homosexuals in the West, but heterosexuals in Africa?
i think this is actually genuinely humorous, and does not rely on true hateful/hurtful feelings to be humorous.
Anything one can load in Blender etc?
With the HIV virus, we know the mechanism by which infection originates, spreads, disables the immune system, etc. There isn't a vast amount we don't know. The HIV virus took a while to isolate and sequence, but when compared to other viruses, it was damn quick.
What we don't know is the history prior to the first recorded case, whether or not a guy in England really DID somehow eliminate the HIV virus from his body (he refuses to get re-tested after he got a negative), why some people do not produce HIV antibodies when exposed to the virus (are they immune, as some claim, or is their immune system just not capable of detecting it?) and how a virus so astronomically unstable can function (one problem with producing a vaccine is that de-activated HIV can re-activate itself, becoming extremely dangerous).
Now, there are indeed cases where medical science seems to have jumped to conclusions. BSE and CJDnv are supposedly caused by prions, but infected brain tissue retains its ability to transfer the deadly agent after being cooked at high temperatures. Also, it is unclear how proteins (a prion is just a protein) can get through the stomach wall AND the blood-brain barrier in order to cause damage.
Even in this case, although there are plenty of skeptics of the prion theory, I know of nobody who is seeking to ridicule the work. Rather, they are pursuing their own lines of enquiry with some measure of dignity. That's how you can tell the good from the great. The merely good will sometimes bolster their egos by proclaiming themselves the One True Word, denouncing everyone else. The great let the results speak for themselves.
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)
It would be nice to know what methods they used for tomography. With the latest methods it can be possible to get better Tomography resolution than the measurment device has by itself. The geometry of the measurement itself would be great to know too.
Also it is today possible to solve many million unknowns by using stocastic inversion, something that was taking ages and truly huge amount of memory not so long ago, can now be done on a deskside.
For example it is possible to reconstruct the shape of an asteroid using only a single value like light intensity or radio signal intensity over a period of time. That would be like a 1x1 sensor size with multiple projection and arbitrary geometry.
Create some type of fake T-cell that when the HIV virus bumps into it, it thinks it's a real T-cell and attaches itself and attempts to infect it. Except that it is not the target T-cell, and then it dies. Kind of like a roach motel for HIV.
Too bad if, once a cure is released, people stop using protection only to find that the cure has only a 50% success rate or some such.
The guy's name is professor Peter Duesberg. I did a speech based on his book "Infectious AIDS, Have We Been Misled" 7 years ago when I was in college.
To start out with, Deusberg was a good scientist, making important discoveries regarding oncogenic viruses, and was consequently recipient of the NIH's "Outstanding Investigator" grant. Whether his theory is correct or not, what is certain is that he has been the subject of career assassination for political rather than scientific reasons, for his views in the early days of the AIDS crisis. It was essentially argued that dissent from the HIV=AIDS model would cause confusion and interfere with efforts to prevent the spread of HIV\AIDS. Deusberg's university treated him as a paraiah and his NIH grant was rescinded. Science cannot operate properly if opposing views are silenced for political reasons.
The nobel laureate you refer to is Kerry Mullis. Despite inventing PCR the guy is a self described nut and LSD user. I wouldn't put too much weight in his testimony. Mullis argues that the Viral Load test, based on PCR, is far less precise than it is claimed to be. I don't know if this is true or not.
While I'm not agreeing with Deusberg's hypothesis, like any dissident his criticisms have focused on weaknesses in the HIV-AIDS theory over the years.
Deusberg has made a number of very good points regarding HIV, which are only now starting to be considered. Among them;
HIV is an opportunistic infection. People most often become HIV positive because they engaged in some other activity which damages the immune system such as the use of certain drugs (such as amyl nitrates or injected drugs) or hemopheliacs. Even before the AIDS crisis, hemopheliacs still had a dramatically shortened lifespan and increased suceptibility to disease. Deusberg claims (and I would tend to question, but don't have facts on hand to refute) that the death rate for hemopheliacs does not indicate their being hit by a lethal epidemic during the time of the early AIDS crisis and that their lifespan has steadily increased. The fact that HIV is an opportunistic infection suggested to Duesberg that it could be a marker for another condition or conditions which causes immune suppression. (Hemopheliacs, even without HIV, are immune suppressed.) While Deusberg gives a general notion of an immune system collapsing under excessive strain, it seems that Human Herpes Virus 8, common to AIDS victims, has been shown to also cause immune suppresion. HHV8 is transmissible via saliva and probably acts synergistically with HIV to dramatically speed up the progression of the disease. HHV8 is the virus responsible for Kaposi's Sarcoma, a symptom previously attributed to HIV.
Azidothymidine or AZT, which has been shown to reduce HIV viral load, has side effects that are essentially identical to AIDS including immune suppresion. AZT has never been proven to increase lifespan in a reliable, controlled study. The infamous Concord Study which attempted to prove the benefits of AZT, was hopelessly flawed. Subjects receiving the drug were aware of it and shared their medicine with the control group to help them. AZT was a chemotheraputic agent for cancer which was discontinued due to its severe side effects sometime before the late '60s. It's approval for use against HIV essentially circumvented the normal FDA approval process, due to the crisis of its introduction. It has been argued that AZT prevents seroconversion to HIV positivity and I think it's still used for this purpose.
Finally, unrelated to Deusberg, the CDC seems to be working off an outdated model for the evolution of infectious diseases (Burnette and White's model) which was based on analysis of airborne infection rather than fluid borne infection, which seems subject to different pressures. B&W's theory suggests (incorrectly) that all lethal diseases will, in time, evolve to benign co-existance with their host. This is generally true for airborne diseases. B&W's theory demands that HIV be a virus that was newly int
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Look, all these guys have at one time or another been respectable, but the truth is, HIV is a well-characterized virus with dumptrucks full of money poured into research into how and why it works.
The fact that I can pick out one name, Harvey Bialy, google him and find out he's currently on South Africa's payroll (who deny pregnant mothers with AIDS AZT or other basic anti-HIV drugs, btw) says volumes.
HIV's genome has been sequenced and studied, and scientists know in general how it works. Instead of copying and pasting one of my microbiology textbooks, I'd suggest looking up the "HIV" Wikipedia entry - it's got a good summary of the parts listed. You might try the "AIDS reappraisal" entry, where all the bullshit claims are addressed.
Have you taken a look at what all those "respected scientists" are actually saying? It sounds a lot like the utter crap being spewed by the "respectable scientists" employed by the Creationism... er, I mean the Intelligent Design idiots. "There's problems... there's questions..." Not a single decent counter-hypothesis as to the origin of AIDS or why the volumes of peer-reviewed AIDS research is WRONG.
If they were truly so adamant that HIV did not cause AIDS, there would be a simple way to prove it once and for all: they should all get together and perform a witnessed scientific study whereby they all inject a reasonably large dose of HIV virus into their bloodstreams and monitor the results. Dr. Barry Marshall, in fact, won a Nobel Prize for proving that H. pylori causes GI ulcers by doing just that.
Now to answer your original claims, that some people with HIV do not get AIDS and some people with AIDS do not have HIV, both of them have answers (the Wikipedia page, in fact, covers the 1st one). Some people have genetic mutations to coreceptors that HIV needs to infect CD4+ T-cells (CCR5 and CXCR4 being the 2 most common). Those mutations render the virus unable to infect the cells without further mutation of the virus. This is, in fact, a huge avenue of biomedical research - my medical school is participating in toxicology trials for a proposed drug using this.
The other claim, that some patients with AIDS do not have HIV is a very rare autoimmune condition. Through molecular mimicry or another similar means, a patient's CD4+ immune cells are targeted for destruction by the patient's own immune system, which leads to the loss of those cells and the development of AIDS. Nobody knows why yet (this is VERY rare), but it probably is caused by cross-reaction with similar antigens from a foreign source (bacteria, virus, fungal, etc.). The body has a bad propensity to attack itself - look up rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, Goodpasture's, Hashimoto's, or late-stage Lyme Disease among others.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
The survey itself should be examined, though. It is very easy to put in leading questions, especially in a subject area that invites more tales of bravado than facts. It would be good if a more comprehensive survey could be done across Europe, not only looking at risky behaviour, but also looking at limits of knowledge.
eg: One antiviral used to treat AIDS in Africa was banned by the FDA in America as it is extremely toxic and rapidly kills the person taking it. The FDA is also sponsoring the use of the drug in Africa, which got some media attention recently. How many people read those reports? What is the general awareness like of the toxicity of the available treatments?
The problem with AIDS is that it isn't as dramatic as, say, Ebola, or as colourful as the Black Death. Unlike, say, Spanish Flu, the death rates are given in decades rather than days. A year, for a teenager, is forever. The incubation period for HIV is variable but 5 years is not unusual. What's five times eternity?
It's hard to get a handle on how many people are infected, or what their distribution is, but if you were to start with five hundred million, concentrated in areas that have reached one extreme or another, you'd probably be reasonably close.
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)
I've got to admit obliterating AIDs from the world with only a submachine gun does sound appealing.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
I never seem to have my mod points when I want them most.
Several pre-release copies of the new book by renowned writer Damn Brown are already uploaded to several hidden peer to peer networks. The publisher together with the RIAA (here's another film in the making) is actively suppressing distribution and persecuting anyone touching the Damn file. Hence we can only provide you with a synopsis. I hope you understand. From: http://www.hypnocrisis.com/index.php?/archives/17- Damn-Browns-The-HIV-code..html
I watched a show no TV about HIV. It's not as simple as that. The truth of the matter is, which "people" are afraid to publicize:
The HIV virus mutates too quick for any attempt to find a cure to be effective.
The host then went to show a "3d graph" of the flu mutation strands, as big as a basketball. He then goes, if this is the flu mutation strands per year, per the entire human population, THIS (shows a graph probably 100 times as big as the basketball), is the HIV mutation strands per PERSON, per year.
And that's just per person.
The truth is, yes we have way to battle HIV, but the damn bug fights back so quick that by the time we fought off 1 strand, we already have 100 other mutated strand.
To this date, I've never taken a flu shot.
I'm getting pretty irritated with the amount of money which is continuously poured into AIDS research. There are dozens of other diseases which deserve more attention, NONE of which can be prevented by something as simple as wrapping your pecker, for instance.
When I was a kid the dutch tv station Veronica had aired an program about AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. It was explicit and used porn actors to show in full detail how to use condoms. Couple that with movies about people dying, some hardhitting campaigns and it was pretty hard not to grow up being aware that screwing without a condome was bad for you.
Even then an awfull lot of people didn't do the safe sex thing.
It also put a strain on people. Not nice to be constantly reminded as a young male/female that doing what comes natural can kill you. There were ways around it like mutual masturbation replacing intercourse but for many that is just not good enough.
After the sexual freedom of previous decades our generation was definitly handicapped. Sleeping around was not just cheating anymore, you put yourselve and your partner at real risk.
So fast forward to now and those hardhitting campaigns have stopped. Sexually transmitted diseases off all sorts haven't gone away but the urgency has been removed. It just isn't seen as an issue anymore. Can you blame people? Either you live you live in blissfull ignorance OR you have to turn down that easy girl/boy who fucks everyone and remain a virgin until you meet another virgin.
Cause just condoms alone are not good enough, have you ever tried eating a girl with one of those rubber sheets to prevent direct contact? It is not easy I can tell you. I am not 100% certain but I think the female fluids are just as capable of spreading aids as sperm and it is a lot harder to catch them in a rubber.
So given the choice between being fearfull and ignoring the danger most people choose to ignore the danger. It is not just aids. The amount of women who are infertile is sky-rocketing. Sure sure, genetic changes. Eheh. Ask a doctor. Most of the women who have trouble getting pregnant can only blame it as the result of a sexually transmitted disease.
AIDS is a killer but others STD's are far more common and can have very big impacts as well. Going infertile can be a pretty big deal for a woman. Especially if it turns out the female got it from a cheating partner.
But what can we do? Terrorize people into being completly paranoid about sex? People have to rationlize dangers otherwise we would never get out of bed. How many people die each day on the roads because of unsafe driving? That is a real risk wich many of us can see directly as we pass yet another accident scene each day on the way to work. Does that stop us from driving to fast, in crappy cars, while drunk? Nope. Remember, it is not just how you drive but the millions of other road users as well. Sleep around and you are having sex with not just your partner but all the people they had sex with as well. One happy STD chain.
STD's are nasty but they are something we just have to live with for now.As long as people are not so ignorant as to stop funding research I think we can handle it. Just life as usual.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Great plan. You make the fake t cells, I'll do the rest.
whoa, they still do that?
The point is not that AIDS research should be completely stopped but that it should be proportional to how contageous it is and how much the individuals can prevent it. It seems that research should be more focused on Avian Flu, SARS, Malaria and such.
I would also argue that cancer and heart disease to a certain degree is preventable, if the invididuals care enough to lead a healthy life-style, but with these two it is not as clear cut and there might be a strong genetic component to them but there isn't a one-time event of infection that can be obviously avoided.
To put it another way, if I smoke, eat fried fatty foods and have sex with anyone without protection, knowing what that will do to me -- why should I be shocked if I get cancer, AIDS or die of a heart disease. And why should researchers spend years on end and millions of tax money to save my sorry ass if I clearly made my choice?
is how very similar it is to the Burger King logo
BK logo
HIV
Gay guys...eating yogurt?
Kary Mullis is saying more research needs to be done. And he has some good points that HIV isn't always the cause of AIDS-like symptoms, so additional testing must be carried out before giving all kinds of anti-HIV drugs to a patient with AIDS symptoms.
.. he has some validity but is well short of scientific proof that HIV does NOT cause AIDS. I have not read his opinions on the recent showing that those taking the newer AIDS treatments have shown marked improvement in their symptoms and immune cell levels.
.. a few thousand may be invisible to the anti-body while thousands more are susceptible to it. That's one of the reasons why AIDS cant kill off a person rapidly.
In my opinion, he does not have proof that HIV does NOT cause AIDS.
Are we supposed to risk the creation of millions of orphans in Africa because of the doubts of one Nobel laureate? What about all the other Nobel laureates? There are many of them, do we throw their opinions away because Kary Mullis is some kind of uber-Nobel prize winner? His expertise is not in the area of disease identification. That said, having read some of his points
I recall a claim made by a Duesberg follower that a virus would be stupid to kill its own host (apparently smallpox didn't get that memo).
It was probably not right of the scientific community to go after Duesberg the way he did, but on the same token Duesberg didnt have to become close minded to hold on to his theories.
To answer your question about "Western Blot", the virus HIV has a defect in it's error correction mechanism and is unable to ensure that it is not creating proteins to which the body has antibodies to. This means that if say there are a million copies of the virus
In the case of an autoimmune response causing immunodeficiency, then the disease isn't actually AIDS.
AIDS - Acquired ImmunoDeficiency Syndrome. Note the Acquired. If it wasn't actually *acquired* from somewhere but instead happened due to a genetic defect, it isn't actually AIDS by definition.
Thus, in the case you state, the immune deficiency is not actually AIDS. (There ARE other known immunodeficiency disorders. While they aren't caused by HIV, in fact many are caused by genetic defects, they aren't AIDS either.) Most likely the idiots claiming "AIDS without HIV" are actually confusing an immunodeficiency disorder that is not actually AIDS and calling it AIDS, even though it isn't actually AIDS.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding regarding our ability to create a "cure" for AIDS. I'm not as well versed as I once was, but the gist is that the enzyme which replicates the HIV genome creates a lot of errors when doing it's work. This is actually a major problem because it causes AIDS to evolve at an incredibly rapid rate. As alternate versions of the virus appear, each with small, subtle differences, it gets tough creating a single drug that properly treats the virus. I recall documented cases where HIV had grown resistant to AZT for precisely this reason. And the virus mutates so frequently that the next generation medications may be highly effective, but will also likely only last for a relatively short amount of time. All this does is underscore what some were saying earlier: this is not a disease we should hope to "cure", though we should certainly not give up hope. However, we must spread the understanding that it must be prevented through safe sex, clean needles, etc.
works great in the us. won't work in africa where a woman's philandering and infected husband won't take no for an answer in the bedroom.
Will people in $10 white lab coats say/do anything for $300,000 of tax money from the N.I.H. ? The mythology of the so-called HIV - which looks like a :cabbage" one day - a "pine tree" the next day, and a "frog" the next. More smoke and mirrors here? An animation yet!
Here's an interview with the supposed discoverer of so-called HIV, Luc Montagnier: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.h tm
On the other hand here's the protocol discussed at the Pasteur Institute (that no one follows?)
"The Rules of Isolation
The rules for isolation of a retrovirus were thoroughly discussed at the Pasteur Institute, Paris, in 1973, and are the logical minimum requirements for establishing the independent existence of HIV. They are:
1.Culture of putatively infected tissue.
2. Purification of specimens by density gradient ultracentrifugation.
3. Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morfological characteristics and dimensions (100-120 nm) of retroviral particles at the sucrose (or percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else, not even particles of other morphologies or dimensions.
4. Proof that the particles contain reverse transcriptase.
5. Analysis of the particles' proteins and RNA and proof that these are unique.
6. Proof that 1-5 are a property only of putatively infected tissues and can not be induced in control cultures. These are identical cultures, that is, tissues obtained from matched, unhealthy subjects and cultured under identical conditions differing only in that they are not putatively infected with a retrovirus.
7. Proof that the particles are infectious, that is when PURE particles are introduced into an uninfected culture or animal, the identical particle is obtained as shown by repeating steps 1-5.
"
You know the old "scientific method" approach before calling research - scientific
Statistics Canada - the Canadian federal government agency - has research that shows STD (Sexually Transmitted Diseases - gonnorhea, syphyllis and chlamydia) are skyrocketing in Canadian teenagers because of unprotected sex - while at the same time the rates for HIV in the same Canadian teenagers are going down!!
I'm interested in how they got these pictures. Was this the use of a start of the art technique? Or a new application of a technique that is more tried and true? Is this something that I can do at home with my kid? (I'm only half kidding about that last question.)
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Its taken what, 15 years to get to the point of saying "The results offer hope for a microbicide that can prevent the spread of HIV, which now affects about 40 million people." the point that we have taken this long to get to the "hope" point bodes ill for science's ability to respond to emerging threats or to bioterriorism.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Y'mean all I gotta do is have some Yoplait, then I can go play?
Well, maybe not so much this crowd. ;-)
(For the age challenged: Back in the '70's, people (e.g. in the U.S.) "played" a lot more, to put it one way...).
OK, I have a question for those M.D. types about. Has anyone investitaged the possibility of breaking virus by hitting them with carefully tuned chorus of electromagnetic (and/or ultrasonic) waves? If they can build up a 3D model of the thing, then they can identify vibrational modes in the virus structure, right? If you can catalog several of these modes and expose infected tissue to EM waves that will excite vibrations at those frequencies, it seems natural to think that you could literally shatter the virus mechanically. By using many different frequencies, damage to other benign cells and structures could be avoided as all of the driven frequencies would dump energy into the virus' protein sheath. Other cells might only have a resonance close to one of the frequencies and not absorb much energy.
I've long since wondered if this could work. Maybe the differing composition of the human body would complicate things or maybe the frequencies involved would be too readily absorbed by other tissues. Just thought I'd ask.
These must be some pretty good scientists, as they were able to get windows to run on a mac (in the background). However, they were only able to get it to run on a PPC mac, and not an Intel Macintosh. So close, but so far.
Sig: I stole this sig.
There are many examples of women in poorer countries who get AIDS because they were raped by men they knew, including husbands, brothers, fathers, etc. It's a sad fact, but these women now not only have to live with having been raped, they also now have to live with AIDS.
I assume it's electron microscopy that was used, but they don't flat out mention it. What is the resolution of the structure? Have HIV or any HIV fragments been crystallized and what is the progress, if any of an x-ray crystallographic structure (and at what resolution)?
Anyone know of a better link?
This raises some issues.
First of all, proteins are notoriously easily taken care of by antibodies. Very small peptides are an exception, since they often are too small for the variable region of antibodies to bind to them strongly enough. The article doesn't mention the molecular weight.
Also, HIV mutates very quickly, especially gp120 which cynovirin is said to bind to in a published article (Vaginal microbicides and teenagers. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 15(5):371-375, October 2003. Rupp, Richard E.; Rosenthal, Susan L.). This protein probably can't bind even 5% of the HIV variants which exist to date and if this is used as a drug in a patient, resistance is a breeze to develop.
But even if this and dozens of other problems were circumvented somehow, it still wouldn't "cure" HIV, only slow down infection a bit. It doesn't work on already infected cells and since it's a protein, you'd need to supply it by IV injection, unlike the existing HAART drugs.
A much better strategy (currently in development) is binding to *human* proteins which are required for viral binding or replication. This would prevent resistance. The mutations in patients with slow or no progression to AIDS might give clues about the proteins we should investigate.
IANABY
This is similar to the "if you don't want to get caught, don't break the law" argument.
People are simply not going to behave the way you (or the establishment) want to. It's like a pro-lifer saying "If people would just stop having babies..."
Pie in the sky. You probably think the war on drugs (and terror) can be won too.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
agreed. tasteless but funny nonetheless.
40+ million deaths from a virus ... no problem.
A few million males with penile problems ... profit!
I hope they find a cure someday.
If only we knew how it spreads...
I think HIV research is detrimental to the people who live godly lives and refrain from sodomy, fornication and indulgence in drugs. They are not threatened by HIV and AIDS, but there are many other illnesses that would benefit from more research to better save the lives of godly people. Researching HIV is wasting money on the perverted!