Slashdot Mirror


Possible Breakthrough for AIDS Cure

kryonD writes "Researchers believe they have found a new compound that could finally kill the HIV/AIDS virus, not just slow it down as current treatments do. While most of the community is still hesitant to comment on this until it passes peer review, initial results show that their method attacks and kills ALL variations of the virus. A fast track through the FDA could have one of the world's leading problems licked in less than a decade."

787 comments

  1. Raised eyebrows by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a history of announcing big breakthroughs in science here in Utah by going to the press before appropriate peer review has taken place (Cold Fusion anyone?). Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this come through, but until it passes the peer review test, as a scientist, I will withhold my enthusiasm.

    In fact, any time I hear something potentially huge being hyped in the mainstream press before I hear about it in scientific journals, my eyebrows tend to rise a bit and I tend to be perhaps even more skeptical.

    "We have some preliminary but very exciting results [but] we would like to formally show this before making any claims that would cause unwanted hype."

    Uh...... yeah. That is why I am reading about it in the Salt Lake Tribune before hearing about it in Science or Nature?

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Raised eyebrows by megla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You pretty much summed up my take on this.
      If it truely does work, then it's a huge discovery - I just hope the "owners" can put aside huge profits for once, and make the drug available for as near cost as practicable.

    2. Re:Raised eyebrows by lebski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah but if I came up with a cure for aids or workable cold fusion I think I might mention it to a few people in the time it took for peer review. So for that reason alone we can't discredit this. However that said; odds on its vapour.

    3. Re:Raised eyebrows by geekoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      " In addition to being a potential checkmate to HIV, the compounds show indications of being just as effective against other diseases plaguing humankind - among them influenza, possibly even the dread bird flu, along with smallpox and herpes. "

      Its a treatment that cures all that ails ya!

      " Further, the compounds appear to have few limits on how they are delivered to patients. Although early indications are for application of CSAs with an ointment or cream, pills or injections may also be developed - if the compound gets to market. "

      you can rub it on or drink it down, it don't matter!

      Yeah, I think I will remain skeptical as well.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd support my government footing the bill for some humanitarian aid with this. If it works, of course. It would be a huge gesture of goodwill in the world today. Bono would be proud.

    5. Re:Raised eyebrows by willutah · · Score: 1

      ...except that this announcement isn't just coming out of Utah. It is a collaboration between Paul Savage at BYU (Provo Utah), Derya Unutmaz at Vanderbilt (Nashville Tenn) and Ceragenix (Denver Co).

    6. Re:Raised eyebrows by grazzy · · Score: 3, Funny

      You just have to believe. The package costs 19,99 and comes with a free toy model of jesus!

    7. Re:Raised eyebrows by students · · Score: 1

      \begin{obvious}

      The Tribune is published every day, and Science and Nature come out once a month. Usually it takes two months for them to publish a story after it breaks. That is why you hear about important "discoveries" in the newspaper first.

      \end{obvious}

    8. Re:Raised eyebrows by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know of several substances that will kill any living organism.

      I'd wager they'd solve the AIDS problem... and most other problems plaguing humankind.

      Botuline, cyanide, ricin...

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    9. Re:Raised eyebrows by judasmachine · · Score: 1

      Put that way it does sound like snake oil doesn't it?

    10. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen it once, I've seen it a thousand times...he says shaking his head and walking away.

      What's that? A psychotic hippie who's incapable of discussing ANY subject without attempting to derail it into an anti-Bush screechfest?

      Yeah, I've seen that thousands of times, too.

      Look: I don't even LIKE Bush, but you need help, son.

    11. Re:Raised eyebrows by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I think this will turn out to be completely worthless.

      It would have been nice to have something that can eliminate the cold sore virus that's currently holed up in my trigeminal nerves, however.

      --

      +++ATH0
    12. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok I won't believe them since Utah is involved. I'll wait until there is a peer review done like the reviews on those South Korean cloning claims.

      but really...

      Why do you let the bias of Cold Fusion color your trust of announcements coming from Utah? As a scientist don't you believe that it takes more than once case to make something a "history"?

    13. Re:Raised eyebrows by susano_otter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If by "owner" you mean the people that invested the money and did the hard work to make it happen, then I hope they can do whatever they please.

      If you care so much about an affordable AIDS medicine, do the work yourself. Or at least offer the people willing to do the work something of equal value in exchange for their efforts.

      Otherwise, you're just as guilty of putting profits ahead of humanitarian aid as those profit-minded researchers you vilify. Unless, of course, your day job already involves doing hard work for free to help the less fortunate, in which case a little self-righteousness is understandable, although still not strictly a good thing.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    14. Re:Raised eyebrows by rmadmin · · Score: 1

      There are few things to consider on price.

      If they can manufacture this fast and cheap, then it should be cheap to the consumer (considering how many people are infected with HIV/AIDS)
      On the other hand, if it is expensive to manufacture and takes a long time, then demand excedes supply and it will be expensive as hell. :(

    15. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      If you're going to troll on bush, you might as well do it right. You know he's going to push the FDA to kill the drug if it works, because if it can cure HIV, there won't be any boogeymen left to scare people into not having sex with each other.

    16. Re:Raised eyebrows by schon · · Score: 4, Funny

      .. molten lava, a blast furnace..

    17. Re:Raised eyebrows by JanneM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If by "owner" you mean the people that invested the money and did the hard work to make it happen, then I hope they can do whatever they please.

      Well, arguably "maybe".

      Take this situation: A person is standing on a river bank, with his new blue suede shoes, say. Suddenly he sees a child drowning some small distance out. It would not be putting himself in any danger to wade out and grab the child. He does not do so, however, arguing that he _is_ free to help people or not, as he pleases. He's not a life guard, and besides, his new shoes would be ruined and who's going to pay for that.

      He may be right - or a court may judge that not helping was an act of negligence resulting in a wroingful death. Two pretty important principles are colliding here.

      And arguably the same situation persists with a medication that can save the life of people. This is pretty much what, for example, the US did with the anthrax scare, when they overrode the ownership claims of anthrax vaccine makers in order to protect the public - and what several poor nations are doing when the allow unlicensed copying of AIDS drugs in the face of an epidemic.

      You might, in other words, get to the situation where, in the interests of public health, they may see legalized copying of their substance in several parts of the world, perhaps with a court-imposed "reasonable" payout that is not at the level they would have wanted.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    18. Re:Raised eyebrows by tsmoke · · Score: 5, Informative

      " Further, the compounds appear to have few limits on how they are delivered to patients. Although early indications are for application of CSAs with an ointment or cream, pills or injections may also be developed - if the compound gets to market. "

      this actually makes perfect sense considering the economics and regulatory hurdles of FDA clinical trials. *

      for a topical NDA (New Drug Application), the costs of a full trial is in the range of 5K-10K per patient. for NDAs that are injected or ingested, the costs are an order of magnitude higher.

      furthermore, clinical trials have four steps. pre-clinical, phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3. at each stage, the chances of the trial failing increases quite significantly, resulting in major financial losses. in other words, if the company spends $300M to bring a drug to phase 3 but fails at that stage, the entire cost is completely sunk.

      for ingested or injected, the risks of failing at a later stage are much higher than topical drugs. in fact, 1 in 5 drugs that reach phase 3 pass.

      considering that the article states that the product is both an anti-viral and anti-fungal agent, there are many applications in the topical space from warts to foot fungus. my guess is that the pharma company will try to quickly bring the drug to market as a topical for these areas due to the above reasons while preparing for clinical trials for HIV/AIDS in parallel.

      *the numbers used here are conjected, but scale is about right.

    19. Re:Raised eyebrows by masdog · · Score: 1

      Isn't this one of the signs of the Apocolypse?

    20. Re:Raised eyebrows by drsmithy · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      You forgot option 3:

      Thanks to the miracle of "Intellectual Property", it could be both fast and cheap to manufacture _and_ demand can exceed artificially restricted supply, making it "expensive as hell" (and highly profitable) !

    21. Re:Raised eyebrows by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Better yet, free condoms.

    22. Re:Raised eyebrows by fireboy1919 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm with you in the skepticism. It's quite likely you're right.

      The thing that nags at my mind is that we have found wonderdrugs in the past.

      Penicillin, which could cure most kinds of bacterial infections, could be taken orally or as a salve, and it just got rid of the bacteria. It really was a wonder drug.

      And cowpox was just perfect. You just inject some, and you become immune to smallpox with basically no ill effects. These things weren't found by years of research; they were stumbled upon, and they just worked. So I'm not conceding the thing as impossible. I'm quite willing to admit that they've got something.

      All they'd have to do to convince me is to inject themselves with a pint or so of HIV infested blood.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    23. Re:Raised eyebrows by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      19.95! It's 19.95 you idiot. Get it right Biff. Jeez, you sound so stupid when you say it wrong.

      Note: mocking the movie Back to the Future II

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    24. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      unlicensed copying of AIDS drugs

      Let the profiteering gluttons overmarket useless shit like viagra, but for the cure for a world epidemic, your belief of licensing such a drug is insane. That's like licensing vitamin c as a cure for scurvy.

    25. Re:Raised eyebrows by Guy+LeDouche · · Score: 5, Funny

      .. nude photos and video of Janet Reno and Madeleine Albright making love to eachother.

    26. Re:Raised eyebrows by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 2, Funny

      And a Book of Mormon.

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    27. Re:Raised eyebrows by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

      Yes. Raised eyebrows is one of the signs of the Apocolypes. (rolls eyes).

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    28. Re:Raised eyebrows by barefootgenius · · Score: 1

      Mercury?

      --
      /. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
    29. Re:Raised eyebrows by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      Me too, but my governments already running on money we borrowed from the Chinese and Japanese. We should consider such things before we spend it all...

    30. Re:Raised eyebrows by Kaemaril · · Score: 1

      There is, of course, ample precedent for such a medicine as the following from the 1960s demonstrates :)

      ### We'll drink a drink a drink
      To Lily the Pink the Pink the Pink
      The saviour of the human race
      For she invented medicinal compound
      Most efficacious in every case. ###

    31. Re:Raised eyebrows by smittyoneeach · · Score: 0
      I strongly disagree with the Offtopic mod.
      Gaming the system, both by

      out-of-band signalling in a newspaper for the breakthrough, instead of a modest publication in a journal and research duplication first and

      having <Teh Man> introduce the scientist to some oil buddies who'd like to hedge their bets in case this whole "hybrid" car thing takes off
      are both aspects of the larger, modern system.
      It is with sincere regret that I point out that the Information Age has done very little to alter the fundamental entropy of the human soul.
      I hope this research pans out, and those suffering from AIDS get some relief. Possibly, the demand could would be so great as to tear down the Great Wall of Patents; think of the ensuing good.
      However, those who've labored and sacrificed to do the research, or run the company that produces/distributes/retails the product, feel a legitimate desire to line their wallets.
      And those for whom power is the ultimate drug have other priorities...

      Is cynicism part of the problem, or mere observation?
      If the world is baked, can the world unbake itself?
      I go to sleep on these questions...

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    32. Re:Raised eyebrows by Triple+Click · · Score: 1

      Hah. I'm a 12HD fire elemental.

    33. Re:Raised eyebrows by delong · · Score: 1

      He may be right - or a court may judge that not helping was an act of negligence resulting in a wroingful death. Two pretty important principles are colliding here

      Well, just as in your example, drug companies (like individuals) do not have a duty of care to the sick or dying. You do not have a duty to save another's life, unless your own acts have imperiled them. No duty, no negligence. Drug companies do not have a duty to provide others with life saving medicine. The drugs produced are the product of private effort. And those who have put forth the effort, and created a valuable property, have a right to ask what they wish for an exchange in value. People do not have the right to demand others relinguish their property. Would you think it fair that a homeless person demands you sell your house to him/her for $1? That's a "fair" price to him/her, after all, and he/she needs it. You're just being greedy by asking your equity in the house to be included in the purchase price.

      You can ask government to subsidy the cost, or ask them to take it by force (subsuming patent rights or whatever). But that's another story, and a route you shouldn't want to tread down, at least not often.

    34. Re:Raised eyebrows by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      I think the AIDS cure scenario is more akin to requiring that a person work as a lifeguard down at the YMCA for minimum wage, on account of they know how to swim.

      With the long-term result of nobody bothering to learn to swim, because hey, why be legally liable for all the lives you could be saving with your swimming skill but aren't because you'd rather be a lawyer instead?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    35. Re:Raised eyebrows by skam240 · · Score: 1

      It's easy to say that coming from what is likely your nice aids free computer chair.

      However, viewing this from the context of the continent of Africa where it is estimated that in some countries 1/3 of the entire population is HIV positive, most of whom I'd venture don't have health insurance, it's a completely different matter. Not only will the hundreds of thousands of people die horrible, horrible deaths without a cure, but such a death toll would ruin the entire continents economy (what little of one it has) ruining the lives of many more.

      Given this context i certainly don't see how some one could begrudge anoter for wishing for anything that could make this drug (if it works) more quickly and readily available to these people, such as the company pricing it cheaper. Further more, attacking the previous posters altruism, or lack there of, seems a bit inappropriate. It's not as if whether he or she volunteering or working for a profit determines how available a drug would be for countless suffering individuals.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    36. Re:Raised eyebrows by j-cloth · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      All scepticism on the discovery aside, are you suggesting that anyone consider not making something like this widely available when the monetary cost would likely be less than 3 days in Iraq?

    37. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, lets say you're a bridge engineer standing by the same river. You could have spent a ton of money on a bridge so that the boy could safely cross the river. But you didn't and the boy drowned. Man, are you ever guilty of murder.

      Or, lets say you built a bridge, and put up a toll booth to help pay for it. Now, that boy couldn't afford to pay the toll, so he tries to swim across the river. He drowns. How dare you put up that toll booth in the first place, you murderer!

    38. Re:Raised eyebrows by bladernr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      but for the cure for a world epidemic, your belief of licensing such a drug is insane.

      I agree, but why stop there? Let's outlaw investment into curing diseases. That prevents all of these investors demanding a Return on Investment. No more conflict. Let's just leave them to making "useless shit like viagra".

      Don't think I'm saying we shouldn't cure disease. We should. Let's just disallow any money to be invested in curing disease, and only allow diseases to be cured for free. Doesn't that solve all of these problems?

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
    39. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I would expect that there are a number of people investing a lot in trying to cure AIDS. Some of them for a profit motive, some for humanitarian reasons, and some for both. If someone motivated by profit finds the cure first, does that mean that millions of people in Africa (who make a small fraction of what the homeless in America make) should keep dieing because they didn't find the cure themselves?

      It's true that the free market has proven the best way to allocate resources, but this may be a case where it is hard to apply. In our society, certainly, we place a very high value on human life. That being the case, if you have the potential to save millions of lives, it should outweigh any other profit motive. How's that for "something of equal value in exchange for their efforts". That doesn't mean that they should not be compensated for their time and effort, above and beyond covering their costs. It simply means that they should look beyond maximum profit and more towards maximum distribution.

      I admit that I don't spend large amounts of time or money on (for lack of a better term) charity work. On quick evaluation I would blame it on being jaded. There are so many ways to contribute that feed a man for a day, or that get sucked into an organization whose values are good but whose execution is poor. If I know I can make some sort of a difference, I can be generous, I just rarely believe that I can.

      In this case, I like to think that if I was the "owner" I would talk to some rich philanthropists or work some very generous licensing agreements with a number of major drug companies to try to get the stuff out at near-cost. If I didn't become a millionaire in the deal, oh well. I'd rather save lives and be poor than let people die becoming rich.

    40. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just post a link to Brokeback to the Future, it's easier.

    41. Re:Raised eyebrows by johncadengo · · Score: 1

      Toy models of Jesus are never free. The Pope has to bless them first, and he, just as anyone else, needs to make a living.

      --
      My page.
    42. Re:Raised eyebrows by ataahdc · · Score: 1

      Very good point. We'll just have to see... and HOPE that this is a breakthrough cure and not just hype.

    43. Re:Raised eyebrows by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      "Its a treatment that cures all that ails ya!"
      Don't think it cures stupidity, and that's a pandemic!

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    44. Re:Raised eyebrows by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yeah but if I came up with a cure for aids or workable cold fusion I think I might mention it to a few people in the time it took for peer review.

      You definitely would NOT mention it to the press if you wanted to get published in a top journal like Nature, Science, or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They have strict restrictions against talking to the press before the work is accepted and published. If you feel like ignoring these restrictions, then these journals can and will yank your paper. See, for instance http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/policy/embarg o.html.

    45. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's always tubgirl...

    46. Re:Raised eyebrows by CFD339 · · Score: 1, Funny

      1. Create a new compound that kills HIV
      2. Test to make sure it ONLY kills HIV, not the people who have it
      3. Leak to press before step two is complete
      4. Profit!

      --
      The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
    47. Re:Raised eyebrows by NewKimAll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No he won't. If he does, only the hard-core "Christans" will support him for doing it. I happen to be a Christian myself, but they didn't teach hatred and intolerance at my church, hence the quotes, but I digress.

      The rest of America will INSIST that he does not block FDA approval. But let's just say he stands his ground and manages to somehow block the FDA from approving such a drug. If it truly works, I'd expect Canada and various countries in Europe to jump on the band wagon. Then the power of the Internet will make it possible to obtain. If he blocks that, they'll smuggle it in just like they do with all the other illegal drugs.

      You can't put the genie back in the bottle, you can only ruin its reputation by making your magic seem better.
      --
      Don't forget kids, they still haven't cured Herpes or Hepatitis or a whole slew of sexual boogeymen that still exist. Oh yeah, don't forget that you'll go blind too. Then there's the "clap" and crabs and.....

    48. Re:Raised eyebrows by Pii · · Score: 5, Funny
      Dude...

      You just blinded my mind's eye...

      --
      For those that would die defending it, Freedom
      has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
    49. Re:Raised eyebrows by Xabraxas · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'd rather save lives and be poor than let people die becoming rich.

      An AC with a soul!? That's rare. I'd have to agree though. Personally I think anyone who would rather get rich from creating an AIDS cure than actually curing as many people possible is morally depraved. The biggest problem with capitalism is that it raises the value of wealth beyond that of humanity. In the end that isn't very good for humanity as a whole, it's only good for a tiny minority.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    50. Re:Raised eyebrows by SirKron · · Score: 1

      ...that high cost is if the drug companies do their first testing in the U.S.

      All they need to do is set up shop in Haiti, there will be plenty of willing participants for their trials.

      Doctor: "I am sorry to tell you this, but you are infected with the HIV virus"
      Patient: "Oh crap, that bitch Juanita is going to pay for that!"
      Doctor: "Well, that aside, do you want to partcipate in a new drug trial that may kill the HIV virus?"
      Patient: "Will it kill me faster than the virus?"
      Doctor: "Probably not"
      Patient: "Hell yeah!"

    51. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to think they say sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds OH WAIT...

    52. Re:Raised eyebrows by susano_otter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My point was that we all have the capability for self-sacrifice in the service of the needy.

      To expect or demand self-sacrifice from others, without demanding the same from yourself, is not altruism. It's the same stupid greed that motivates the profiteer: the desire to serve yourself and let others serve the needy.

      I should expect that the parent poster is giving up a measure of himself equal in proportion to the sacrifice he demands of these researchers, if he is going to make such demands. If he is not working long hours, stretching and stressing his mind and body to the limit, solving problem after problem conducting test after tedious test, all in the service of the poor people of Africa, then he has no call to demand such a sacrifice from anybody else.

      So where's your altruism? Are you posting from a Peace Corps base camp in sub-Saharan Africa? Or are you, like the parent poster, simply doing your day job, paying your taxes, making the occasional charitable contribution, and greedily demanding that some scientist in Utah put in enough hours on altruistic good works to ease your conscience?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    53. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a retard posts on slashdot, does it make a sound?

    54. Re:Raised eyebrows by Neurotoxic666 · · Score: 1
      You definitely would NOT mention it to the press if you wanted to get published in a top journal like Nature, Science, or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

      Maybe with a cure that has such an importance (if it does work), you just don't care being published in a top journal? Or maybe you know they'll be lining up anyway to have more details...

      --
      You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
    55. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's a good idea. Hey, you drug companies, pour billions of dollars into drug research. Of the ones that make it though, don't go off and make a big profit. That's just evil. Even though profit, by definition, means that you are making you fellow man better off than he otherwise would be.

    56. Re:Raised eyebrows by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      Botuline, cyanide, ricin...Zyklon-B...

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    57. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish you guys didn't post that kind of BS. I hoped it was for real and I wouldn't die...

      Stick to computers

    58. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Penicillin was not just 'stumbled upon'. Yes, the original mould was found by chance, but afterwards there was a lot of hard work done by some very intelligent people to get it into a usable form. All that was known originally was that it killed one particular bacterium - absence of side effects, best method of application, universal effectiveness and suchlike were only discovered through proper scientific investigation.

      Even for the Cowpox vaccine, it wasn't completely random - it was as a result of an investigation into dairy workers to discover why smallpox didn't affect them. The discovery was part of a planned research project aimed at exactly that target.

    59. Re:Raised eyebrows by thepotoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      People are already going to make billions on this. There is no need for them to charge $400 a bottle when they could sell it for $40. The extra money would just go to the pockets of the CEO's of the drug companies, with little going to the actual researchers.

      That said, I have my douts as to whether this is real, or just a hype from some psudo-scientests trying to get investors to throw huge piles of money at them.

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    60. Re:Raised eyebrows by CB-in-Tokyo · · Score: 4, Insightful


      I just hope the "owners" can put aside huge profits for once, and make the drug available for as near cost as practicable.

      I feel the need to comment on this last part. You definitely put it politely, so please don't feel this whole rant is directed at you, but I get tired of people who slag the Pharmaceutical industry for making profits. The dollars involved in reasearch and development are huge! On average it takes 1.8 Billion USD to bring an NME (new molecular entity) to market. The successes fund the next breakthroughs, the failures really hurt. If a pharma company is ever at risk of developing a product that could be forced to be sold as "cheaply as possible" that will weigh heavily on their decision to research it. It is business.

      What is better? 20 companies devoting billions of dollars to the creation of a cure in search of profits, or 2 devoting millions in search of altruism? I put my money on the 20 to come up with something faster. For those who feel like giving money away, whether they be companies, or individuals, they are more than welcome to do so when a cure has been discovered.

      Anyone who wants to say "Those big bad pharma companies should make little to no profit on their discoveries." is welcome to do so, but my reply to that is,

      "If you feel so strongly about it, do something yourself. Go out of pocket. Make a sacrifice. Take as much of your disposable income as possible and donate to an organization that will see to it that people get this cure."

      Most people aren't willing to do that. Most people would rather complain about Pharma. Personally, I think if someone comes up with a cure for this, they should get filthy stinking rich from it, or at least, make more than a pro golfer!

      Again, sorry, this wasn't meant to flame you, and as I said, your post was very polite about it, and certain parts of me agree with you, but I would rather see people pulling together and doing something than hiding behind the excuse that Big Pharma should save the world....and cheaply at that.

    61. Re:Raised eyebrows by Eil · · Score: 1

      And cowpox was just perfect. You just inject some, and you become immune to smallpox with basically no ill effects.

      Feh! No ill effects?! Have you ever HAD the smallpox vaccine? Granted, said effects are all temporary except the immunity to smallpox, but what a horrible experience.

      For the first week or so, you're fine. Everything is hunkey-dorey and you start thinking that this vaccination is going to be just peachy-keen.

      Then the pustule forms. (Yes, that's what they call it.) You think, "eww, that looks icky." Starts itching a little too. Which sucks because you have to keep it covered with gauze at all times. Water-proof bandage in the shower. No baths or swimming at all.

      Then the pain starts in your lymph nodes. Don't plan on getting full use of the arm that they poked you on for the next week or two. (Also, for some reason, people tend to punch you in the arm at least daily at this stage, even if they don't know you have the vaccine. It's worth it though, because you get to see the look on their faces when you tell them, "Ouch, you just punched my smallpox pustule.") Itch-level increases by 10.

      Then the worst of it sets in. Mind-splitting, brain-numbing headaches. So bad that you can't sleep or even see straight at times. I'm not even remotely joking when I admit that, at the time, I thought I was going to come out of the ordeal with at least minor brain damage. (Proofed mysef rong!) Itch-level increases by 1000.

      After that's all over with, The Pustule gets larger and after another week or two it finally explodes. Here you have to be EXTREMELY careful, because if any of the gunk gets into an orifice or microscopic scratch on your skin, you get another pustule there and get to relive the fun all over again. Want permanent disfiguration? Just get a tiny bit on your finger by accident and then rub your eyes! Fun for all ages! (Or so I assume.) Itch-level increases by 1,000,000,000.

      Thank goodness El Wife and I don't have any infants or children because I probably would have been afraid to even touch them during the month-long ordeal.

    62. Re:Raised eyebrows by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Yup. Hard to make much out of that article. It states everything has only been done in a test tube so far, then it talks about starting clinical trials soon. Hello? Where's the animal model testing??? I'll need way more details before I get excited over this.

    63. Re:Raised eyebrows by bladernr · · Score: 1
      Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this come through, but until it passes the peer review test, as a scientist, I will withhold my enthusiasm.

      AIDS is the defining afliction of my generation. I am going to allow myself this evening to simply believe we've finally beaten it. What are hopes for if not to get them up?

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
    64. Re:Raised eyebrows by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      I'm a research scientist. You ALWAYS care about getting published in a top journal. ;)

    65. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of hippies... This drug could usher in the decade of 2010 as the *second* decade of love!

    66. Re:Raised eyebrows by Courageous · · Score: 1

      You make this very same decision, every day of your life, in your election to purchase modern first world frivolties instead of sending those critical resources to people literally starving to death in third world nations. How many families in the first world maintain pets? They quite literally care quite a bit more about dogs than they do about humans in other countries. I know this isn't a message that many don't want to hear. But facts are facts, and the behavior of humanity in general is quite inarguably clear in this respect.

      C//

    67. Re:Raised eyebrows by TechForensics · · Score: 1
      Yes, UBIK-brand CSAs will erase all of your temporal and metaphysical ills.

      Do not exceed recommended dosage. Psychotomimetic symptoms less than 8% of populations in controlled trials.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    68. Re:Raised eyebrows by AngelofDeath-02 · · Score: 1

      Wow - all I had was a sore arm.

      --
      No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
    69. Re:Raised eyebrows by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      By the same token, 'profits' could be used towards further research, instead of lining investor's coffers. Perhaps it's time to start a 501.c.3 drug company. I will look into the practicality of such a venture. This sounds like a great idea to me.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    70. Re:Raised eyebrows by quarrelinastraw · · Score: 1

      More people die of curable diseases (malaria, TB, etc) than of AIDS. I know AIDS is chic and all, but if we're talking humanitarian aid to countries that can't afford adequate health care, we don't need to wait for an AIDS cure. The impedement isn't science but politics and economics.

    71. Re:Raised eyebrows by HeliumHigh · · Score: 0

      You must have really bad luck today. One of the maybe three or four mormon members will likely find that comment according to Murphy's law. Wait... I'm LDS.

      So ya.. you suck. Jk :)

      (Don't hate those who do not understand)

    72. Re:Raised eyebrows by quarrelinastraw · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand the goal of science. It's generally done to advance knowledge and better humanity, not make money. You also seem to misunderstand the division of labor. If the people on slashdot could cure AIDS, I'm sure many of them would do it for free. Certainly research must be sustainable, but that doesn't mean it needs to be profit-driven and heartless.

    73. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... yes, you drug companies go pour tons of money into drug advertising and lobbying, and then jump in at the last minute on university research primarily funded by the government and tell everyone... through advertisements... how you spent money on research...

      ya... maybe it's a troll... but I sincerely believe that is what happens. And then knobs like this believe the ads.

    74. Re:Raised eyebrows by werewolf1031 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Check my profile before making any assumption.

      He shouldn't have to. In fact, I'll so far as to say your profile is irrelevant. Everyone's is. Each comment must be judged on its own merits, and its context within the current discussion, regardless of who posted it or their profile or their previous posts in other threads or their journal entries or anything else equally non sequiter.

      Read what I post, son.

      That's exactly what he did, you're only pissed because he didn't like what you posted. And I too happen to agree with the mods on this one.


      Back on topic...

      I don't believe that "a fast track through the FDA" is ever advisable for any new drug meant for human consumption. Just because it has the potential to cure one of the world's modern plagues doesn't make the likelihood of harmful side effects any less probable. In fact, the huge demand for such a drug, and the massive use of it that will surely follow once (if) it passes through the FDA, should make the testing for potential side effects all the more important. I'm guessing more people would be using this drug than anything else the FDA has had to review and approve in quite a long time, if not ever, and I'm sure no one here wants millions of people across the world to suddely drop dead due to unforeseen effects down the road.

    75. Re:Raised eyebrows by AusIV · · Score: 2, Informative
      So you're saying those journals would sooner ignore some of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time, rather than review something because you mentioned it to your local paper first?

      Also, Nature permits formal discussion of these topics at conferences, and the main article mentions this data being discussed at a conference.

    76. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a research scientist. You ALWAYS care about getting published in a top journal. ;)

      Moreso than being a combination of the richest person on earth, and the 'savior' of millions?

      Invent a real cure, and you can just buy every journal in existence.

    77. Re:Raised eyebrows by dumbnerds · · Score: 1

      Here in Utah THEY have a saying, "We can do it cheaper". I first remember Gov. Norm Bangerter (?) saying that in 87? Not too long after I moved here from CA and was looking for work. I now know that going cheap is a mighty MO saying and not in my vocabulary. Yes, everyone should make a reasonable wage, BUT, not all of us should receive a floor moppers wage, STALLIN! I went through my apprenticeship for 5 years, should an apprentice receive the same compensation as me, a 15 year journeyman, and business owner? What would you say to that, LENNIN? I've built clean rooms, do you know what extra it takes to build one? What about all that happens in those rooms? Can you make that happen in your kitchen? The education that one receives, who pays for that, THE PEOPLE? Nothing in life is free. HARD WORK is what life is all about. Paying your debts for goods recieved is what it's about. Being loving, good, fair, and not lazy, is what it's all about to me. I'm a family man who's been married once for 19 years and never divorced, own a business, work physicaly, work mentaly, devote all my time to my wife and kids, pay all the taxes I'm COMPLETLY obligated to, pay others thier fair wage like I would expect, try not to talk bad about others especially when I don't know the facts. Basicaly a good person. I bet you play the lottery and hate all those who've made it through hard work and great money and business management. So to sum this up, before you thump on those with the cure, you typing bully, how about your wisdom. How would you set a price for this. Let me guess, you have a TOO TOO and a WAND!

    78. Re:Raised eyebrows by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      It's not obvious from the article who the "owners" of this actually are... anyone know?

      Anyhow, I think the point was a fair one... if true, the discovery is a major one, whoever it is will be making a lot of money off of it... but one would hope they would be nice enough to maybe make a little less profit instead of, say, letting the 4 million poorest people with aids die so they can make an extra 15-20% on what's already going to be an enormous fortune.

      In fact though, your suggestion that we "do the work ourselves" brings up one of the major problems with the way the modern IP system is set up... once these people, whoever they are, apply for and recieve a patent, we couldn't "do the work ourselves" if we want to, we're strictly prohibited from replicating this compound... at least until the patent runs out and then the generic version can come out. But if they chose to gouge people (which is legally their right) how many hundreds of thousands will already be dead by the time they can buy it?

    79. Re:Raised eyebrows by l3prador · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Too bad politicians can score big points on the cheap with their constituents by speaking out in favor of importing drugs from other countries where the cost is cheaper. Pharma could donate the drugs to developing nations that can't afford the drugs anyway as long as it knows it can still sell them at the high price here in the States where we can afford it and in other developed nations to make back their R+D money.

      But so long as everyone keeps whining about how little prescription drugs cost in other countries, selling drugs at discounted prices and/or giving them away in other countries ruins Pharma's chance to develop new drugs.

      I know, I know, people can't live without their home theater systems and fancy cars...

    80. Re:Raised eyebrows by ipfwadm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even for the Cowpox vaccine, it wasn't completely random - it was as a result of an investigation into dairy workers to discover why smallpox didn't affect them. The discovery was part of a planned research project aimed at exactly that target.

      This seems to carry with it the implication that the discovery of the smallpox vaccine was the result of a carefully-crafted study undertaken by a major pharmaceutical corporation. Keep in mind that the smallpox vaccine was discovered more than two hundred years ago by a lone guy who took a huge risk by infecting a boy with cowpox and then deliberately trying to infect him with smallpox. If the theory wasn't correct, well... oops! Vaccination was not exactly old hat at the time, either. The smallpox vaccine was the first vaccine, and the word "vaccine" itself is derived from - you guessed it - the latin word for cow, which is "vacca".

      If you didn't mean to imply this, then I apologize.

    81. Re:Raised eyebrows by iwein · · Score: 1

      From your source:

      "We reserve the right to halt the consideration or publication of a paper if this condition is broken"

      I have the feeling Nature will choose not to use mentioned reserved right in case of a cure for AIDS.

      --
      Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
    82. Re:Raised eyebrows by CB-in-Tokyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I won't say that greed doesn't play a part, of course it does, just the scale is different. Greed plays a part in all business, in Pharma, the stakes are higher. In a Non profit model, the executives of successful ventures will still earn millions. They have to, or else you will end up in a position where the talent stays in the most profitable sectors.

      Now, it could be possible to find a balance of both, but it wouldn't be easy. Startup funding would also be a challenge. Who is going to put up millions of dollars, unless it is being managed by proven executives.

      Challenges can be overcome, but this would take big bucks to get off the ground.

      CB

    83. Re:Raised eyebrows by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most people - and even companies have their priorities straight though.

      Drug companies spend more on marketing than they do on research and development - I think that sums up in a nutshell whats wrong here.

    84. Re:Raised eyebrows by CB-in-Tokyo · · Score: 1

      I won't disagree with that point. But that brings us to a whole separate set of issues.

      Leave pharma aside for a moment. Generally in any industry, huge amounts are spent on marketing. Why is so much spent on marketing? Because marketing is effective? Why is marketing so effective? Because people generally don't think. We are hypnotized, sleeping, whatever you want to call it. Marketers know our inner drives better than most of us know ourselves.

      Now, back to Pharma. Your typical marketing strategies won't work here. There are very very strict rules to play by. Much of a marketing budget is organizing events in order to get your message across to Dr's. Why this product is better etc. etc. You can have the greatest medicine in the world, and if you don't market it you won't get it out there. If you don't get it out there, your 1 in 10 chance of success is wasted.

      I am not saying that it is all a bed of roses, but it is business, and it is how business works. People do not go into business to fail and go banrupt. Ethics are important, and everyone I have met in industry is very concerned with ethics. Ethics and profit, however, are not mutually exclusive. Pharma is a juicy target because it hits us all close to home, but concerning contributions to society, it is no worse a business than any other, and a hell of a lot better than most.

      Cheers,

      CB

    85. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not saying that it is all a bed of roses, but it is business, and it is how business works. People do not go into business to fail and go banrupt. Ethics are important, and everyone I have met in industry is very concerned with ethics. Ethics and profit, however, are not mutually exclusive.

      Please, stop your pharma propaganda. They only care of the status of their bank account, whatever can happen (Vioxx, ...).

    86. Re:Raised eyebrows by AthroughZ · · Score: 1

      Cures are the Pharma industries WORST NIGHTMARE. Cures knock the customer out of the market.

    87. Re:Raised eyebrows by Ya+Bolshoi! · · Score: 1
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds

      I wouldn't be so hard on yourself.

    88. Re:Raised eyebrows by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      Then again if we are talking a verfied cure for AIDS, cure for cancer, or sustainable cold fusion I bet those places would kinda over look that you blabbed. The presteige of running the scientific article that verfied it would be enormous, none of them would give up the next few decades of being the article most cited and credited with being the publication that ran the first real proof. However, the reasearchers would most likely pay for it with less than a find of a century papers they submit, but then with enough fame they may not also.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    89. Re:Raised eyebrows by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Sure, because who give a shit about herpes and syphillis as long as it's not AIDS?

      People fuck constantly, in every decade. If you're not doing as much as you'd like, do more. Wear a rubber.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    90. Re:Raised eyebrows by AoT · · Score: 1

      If you read the article there is a chance that ths could cure herpes or hep as well.

    91. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dollars involved in reasearch and development are huge! On average it takes 1.8 Billion USD to bring an NME (new molecular entity) to market. The successes fund the next breakthroughs, the failures really hurt. If a pharma company is ever at risk of developing a product that could be forced to be sold as "cheaply as possible" that will weigh heavily on their decision to research it. It is business.

      And what "breakthroughs" would those be? Drugs to help old white men get it up and shameless patent extensions for existing drugs, is what. You're right that it's big business, and big business is about maximum profit. And nowhere is it written that maximum profits are achieved by actually doing your best to produce drugs that help people.

    92. Re:Raised eyebrows by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Massively exaggerated there, the risk of transmitting the pustule to some other part of your skin is overstated. Mostly that's to scare people into believing it's true, decreasing the risk even further, but there's no need to keep you illusioned about it now that you've already been vaccinated.

      The Lymph node swelling and pain isn't all that bad, sure it hurts like a bitch, but it didn't interrupt my daily life. Same with the itching, keep yourself busy and you don't even notice it.

      Three weeks of mild discomfort, then you're immune to smallpox for the next 5-10 years. It's a pretty good tradeoff I'd say.

    93. Re:Raised eyebrows by Martz · · Score: 1

      As difficult as it is to bring to market a new drug, the thing that worries me about the review is that it may be failed for the wrong reasons. The treatment of HIV/AIDS is perfect for the Pharma companies, since the suffering (at least in the West) depend on lots and lots of drugs on a daily basis to give them a slightly better quality of life.

      Why would they want to solve the HIV/AIDS problem - since as other posters have mentioned their main concern is making money. It's not a wise business decision to actually solve the problem.

      From my pesimistic viewpoint, I'd guess that this is one problem which will not get resolved since saving lives and curing people isn't as profitable as selling them 20+ other drugs to take on a daily basis. Very sad :(

    94. Re:Raised eyebrows by CB-in-Tokyo · · Score: 1


      And what "breakthroughs" would those be? Drugs to help old white men get it up and shameless patent extensions for existing drugs, is what. You're right that it's big business, and big business is about maximum profit. And nowhere is it written that maximum profits are achieved by actually doing your best to produce drugs that help people.

      Ahh a cowardly troll, let see how well you dance.

      I don't know what the next breakthroughs will be. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the next big ones will be related to Viruses, Genetics, and Cancer. More specifically...hmmm perhaps understanding how to use viruses to target specific gene sequences, and of course curing cancer. If, off course, big pharma can manage to give you a hard-on along the way, what's the harm? Of course a proper diet, exercise, and a calmer mind would help more than drugs...but who wants to be responsible these days?

      You are right that Big Business is about maximum profit. It is the era we are in. Everyone is incredibly selfish, and unwilling to take responsibility. That is why we get a bunch of angry people blaming everything on everyone but themselves. This is reflected in the levels of greed apparant today in business. The maximize profit mode will shift back to a more customer, enviornment, people focused model with time, but changes like that do not come about over night. Google is Big business, and if they can keep on their track, and still be strong, they will be an example. Gates is also giving back which is nice to see. You can fight and kick and scream against the era in which you live and accomplish very little, or you can accept it, understand it, surf it and affect change. If you are really good, you can triumph over large parts of it an implement change. Or, if you prefer, you can sit back and enjoy the ride.

      CB

    95. Re:Raised eyebrows by fferreres · · Score: 1

      In drugs there are no competitors to a patented drug, it's a monopoly by law. So no, it's not altruism vs capitalism as you put it. Their is a price that maximizes revenue, that may not be ideal.

      I don't have the solution, but a good way would be to change depending on income: if you are rich, you pay much more. If you are poor, you pay a bit more than the cost (or more if manuf. cost is very low). The problem to solve is how to limit frauds to minimun ...

      Now, if you believe that leting poor people (relative term, you and I may be TOO POOR for this cure should you ever get HIVS) die, because rich people will not like paying more (absolute) ... well, I just don't agree. The end result is even better for labs, because they get to harvest the entire demand curve (ie: more profits). I don't think it is legal in general, though different countries have different price policies depending on "average" income....sometimes...

      Software companies are doing something similar, limit some very basic stuff, and make SOHO versions of everything, but make sure large companies still pay huge amounts of money. It's not easy, but works for them (for example, making changes depend on number of processors, number of users, trasactions, intent - students vs commercial -, bundling with appliances of different capacities, etc, etc, etc.

      There are other solutions, like making it so that "earnings" or profits of a single year (say year 2), indicate a "ramsom price" (for example 5x or 10x that earnings) where if anyone can raise that much money, could clear the patent (public domain). That may cap the earnings or maybe increase the earnings. The ramsom price could be investigated.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    96. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Just read the book "The $800 million Pill" by Merrill Goozner. And I have to say that the figure of $2.2 bn you quoted above doesn't jibe with research in that book at all.

      Their high-end quote that industry uses is $800 million on average to develop a new drug (hence the name of the book). As I recall, this figure was from a drug-industry sponsored study from Tufts university, and included spiraling costs of clinical trials that somehow seem to cost private industry 10x more to do than government facilities. Maybe the fact that the trials are often expanded for the sole purpose of getting more doctors to use their product has something to do with that.

      The low-end quote from Public Citizen/Congress Watch was $170 million per new approved drug. Let's say we settle in the middle at $500 million or so - still far off from $2.2 billion.

      As far as pharm companies being business, I totally agree. From a business standpoint, would you rather have a steady income of $6.5 billion per year, or would you rather spend $500 million in R&D and make $10 billion for two years, then see sharply declining sales? Not much of a choice, is it?

      Tie that into the fact that $6.5 billion is how much pharm companies make on non-curative HIV medication right now, and $10 billion is a rough estimate for sales (at still ongodly prices of $20k per year per patient) of an AIDS cure. Now you see why pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to actually cure diseases, they'd rather just make medicine that the ailing public has to take for the rest of their lives. After reading that book, this is one area where I think the government actually needs to get more involved.

      Why this product is better etc. etc. You can have the greatest medicine in the world, and if you don't market it you won't get it out there. If you don't get it out there, your 1 in 10 chance of success is wasted.


      Or, you could spend inordinate amounts on marketing to press the public into asking doctors for the 'new and improved' medicines that aren't any better than older generic medicines. This is tied to the patent process - once the patent expires, generic manufactures sell the medicine at 1/10 the cost it used to be. The answer? Come out with a new medicine, and push it on the public whether or not it actually provides any benefits over the old version. Then switch your old medicine to be over the counter to stiff the generic manufacturers. Now I know why claritin is OTC, and why I pay 1/10 the cost of it for the generic equivalent at CostCo.

      Non-affiliated link to book:
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520239458/103-89 64582-1100639?v=glance&n=283155
    97. Re:Raised eyebrows by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1
      There is a fast track process through the FDA, and I believe this drug would be on it. As far as I've understood, any drug that does not yet have a "equivalent" on the market is automatically on it. Ie, Viagra was on the fast track, Cialis was not. Actually, that may be wrong - the requirements for the was relaxed sometime in the 90s. Before that, there was a requirement for something like "increased survival".

      Eivind.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    98. Re:Raised eyebrows by mr_walrus · · Score: 1

      >How many families in the first world maintain pets?
      >They quite literally care quite a bit more about dogs than they do
      >about humans in other countries.

      probably because dogs wont bite you.

    99. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For real. Just be incredibly selfish and irresponsible, you might actually /enjoy/ it.

    100. Re:Raised eyebrows by jbash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think pharmaceutical companies make obscene profits, you should buy stock in them.

    101. Re:Raised eyebrows by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1
      Does your 1.8BN include marketing costs? It reminds me of the number including marketing.

      My view is that the pharma companies should make a reasonable return on investment, assuming reasonable processes. At the moment, I'm very sceptical of whether the pharma companies are doing reasonable processes. There's three parts I'm sceptical of:

      • The patent laws in place seems to have raised the initial costs too far. Change of effective "ground rules" include the patentizing of research that was intially funded by the public, and (if I've understood correctly) patenting of some of the intermediate processes.
      • The companies seems to be run incompetently, due to lack of competition. Massive internal bueraucracy.
      • As far as I've understood, most of the funding goes to marketing. Significantly more than goes to research. There's traditionally been a LOT of semi-bribing of MDs to get them to use specific medications. This has been more restricted lately, yet I assume the same money is now used to market in some other way.
      • There seems to be wasteful "faking" of research. It seems the pharma industry is doing a lot of "semi-faked" research, controlling what factors they can to get as good results for their drug as they can. This include changing pre-filtering of the human subjects used in studies, manipulating the timeframe of the studies to get the data that's optimal for their drug compared to the competitors, cancelling the funding for or not publishing studies that give "bad" results, etc.
      Note that these are my impressions. For the research part, they're based on discussion with several people that have carefully studied the research done. For the rest, they're based on popular publication in the area, including previous Slashdot discussions and links posted in them. I have not checked this carefully against primary sources - so take with a grain of salt.

      Eivind.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    102. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yours is a foolish and naive viewpoint which utterly fails to account for competition.

      Say Pharma company A has developed some nice profitable drugs for treating but not curing HIV. They are raking in the big bucks on their patented medicine.

      Pharma company B sees this and asks itself "How can I get a slice of that pie?" The obvious answer is to develop a better product.

      What's the ultimate better product? A CURE.

      Will it help B make money? Yes. Even cures continue to be used for years and years; it takes considerable time to wipe a disease off the face of the earth. (It is a very rare thing to find a 100% effective cure for any disease, and getting the drug to everybody who has the disease is a very difficult problem.) Furthermore, people are willing to pay far more money per pill for a short course of a drug which cures their disease than for one which must be used the rest of their lives. B will find a price point which lets them make a profit taking into account their development costs, and they _will_ get customers.

    103. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the marketing may work, but overall it creates an empty industry of middlemen...

      firm A. markets product A. at a marketing cost of $1,000.
      firm B. markets product B. which is not a differentiated product, for $1,000.

      firm A' markets marketing A' for $1,000.
      firm A'' markets marketing A'' which is not a differentiated marketing for $1,000.

      firm B'.....

      companies started marketing because it gave them an edge. competitors followed suit.

      we live in a world where the better marketing is elected president.

      we live in a world where the better marketer gets the job, even if they dropped out of college and want to force NASA to refer to the big bang as a theory.

      Selah.

    104. Re:Raised eyebrows by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Where I work it's closer to $5-10B US, and about a decade post-patent. That's about 10 years of patent cover to make back $5-10B, just to break even. It's a hit-driven industry, videogames or film.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    105. Re:Raised eyebrows by ksheff · · Score: 1

      since when are Christians supposed to tolerate sin?

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    106. Re:Raised eyebrows by wzzzzrd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No he won't. If he does, only the hard-core "Christans" will support him for doing it.

      last i looked, mr. bush seemed a pretty hardcore christian to me.

      The rest of America will INSIST that he does not block FDA approval.

      like "the rest of america" did insist in the recent past, yeah. the times that "the rest of america" will insist on anything is pretty much over.

      if the world did work the way you described, then answer me some simple questions: why do people still die from hunger while people donate enough money to stop that? why is it prohibited to sell generica (clones of medicaments) for 10 years after the original came out? why does your church (you said you were a christian) prohibit the use of condoms? what do people earn that pick the coffee beans you consume at starbucks? don't get me wrong, but the world is a bad place when it comes to religion and money.

      --
      On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
    107. Re:Raised eyebrows by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Urk, I mean "It's a hit-driven industry like movies or videogames". It's surprising that any product likely to gross less than $5B makes it through the pipeline.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    108. Re:Raised eyebrows by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1
      True, but knowing a drug is available to save your life but the funding isn't there to pay for it must be worse than just dying in ignorance. Many cancer drugs fall into this category - there's a current UK case where a woman needs Herceptin but the local health authority (where I live, incidentally) won't pay for it.

      I don't know what the solution is, but basically people will die because they/their countries are poor, bot because science can't cure them.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    109. Re:Raised eyebrows by ynohoo · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall something about the Pharasees criticising Jesus for hanging out with sinners. And another lesson about turning the other cheek.

      Of course this seems lost on most people who describe themselves as fundamentalist "Christians".

    110. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to say, I find your opinion repugnant. As someone who HAS the disease, and most likely WILL be dying of the disease, your belief that big pharma deserves to price their products out of the reach of the people who actually need them the most to 'make more than a pro golfer' shows a lack of understanding for the magnitude of the issue. People are DYING here. Millons of people ARE going to die.

      As for your comment about going out of pocket, my yearly drug costs are already $20,000 a year, largely paid by me, to these same pharma companies for drugs that have recouped all costs, many, many, many times over. For those of you with student loans, trying paying them off, every single year, year after year, just to stay alive and see if maybe you have a different view on the pharma companies responsibilities to make products available for a fair price that actually helps the people they claim to be trying to serve. The people with the disease!!

      If you were on this side of the fence, I am pretty sure you would not hold the opinions that you currently do on the subject. Think about that.

      I think a quote by Hunter S Thonpson (modified by me) sums this up best.

      "The pharmaceutical business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side. "

      Hunter S. Thompson, US journalist (1939 - 2005)

    111. Re:Raised eyebrows by Martz · · Score: 1

      Of course Company B will want to take a slice of the pie by providing the cure, but if like any other industry - they will try and protect their own profit stream by lobbying for the cure to be denied as it is unsafe. My point was that, Company A do not really want there to be a cure for HIV/AIDS - and I bet they'd do everything they could to protect their revenue.

      I'm applying the same mentality that all businesses must adopt - they are there to maximise shareholder value and company profits, not to save the world with a wonder cure. If company B can bring to market a drug which cures, then great! But competitors will surely make it as hard as possible to do that.

    112. Re:Raised eyebrows by plj · · Score: 1

      free toy model of jesus!

      I thougt they've now all been replaced by images of prophet Mohammed?

      *ducks*

      --
      “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
    113. Re:Raised eyebrows by xtracto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just to extend your point a bit. I hope someone can get this quote source as I do not have it but, I remember Bill Gates said something which I found really important in an interview related to his malaria fight fund donations.

      The quote was something like "Unfortunately, it is not possible, with human viruses, to give money to a group of people and tell them, go ahead, make a cure for Malaria. It just does not works like that".

      With this what I want to show is that, this pharmaceutical companies cant do the same as say, Intel, that just throw some money to the PentiumV chip and say to the team "go ahead, make a 8 GHZ chip".

      The process of finding medicine *really* useful against viruses is ten (if nota hundred) times more difficult. And besides that, after they've got the medicine they *must* pass the FDA regulations. To what does Intel needs to comply? some quite trivial FCC regulations.

      So, yes, I defend the pharmaceutical companies. I agree that they seem to do something really antiethic, to profit by selling things that save lifes. But, in our current economy there is no other way it can be done. What some governments do (I can ONLY speak for the Mexico government) is subsidise (spell?) the medicines with the Social Security System. You have to see how cheap are the medicines in Mexico when you have IMSS, not even that, the service you can get for free (I was in the hospital for 3 months when I was a kid).

      I think that is the best way to do it, but of course, we can blame our governments for removing our Social Security services :)

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    114. Re:Raised eyebrows by nyri · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that "a fast track through the FDA" is ever advisable for any new drug meant for human consumption. Just because it has the potential to cure one of the world's modern plagues doesn't make the likelihood of harmful side effects any less probable. In fact, the huge demand for such a drug, and the massive use of it that will surely follow once (if) it passes through the FDA, should make the testing for potential side effects all the more important.

      Potential harm from a drug is just a risk. If the reward is higher (curing AIDS compared to providing huge boner) the tolerable risk is also higer. This speaks for fast track.

    115. Re:Raised eyebrows by nyri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree, but why stop there? Let's outlaw investment into curing diseases. That prevents all of these investors demanding a Return on Investment. No more conflict. Let's just leave them to making "useless shit like viagra".

      Don't think I'm saying we shouldn't cure disease. We should. Let's just disallow any money to be invested in curing disease, and only allow diseases to be cured for free. Doesn't that solve all of these problems?


      Don't be a fool. Cutting down private funding doesn't meen that there won't be any funding. Just nationalize all drug companies (or buy them, if you will) and let them continue their work (fully funded from public purse) with new priorities so that all results fall to public domain.

    116. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, by the cold light of day, I'll go "pompus ass". Dunno about "retard", though.

    117. Re:Raised eyebrows by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      Take this situation: A person is standing on a river bank, with his new blue suede shoes, say. Suddenly he sees a child drowning some small distance out. ... ----- I would say that "mr presley" needs to 1 remove said BSS 2 remove his socks 3 roll up his pants 4 GRAB THE KID 5 write the next song and call 911

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    118. Re:Raised eyebrows by Kombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd rather save lives and be poor than let people die becoming rich.

      Is that so? I hope you practice what you preach. "Rich" is quite subjective. A programmer making $35k/year in the US is "rich" by Bangalore standards. Should that programmer volunteer to send his job overseas, so that 2 or 3 Indians can be employed for the same money, thus allowing them to support their families while the US programmer is "poor"?

      Can I assume that you survive by eating the bare minimum of what you need to sustain you, while donating all the rest of your food to the local food bank? Can I assume that the few clothes you own are ragged and torn, since you would never indulge in something as frivolous and selfish as buying new clothes, when your old ones keep you warm enough? Can I assume you share a leaky, moldy basement apartment with 4 other martyrs, and you send all your spare cash to feeding the hungry in Africa?

      Get off your horse, you self-righteous hypocrite. If you live in the west, then you are already very "rich" by world standards. The very fact that you're using a computer right now demonstrates that you are in the wealthiest 10% of the entire planet. Why did you take the time to write that post, when you could have been down at the local soup kitchen helping feed the homeless, or at the library reading to/educating blind children?

      It's easy to talk big when you're still living off mommy and daddy's handouts, and you don't have to put your money where your mouth is. Even easier, when you hide that same mouth, Mr. "Anonymous Coward."

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    119. Re:Raised eyebrows by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Government workers don't have the same motivation (often because they have lower results requirements and lower pay) as do private industry workers.

      If you nationalize all the drug companies, we're all still going to be paying for them, but what we get back won't ammount to a whole lot.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    120. Re:Raised eyebrows by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      When you think about it, there have been very few instances in which we've truly cured a disease. We may have wiped the spread of certain diseases off the planet with vaccination but anything else is just a temporary patch.

      This would represent one of the first drugs to actually cure not just one disease, but some of the biggest problems facing man.

      That at comes from BYU means I take it with a grain of salt. But imagine the second Sexual Revolution that would result if this drug were to become a reality. That alone is enough for the neo-cons to kill the drug before it sees the light of day.

    121. Re:Raised eyebrows by AndersOSU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't remember the exact numbers, but astra zenica's research budget was something like $2 billion, and their advertising budget something like $2.3 billion two years ago...

      Makes me scratch my head. You know if I developed a drug that cured some disease, I think the only people I'd have to tell about it are the MDs, AND I could do that through a scientific journal and roll that cost into the R&D program.

    122. Re:Raised eyebrows by jwd-oh · · Score: 1

      "Drug companies spend more on marketing than they do on research and development"

      Where on earth did you get this information? Have you studied the annual reports of all of the pharma companies? Making gross generalities like this without attribution is a waste of time.

    123. Re:Raised eyebrows by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      In general I agree with you, but you should recognize that this drug was developed in acadamia, almost certainly with tax payer dollars. BYU has patented the drug and is licensing it to big pharma.

    124. Re:Raised eyebrows by koreaman · · Score: 1

      Since when is the big bang not a theory.

      It is, and so is evolution, and so is the idea that gravity exists. What is your point?

    125. Re:Raised eyebrows by koreaman · · Score: 1

      This is a tired argument that's been gone over many, many times on /. in the past.

      My solution is a socialist one. Have governments fund drug research 100%, and make the drugs available for free. Raise taxes if you must. This solves all the problems.

    126. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fast Track process throgh the FDA does not mean any less testing for the drug- it simply means the FDA will review that data at a higher priority.

    127. Re:Raised eyebrows by bogado · · Score: 1

      Not counting the marketing division, that some people say get a larger share of money then the research.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    128. Re:Raised eyebrows by TallMatthew · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't believe that "a fast track through the FDA" is ever advisable for any new drug meant for human consumption.

      The term "fast track" suggests that thoroughness is compromised for sake of expediency. That's not the case. It's more like putting certain drugs at the top of the review list, prioritizing based on the lethalness of the disease in question. This doesn't even come into play until Phase 3 of human trials. I'm currently waiting on a Hep C drug that has shown a lot of promise and am very pleased that the FDA has decided to fast track it, as my liver will eventually fail and I will eventually die.

      As for this drug, they're about a million miles away. These results were produced in test tubes. I can kill HIV in a test tube with a cup of bleach. They haven't even started animal trials yet, let alone human. This kind of reporting is terribly irresponsible.

    129. Re:Raised eyebrows by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Hunger, deprivation, and other horrors of the third world aren't the fault of those who don't give, contrary to the commercials you see on tv. Its the fault of those who stop the aid from getting to the areas of need, and the fault of those who claim that we shouldn't use force to protect the aid.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    130. Re:Raised eyebrows by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      The figures you cite are all far out of date. Joe DiMasi's studies from Tufts that came up with the $800M number go back quite a few years. For a variety of reasons, costs of R&D for NMEs have risen far, far faster than inflation. Please see more recent DiMasi research, as well as his peers from Tufts, and other NBER backed researchers - the $1.8M figure is much closer to most modern estimates, not based on data from the early 1980s.

      Joe DiMasi is very well known in the field of health care economics. I have not heard anybody cast aspersions on him or his work as you are - not everybody agrees with his numbers, but you are suggesting he's being paid off by big pharma to inflate numbers. I would encourage you to post a reference to a real critique of his research if you're going to make claims like that rather than just make an ad hominem attack.

    131. Re:Raised eyebrows by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I know this isn't a message that many don't want to hear.

      Waking up this morning I was thinking exactly that: today I don't not want to not hear a non-message about Seinfeld.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    132. Re:Raised eyebrows by NewKimAll · · Score: 1

      Yeah, unfortunately I have to agree that "the rest of America" is pretty much dead. I feel dumb for even suggesting it. If I had to guess at the reason why, I'd say it's because of the #1 deadly sin, Greed. You could argue that greed has always been with us, it just seems worse in today's world than ever.
      --
      Sometimes, I pause to consider just how great life would be if we could all agree to stop our greed.

    133. Re:Raised eyebrows by molarmass192 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wish I had mod points, you're one of the few who gets "it". In-vitero results mean very little. In-vivo results, that's a whole other ball of wax. Even, getting these CSA compounds into the body and having them target the virus without wreaking havoc on the patient is only half of the battle. One of HIVs nastiest tricks is that it can go into a latent state where the immune system's ability to bind to the virus is disrupted. Unless CSAs can go beyond mimicing the immune response and actually interfere with HIVs HDAC response, the virus will never be fully eliminated from the patient, and as such there will be no cure..

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    134. Re:Raised eyebrows by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Let the profiteering gluttons overmarket useless shit like viagra

      Apart from the obvious fact that Viagra actually dramatically improves the quality of life for tens of millions of men (if you think impotence isn't a serious problem then imagine for a moment that you could never have sex at all and never really have a proper relationship with a woman as a result), Viagra was actually an "accidental discovery" while trying to find heart disease medication. The R&D money poured into it wasn't intended for "useless shit". Viagra was just a totally free 'bonus', they spent virtually zero R&D money on it specifically.

    135. Re:Raised eyebrows by birge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given that dying tends to be a side-effect of AIDS, what drug effects would one really be worried about? I never understood this whole neurotic mentality of overtesting drugs. The testing is often wrong (Vioxx?) and even when it works it probably kills far more people than it saves. The libertarian in me hates to see government regulation kill people, and the liberal in me hates to see people die for no reason and the conservative in me hates to see our economy hurt by having drug costs artificially inflated by beaurocrats.

    136. Re:Raised eyebrows by AppyPappy · · Score: 1

      I hope they can apply this to other viruses as well. Viruses like influenza have the potential to kill a lot more people than AIDS.

      --

      If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

    137. Re:Raised eyebrows by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      >>"We have some preliminary but very exciting results [but] we would like to formally show this
      >> before making any claims that would cause unwanted hype."

      >Uh...... yeah. That is why I am reading about it in the Salt Lake Tribune before hearing about
      >it in Science or Nature?

      Wife: So honey, what did you do at work today?
      Husband: Oh, I finished up a report on a new cure for AIDS we sent it out for peer review - if we didn't miss something obvious, it'll be in Junes edition of Virology today.
      ...
      Wife at bingo: Yes, Bob says they made a cure for AIDS.
      Reporter at Bob's office next day: So is it true you have discovered a cure for AIDS?
      ....
      June Issue of Virology Today: Utah scientist AIDS breakthrough verified.

      The reason you see things in the paper is that they DON'T do peer review. They take information they are told and if it's not too tin-hatish, they print it.
      Journals tend to run 3-6 months behind because they CHECK this information.

    138. Re:Raised eyebrows by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Two great options are to repeal patent laws, which I've been advocating for awhile now, or to (mis)use the power of eminent domain to "steal" this "intellectual property" for the "public good." I don't support eminent domain existing at all, but as long as we've got the big stick it seems like we might as well continue to thrash with it whenever we think we've got a shot at doing something good, and curing AIDS seems like a pretty good thing.

    139. Re:Raised eyebrows by seec77 · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you.
      Paul D. Savage of Brigham Young University - everyone, remember this name as the name of the person who saved millions! Now that this has been posted on /. we can get to the actual saving of people.

      I hate to be so hyped, but I just couldn't stop myself! This is just excellent news. Probably the most significant thing I've read on /. in the last few months (not to diss all the other articles, but sometimes these things are more important that geek news). I really hope that this doesn't come out as a hoax, but then again, who in this world can pull out such a prank?

      But now that I think about it, if AIDS is to be easily cured (hypothetically), will promiscious sex become a more normal thing? Will protection be a mere thing of the past? The HIV epidemic has forced millions to think once more before performing intercourse, and now will sex still be so frowned upon?

    140. Re:Raised eyebrows by Xenna · · Score: 1

      I hope that whoever invented this cure (if it's as good as they say it is) becomes filthy rich on the profits. People who invent cures for diseases like this should be rewarded like rock stars, or lottery winners.

      Anything to give others the best incentive to find similar cures for cancer, malaria and whatever's still out there lurking.

      X.

    141. Re:Raised eyebrows by stevev007 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ...when the monetary cost would likely be less than 3 days in Iraq?

      Can't we just put aside the Iraqi war for once and talk about something else? This article has nothing to do with Iraq or G.W. Bush. Please take the time to read and respond to the article and leave off-topic comments like these to where they are actually on topic.

    142. Re:Raised eyebrows by j-cloth · · Score: 0

      It's absolutely on topic. The grandparent made a point about prioritizing budgets. I made no judgement on the war except that it is more expensive than curing diseases.

    143. Re:Raised eyebrows by Furry+Ice · · Score: 1

      I think you may not have understood the "attack" on DiMasi's numbers. Trials for pharma companies DO cost 10 times more than government run trials. However, it's not because DiMasi is being unscrupulous, but because pharma sees it as a form of direct marketing, and thus run a larger trial than necessary to get the drug exposure to doctors and patients.

    144. Re:Raised eyebrows by EntropyEngine · · Score: 1

      New method of finding all odd socks!

      As you can imagine, as a headline, that's going to create enough hype without people having to read the rest of the article.

      Whether any of it would be true is different thing entirely.

      I for one would like some hope with the hype...

    145. Re:Raised eyebrows by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Good to hear that you know so much about what the costs are to develop, manufacture and distribute such a drug.

    146. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Drug companies spend more on marketing than they do on research and development"

      Please stop spreading lies on /.

    147. Re:Raised eyebrows by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      "Tolerate sin"? Hmm... Sort of. They're supposed to realize and acknowledge that we're all sinners (you know, "Let those who have not sinned cast the first stone").

    148. Re:Raised eyebrows by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Ahh, you sound poor. Let other people pay for things. You should receive benefits for free.

      Just who would be responsible for setting prices based on your net worth and why would they care? So how about having the government give the meds away for free in exchange for higher taxation? Other countries think that's a good way to go.

    149. Re:Raised eyebrows by Pixie_From_Hell · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You know he's going to push the FDA to kill the drug if it works, because if it can cure HIV, there won't be any boogeymen left to scare people into not having sex with each other.

      No he won't. If he does, only the hard-core "Christans" will support him for doing it.

      You just haven't been paying attention, have you?

      Right now, there is a debate going on about the availability (and FDA approval) of an HPV vaccine. It is almost 100% effective at stopping a virus that can cause cervical cancer in women. What's the problem? The "Christians" (to use your quotes) are concerned that this will promote teen sex.

      Use google, read all about it, and then get back to us. I don't hear the "Rest of America" yelling and screaming about this one. (Maybe they're all still in a tizzy about those homosexuals wanting to get married.[/sarcasm])

    150. Re:Raised eyebrows by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
      " Further, the compounds appear to have few limits on how they are delivered to patients. Although early indications are for application of CSAs with an ointment or cream, pills or injections may also be developed - if the compound gets to market. "

      this actually makes perfect sense considering the economics and regulatory hurdles of FDA clinical trials. *

      for a topical NDA (New Drug Application), the costs of a full trial is in the range of 5K-10K per patient. for NDAs that are injected or ingested, the costs are an order of magnitude higher.

      Sounds like they ought to investigate smoking as the delivery system. Imagine how profitable cigarettes that cure AIDs, smallpox, and drug-resistant TB would be....

      "Winston cures good, like a cigarette should."

      If it works on lung cancer, I'd say it's a no-brainer!

    151. Re:Raised eyebrows by John+Little+John · · Score: 1, Troll

      There are a slew of programs that the government could divert money from to pay for this. You chose to bring up the Iraq war. There is a segment of the population who will use any topic to bring up the Iraq war/how Dubya was deputized by Satan himself. Just look at all the ridiculous comments about the war/Bush brought up in the context of the Coretta Scott King funeral. The comment on bringing the Iraq war into this discussion is completely on point. The point is that the Iraq war speaks to more issues and is a much more explosive topic than your simple comment on its costs, and because everyone has strong feelings on the Iraq war one way or another, you are implicitly diverting the focus from the article. I mean, it is obvious. The first response to your comment was not about the costs, but about the fact you brought the war up.

      --
      The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to cross. Thus the wise say the path to salvation is hard...
    152. Re:Raised eyebrows by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      I don't agree. The parent poster didn't argue that drug companies are entitled to obscene riches or that they should price the drug out of reach of those who need it. He simply argued that profits are needed and justified. Considering the number of users, a dollar per inventor per patient would likely meet the "pro golfer" requirement. I totally agree that any scientist who contributes so greatly to mankind should be entitled to a reward at least as great as a Tiger Woods appearance fee or Lebron James's rookie signing bonus.

      Looking at it from another perspective, anyone who pays $20K a year for meds now may be upset at having to pay $20K for a cure but he's sure as hell going to pay it. That alone doesn't make it right to charge that much, but there's no reason such a drug couldn't be priced to be a win for everyone involved.

    153. Re:Raised eyebrows by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 1

      oh you guys worry too much. AIDS is dead. Anonymous gay sex, here I come!

    154. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check the article again: The UNIVERSITY'S, most likely GRAD STUDENTS, did the R&D. The only money spent by the Pharma industry is in how to take the molecules worked out by the University's, often using PUBLIC FUNDS, and mass producing them.

      While mass producing a molecule may be an interesting exercise in scaling issues, the pharma industry doesn't do anything of consequence on the R&D side, they just pay some university a few million for grad student slave labor and then turn around and make BILLIONS off the work.

      The "R&D" of the pharma industry is for scaling problems, NOT initial discovery. The heavy lifting of discovery is done at Universitys, usually PUBLICALLY FUNDED RESEARCH, by grad students slaving away on their thesis.

    155. Re:Raised eyebrows by j-cloth · · Score: 1

      And what do you know of the subject?
      A quick look at the Annual Report of GlaxoSmithKline (Cenerex is a division of) shows a total R&D budget for the entire organization of 2.8 billion. Current estimates are $1 billion per week in Iraq. So yeah I think my original estimation seems close (perhaps even an underestimate given that most of the research was done at BYU, not in the Cenerex labs)

    156. Re:Raised eyebrows by CreatureComfort · · Score: 4, Informative


      The one big reason I support AIDS research is precisely because it is a "fashionable" disease. We finally have a virus that the general public, political figures, and media/publicity types will support spending massive amounts of time and money researching a cure for. Every single breakthrough or discovery in researching AIDS helps the research on all of the ther viral diseases out there, that no one has spent much money or time on.

      Cancer research has made huge advances in the last 50 years. Bacterial disease prevention and cure is at an amazing level compared to 50 years ago. Genetic disorders, heart disease, allergic reactions, etc. have all had large advances in their areas. The success of these has been due in large part to one or both of two factors. Either some celebrity gets the disease, or supports research into curing it (Jerry Lewis telethon, etc.) or the barriers to research are low, with significant gains acheivable by just finding improved ways of doing what is already being done.

      Viral infections, however, are notoriously intractable to anything we try. Until AIDS came along we had very little understanding of how virii operated and what their lifecycle consisted of. Up until AIDS, very few virii were widespread-debilitating-and most importantly-lethal. It is hard to generate the kind of support for research needed to attack the problem with poster diseases like Herpes, Influenza, Chicken Pox, and the Measles. Especially since we have been somewhat successful with the strategy of developing an inoculation then letting all the non-inoculated die off. Worked with Small Pox, almost finished with Polio, if we can get the Africans to stop killing the doctors providing inoculation.

      If we can actually figure out how to cure someone from any single virus, the door opens to treatments for the last great frontier of immunological pathology. If it takes jumping on a bandwagon to support battling an entirely preventable disease killing a fashionable (but minor in number to the sufferers of other diseases) portion of society, I'll be right there leading the band and beating the big drum.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    157. Re:Raised eyebrows by gribbly · · Score: 1

      To what does Intel needs to comply? some quite trivial FCC regulations.

      The laws of physics

      grib

      --
      maybe
    158. Re:Raised eyebrows by spammacus · · Score: 1

      I agree. AIDS is a big killer in Africa, no doubt. However it only last year overtook Malaria as the number one killer on the continent. Malaria has been absent from the developed nations for decades. We know how to deal with it, but we don't have the will.

      More generally, even if this cure works, I don't think AIDS will be eradicated anytime soon. Rather, it will be eradicated in the rich world and left to linger in Africa and South Asia. Just like malaria. And tuberculosis. And typhoid. And polio. And ...

      If history can teach us anything its that a cure is one thing. Concrete action is a whole 'nother can of worms. Especially when there is no incentive for the "curers" to give a real shit about anyone else.

    159. Re:Raised eyebrows by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that "a fast track through the FDA" is ever advisable for any new drug meant for human consumption.

      I respectfully disagree. I think FDA should allow a terminally-ill patient to volunteer to participate in an advance human trial, given that some VERY BASIC toxicity tests have been performed (by which I mean that it won't outright kill humans at the lowest intended dose). This may help the individual, but will definitely help the research into the drug for everyone else.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    160. Re:Raised eyebrows by tfried · · Score: 1

      What is better? 20 companies devoting billions of dollars to the creation of a cure in search of profits, or 2 devoting millions in search of altruism? I put my money on the 20 to come up with something faster. For those who feel like giving money away, whether they be companies, or individuals, they are more than welcome to do so when a cure has been discovered.

      Of course your point is valid. Yet, the problem behind it is valid as well: Yes, there are uneccessary deaths due to pharma-companies need to sell medication way above production cost.

      So, while saying "the pharma shouldn't be allowed to make profit" obviously isn't a solution, the dilemma does not go away just like that. Maybe what is really needed for global epidemic diseases like AIDS is to look beyond purely business "the market will make it happen" solutions. Maybe the problem should really be attacked on a global scale, such as e.g. the UN offering a (large) "bounty" to whoever is first to develop an effictive medication, but at the same time preventing such a medication to be patent protected. This would still be offering a capitalist incentive to do research, but place control where it really belongs: Mankind as a whole.

      And no, I'm not saying such a system could realistically be implemented any time soon. Maybe (or rather very probably so) it's a way to naive approach to a complex problem, too. But then, let's discuss alternative solutions in earnest, rather than just assuming, the world we live in was the best ever possible.

    161. Re:Raised eyebrows by elbenito69 · · Score: 1

      You just blinded my mind's eye...

      That's just a defense mechanism. The mental damage that would be caused had your mind's eye not gone blind would be devastating.

    162. Re:Raised eyebrows by sarlos · · Score: 1

      So how do you propose to pay to continue researching? If you sell every drug 'at cost,' where are you getting the resources to expand? How will you fund more scientists so more advancements can be made? How will you remain in business so you have the basic capacity to keep producing? It is very easy to take a 'moral high ground' stance when reality is ignored.

      The reason executives at drug companies get paid big bucks is simple. If the drug company did *not* pay big bucks, those executives would move elsewhere. Believe it or not, people in corporate offices actually do work. They are not paid large sums of money simply because they look good in a suit.

      --
      Government's view of the economy: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving,regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
    163. Re:Raised eyebrows by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      I just hope the "owners" can put aside huge profits for once, and make the drug available for as near cost as practicable. ... considering the stock tripled yesterday, I have my doubts. That's got to be one of the cheapest stock boosts in history.

      1. Leak a rumor to the press to start the 48h clock on insider trading
      2. triple the value of your stock options.
      3. Profit.

      The beauty is there's no '???' in this equation.

    164. Re:Raised eyebrows by Mutatis+Mutandis · · Score: 1

      That is true; the marketing budget is about twice as high as the R&D budget.

      However, there is a very simple reason for this: The marketing pays itself back. As I have heard one CEO of a pharma company put it, the marking people ultimately bring in more than they spend, and they do so even if there are more marketeers than patients in a doctor's waiting room.

      Whereas R&D returns on a new project are typically ten or more years away, and often very uncertain: The vast majority of all R&D projects fails to produce results. Only a tiny minority produces a very profitable "blockbuster" drug.

      So it makes business sense, unfortunately, to spend a lot of money on marketing to maximize profit from the limited number of profitable drugs that a company has, in the limited time before the patent rights expire.

    165. Re:Raised eyebrows by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No one was asking for these scientists to give the drug away or even sell it at cost. The parent to your first post stated: "as near cost as practicable". What this is suggesting is that drug companies often place steep mark ups to rapidly regain research loses. Given the wide need for a drug like this in third world countries the original poster was expressing his or hers desire that the drug companies place a more modest markup on the drug should it prove to be successfull. As for myself, since you seem keen on the personal attacks (I don't see how your questioning the individual has been constructive so far), but I am a full time student which takes up about 35 hours a week, I work 15-20 hours to pay what bills I can while I go to school and a volunteer at a local non profit 10-20 hours a week (depending on school workload) which specilizes in educating future city leaders on local issues to help incourage community involvement. I do what I can with the time I have available now and when I am through getting my degree I can use part of my higher earning potential to donate larger sums to the unfortunate.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    166. Re:Raised eyebrows by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Too bad politicians can score big points on the cheap with their constituents by speaking out in favor of importing drugs from other countries where the cost is cheaper.

      Except the reason the prices are lower in other countries is because of governmental regulation. Canada, for instance, won't let pharmaceutical companies sell drugs for more than a set amount. Which means prices go up in the States to compensate.

      Canada's not the only country that does this. Europe is even worse, especially considering the size of the markets involved. Canada is about 1/5th the size of the US, while Europe is half again as large (population-wise). Maybe the real solution is to enforce huge tariffs on outgoing medical products, and use that money to defray the costs of drug care for elderly and poor Americans. If those governments want to meddle in the market, maybe ours should, too.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    167. Re:Raised eyebrows by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Much of a marketing budget is organizing events in order to get your message across to Dr's."

      You must not watch much TV. The growth in direct advertising to consumers of prescription drugs is phenomenal. I would be overjoyed if drug companies did focus all their marketing resources on doctors, but in recent years they simply don't. Drug companies increasingly are providing consumers with howto guides on what to tell their doctor in order to acquire the drug they want to sell. Marketing of psychiatric drugs are especially bad, especially when targeted at problem children. You have a problem child, we have the fix for you, put them on an expensive psychiatric drug regimen for the rest of their childhood, some of which were known to have safety issues when given to children.

      If you want to defend drug companies you should also not forget the half dozen or more drugs that were massively marketed to consumers, though they were known to have serious dangerous side effects, like Vioxx. They were pushed through the FDA due to an excessively cozy releationship between the drug companies and the FDA, where the FDA was more focused on insuring drug company profitability than on public safety.

      The for profit drug industry has produced some great advancements, but lets not pretend the obsessive profit motive in drug development is really a good thing. It leads to:

      - Focus on drugs with the best profit potential over drugs that would offer the most benefit. Viagra is going to get a lot more focus than vaccine development for example. Vaccine's are very poor on the profit front which is why we often have problems producing them. Viagra and Lipitor are a gift that keep on giving since once people start taking them they usually don't stop so they are a solid revenue stream for drug companies.

      - When a drug company has a multibillion dollar investment in a drug they have a really strong incentive to conceal hazards or efficacy problems in the drug, in order to avoid a multibillion dollar writeoff

      - The financial stakes in the drug industry has led to corruption of our government. The so called Medicare drug benefit was little more than a scam cooked up by drug companies in cahoots with corrupt congressman to transfer large sums of money from our tax dollars in to their pockets and the program they created is pathetic in nearly every respect.

      - The drug obsession in the U.S. is causing serious financial issues because we are spending increasingly staggering sums on them.

      Bottomline since so much of the basic research in drugs is government funded, I'd really almost prefer that all drug development was publicly funded. It would insure development is focused on need and not profitability. It would put greater focus on safety and discourage bringing questionable drugs to market just because they would be profitable. It would lead to drugs that are sold at reasonable prices that people could afford. The economic benefit of that alone would justify the tax dollars we invest in such a program.

      --
      @de_machina
    168. Re:Raised eyebrows by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      "Now, back to Pharma. Your typical marketing strategies won't work here."

      Which is EXACTLY why direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs by pharmaceutical companies is a BAD BAD BAD thing. The industry wastes massive amounts of money (I suspect equal to or greater than their R&D budgets) to partially inform people about products those people can't even access without their physicians' prescription.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    169. Re:Raised eyebrows by christoofar · · Score: 1

      What cure for AIDS?

      Until rounds of human trails even begins, it is no cure. It's still a hypothesis. I can kill HIV just by pouring it in Clorox.

    170. Re:Raised eyebrows by corbettw · · Score: 1

      All you have to do to get past all that is do about forty or fifty pushups when you first get the injection, then be sure to exercise your arm every morning to work out the kinks. The pox likes to fester in the muscles, but if you get enough blood flowing through you're fine.

      At least, that worked for me.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    171. Re:Raised eyebrows by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      imagine for a moment that you could never have sex at all and never really have a proper relationship with a woman

      You do realise that this is Slashdot, don't you?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    172. Re:Raised eyebrows by eltirado · · Score: 1

      How about we "open source" research like this?

    173. Re:Raised eyebrows by stolaf · · Score: 1

      While I would love to live in your world where people's and companies priorities are right, I don't believe that either you or I live in that world.

      The university department where I work now probably spends more money on administration than on teaching and research. Think of how much time and effort politicians spend on getting elected and how little it seems they spend on getting their promises turned into law. Also, I know how much time I wasted in college playing games and goofing off instead of studying.

      These are not all evil -- without the administrative structure universities would collapse into a chaotic mess. Without spending millions of dollars on elections, politicians wouldn't be able to attempt to promote their (sometimes) good ideas. Finally, without goofing off, I honestly don't think I would have made it through college.

      Pharmaceutical companies are in business. If they have to spend millions on advertising to make money to spend on research, I'm fine with that (to a point). As long as the companies don't lie, cheat, or steal, they should be allowed to do what every other company, group, and person does.

    174. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh sorry, I couldn't let "the extra money would just go to the pockets of the CEO's of the drug companies, with little going to the actual researchers" go by, that was just too fucking stupid.

      This isn't about some insignificant shit like the researchers "getting what they deserve", it's about where the funding for the research comes from. The company funds the money, the profits go the company; that's the only way the system can work unless drug funding is entirely publicly funded.

    175. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Most people - and even companies have their priorities straight though.

      >Drug companies spend more on marketing than they do on research and >development - I think that sums up in a nutshell whats wrong here.

      Ah, actually I don't think so. Your remark is a pretty common one when discussing Pharma, but it indicates a lack of understanding of why companies spend money on marketing. It sure isn't an act of altruism towards advertising agencies - it's because Pharma believes each dollar of marketing will stimulate demand and generate more than one dollar in revenue. So if you eliminate marketing spending, you will actually end up with less money to spend on research.

    176. Re:Raised eyebrows by jafac · · Score: 1

      Actually, if 6 million AIDS-infected people suddenly dropped dead from using an untested treatment, it would still put a HUGE dent in the infection rate and spread of the disease, so it wouldn't be all bad. I'd say that as long as the dose of the untested drug came with a waiver; "I understand that this drug is untested, and could kill me dead, or make me a vegetable, and I indemnify the drug company and accept all risk upon myself" - and if that waiver were respected (this is critical!) then I don't see why HIV+ people should not have the choice to make themselves a guinea pig. I know I would.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    177. Re:Raised eyebrows by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The drug obsession in the U.S. is causing serious financial issues because we are spending increasingly staggering sums on them

      Then its about time the U.S. had some sort of 'war on drugs' then, isn't it.

      Oh... wait

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    178. Re:Raised eyebrows by jafac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This kind of reporting is terribly irresponsible.

      Actually, it may be that this "reporting" is simply just a PR campaign to bolster public pressure to either get this particular drug "fast-tracked" or to undermine the FDA altogether, in order to help the beleagured, almost bankrupt, struggling for every penny of income drug companies. (My first thought was that it's just a pump-and-dump for the company's stock, but after thinking about it, it could a bigger fish they're trying to fry).

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    179. Re:Raised eyebrows by jafac · · Score: 1

      You definitely would NOT mention it to the press if you wanted to get published in a top journal like Nature,

      Yeah, just ask Watson and Crick.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    180. Re:Raised eyebrows by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      OK, but where did the researchers get their funding? I have given and raised money for AIDS research over the years, plus the NIH & WHO have given a lot of money to fund research. I think if you are taking public money to fund research and find a cure, then I think it is OK to make a profit, but not to gouge.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    181. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're gayer than AIDS

    182. Re:Raised eyebrows by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of comments in this thread believe there is a choice between either curing people or making a profit. I think that is a false choice. The fact is that many drug companies charge a price for drugs based on what people can pay. The price they charge in the US is different than the price in India which is different than the price in Africa. It is not immoral for the drug company to charge US customers a price they can afford and then give the same drug to desperately poor people in Africa. Nor is it wrong for the government (either US or UN) to pay for the drug to be given to people who cannot afford it while those who can must pay for the drug.

      There are a large number of programs that help people who are in need and can't pay for medication. Some programs charge on a sliding scale so that people who can pay something, but not the full price can still get the drugs they need.

      If this thing turns out to be a CURE for AIDS, I believe that the number of people who are allowed to die from AIDS unnecessarily because of their personal economic situation to be quite small. It probably won't be zero because there are always "cracks in the system", but I am also quite sure that the government and drug companies will try hard to come up with programs to assist people in those situations AND still compensate the people who created the drug (and their shareholders.)

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    183. Re:Raised eyebrows by Rimbo · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with everything other than capitalism is that, without the promise of reward for the effort and ludicrous expense required to find a cure to a deadly disease, you never get the cure in the first place.

    184. Re:Raised eyebrows by RobinH · · Score: 1

      There is no need for them to charge $400 a bottle when they could sell it for $40.

      Yes, there is a need. The more money the final cure actually makes, the more people will want to invest their money into research to cure other diseases. As it stands, it's very risky to try and develop new medicines. It's a lot of money with little chance of return. We have to make that actual return very high to compensate for the small chance, or fewer people will invest in drug research.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    185. Re:Raised eyebrows by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good idea to me...

    186. Re:Raised eyebrows by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm thinking...the day they cured AIDS...so much for monogamous (sp?) relationships, we're all free to fuck again. Hehe...if you can't get laid they day they cure aids......

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    187. Re:Raised eyebrows by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      yeah, those damned conservatives and their drug killing sprees. Why, just 100 years ago they killed penisillin because it cured certain venereal diseases.

    188. Re:Raised eyebrows by Rei · · Score: 1

      and never really have a proper relationship with a woman as a result

      So, in your situation, am I losing just my fingers, or my entire hands? It makes a big difference for the mental image.

      --
      It's time for Operation Crazy Plan.
    189. Re:Raised eyebrows by AngryUndead · · Score: 1

      Why would backers invest at all without a profit. Without a profit you couldn't convince stockholders to either come on board or stay there. No investors means no funds, no funds means no research, no research means no new drugs. If I dropped a cool million of my own money to invest in a project and at the end they said "we didn't want to make a profit, so we sold at cost" and handed me my million back I'd be damn pissed off. I would have lost money thanks to the magic of inflation.

      Keep the stock holders happy, they keep investing, research goes on, and new drugs can be made. Fail a link in that chain and there won't even be drugs for you twats to argue over.

    190. Re:Raised eyebrows by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand the goal of science.

      "Sciene" is an abstract concept for a particular field of human endeavor. It has no inherent purpose. Whatever goals we associate with science, they are the goals of the individual humans who embark on scientific endeavors.

      It's generally done to advance knowledge and better humanity, not make money.

      There are all sorts of reasons a person might do science: curiosity, parental insistence, humanitarian ideals, greed, etc. Whatever the motivations of the BYU researchers, my point is that they should be free to do science for whatever reason they like, and they should also be free to enjoy the results of their work in whatever way they like. If they like big mansions and fancy cars, they should be free to work for those things and enjoy those things. If they like helping the poor and sick of the world, they should be free to work for that, and enjoy that. I don't think you can take away the one freedom without taking away the other as well.

      If the people on slashdot could cure AIDS, I'm sure many of them would do it for free.

      And I'm sure just as many of them would do it for profit, or not at all. Not only that, but I'm sure that many of the participants in this thread have the capability to do a lot more for this cause, from volunteering their time in Peace Corps projects in developing countries, to volunteering their technical skills in support of the research lab computing infrastructures that greatly enhance AIDS research. So when they argue that the BYU researchers have an obligation to be altruistic in their motives, I argue that it's hypocritical to demand sacrifices from others that you would not make yourself.

      Certainly research must be sustainable, but that doesn't mean it needs to be profit-driven and heartless.

      Certainly, your own life must be sustainable, but that doesn't mean it needs to be profit-driven and heartless. So tell me, how long have you been working part time for minimum wage, and donating all your excess wealth and free time to the local orphanage?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    191. Re:Raised eyebrows by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      The smallpox vaccine was the first vaccine, and the word "vaccine" itself is derived from - you guessed it - the latin word for cow, which is "vacca".

      I didn't guess it, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    192. Re:Raised eyebrows by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      I admit, IP law is grotesque.

      That doesn't change the fact that somebody else cared more about completing the work and securing the patent than you did.

      Sure, the patent system now gives them an unholy lock on the technology--the same unholy lock you yourself could've gotten, if you'd cared more--if you cared as much as you wish they cared.

      Which reminds me: how many patents on novel new medicines does UNICEF hold? In fact, when was the last time a committed humanitarian individual or agency actually cared enough about helping people to beat the greedheads to the punch?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    193. Re:Raised eyebrows by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Cures are the humanitarian industry's MOST CHERISHED DREAM.

      Which is why the humanitarian individuals and agencies are constantly researching, developing, patenting, and freely licensing lifesaving new cures...

      Oh, wait.

      I guess nobody cares about cures. So why single out big pharma?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    194. Re:Raised eyebrows by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      It's different when you're dealing with a medicine that has competitors, especially if one of those competitors works better than yours does. Have you noticed how every syndrome has like nine drugs now? In many of those cases there are ups and downs to each, or they're all neck and neck.

      In other situations, one's clearly better than the others. That's when the marketing wars begin.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    195. Re:Raised eyebrows by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as "gouging". There is only how much you want to benefit from my hard work, and how badly I want to benefit from my hard work.

      That said, if there's government money invested in a project, then sure, the government and the people it represents should see a return on that investment. Proportional to the amount of the total cost of the project covered by that investment, of course.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    196. Re:Raised eyebrows by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Look it up. There have been pleanty of news stories on it.

      It still hasn't affected all branches of the pharma industry though, mostly those selling life-style drugs. The last time I read it, it was attributed to the pharma industry in the US in general and feared as a trend that might spread to Europe if more adverticing for drugs were allowed.

    197. Re:Raised eyebrows by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      For the individual company you might end up with less revenue to spend on research. For the industry in general you would end up with more. Marketing is directed towards the markets where the competition is toughest. In order words where other similar products are already available.

    198. Re:Raised eyebrows by stupidkiwi · · Score: 1

      Your post doesn't stand on its merits. By the sound of your arrogance, and the way it was modded up, your one skill in life is brown nosing. Be proud, your skill will help to change the world for the better.

      I'm guessing more people would be using this drug than anything else the FDA has had to review and approve in quite a long time, if not ever, and I'm sure no one here wants millions of people across the world to suddely drop dead due to unforeseen effects down the road.

      You obviously don't understand how the world works. Not in the slightest. The FDA does not make any decisions at all for the world governments on safety of drugs. Some governments use an FDA decision as a guide, but often decide to use a drug or not before the American FDA makes any decision. So until you get some experience under your belt use this "oldie but goodie"... People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

    199. Re:Raised eyebrows by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Doing the work and securing the patent are two seperate actions... the one is a valuable contribution to mankind in general, the other is making sure the government will help you keep this development from benefiting the bulk of mankind for an arbitrarily set period of years.

      UNICEF, for what it's worth, is not a research institution, and interestingly enough doesn't really have anything to do with health either. Why they should be expected to have patents on medicines is beyond me, but perhaps you'll enlighten us.

    200. Re:Raised eyebrows by Magius_AR · · Score: 1
      I feel the need to comment on this last part. You definitely put it politely, so please don't feel this whole rant is directed at you, but I get tired of people who slag the Pharmaceutical industry for making profits. The dollars involved in reasearch and development are huge!

      But taken to the logical conclusion, human greeds drives health care towards max dollars, not max success.
      For instance, why invent a cure when you can instead invent a dozen symptom treatments? A cure may make profit in the short term, but in the long run you're eliminating your profit-maker. But if you make a bunch of drugs that help people cope with the symptoms of a widespread epidemic, now you're talking profit.

      Similar arguments can be made in other fields, such as computers, where giant monopolies like Microsoft stymie true innovation for all they're worth to protect their profits. Or the Bells or the oil companies are the same way. Capitalism is as much as bane as it is a boon. It may promote competition and achievement, but it also brings out the worst in people. When only dollars matter, people suffer.

    201. Re:Raised eyebrows by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Haw! Clearly, UNICEF was the wrong acronym to pull out of my ass in this context.

      Maybe you could tell me more about humanitarian aid agencies that do use the patent system to gain control of life-saving, better tomorrow-building new medicines, for the good of all mankind.

      Assuming there are any, of course.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    202. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you use the script kiddy plural of virus "virii" which is a word in neither English nor Latin, it's evident you can't speak intelligently on the issue.

    203. Re:Raised eyebrows by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that "a fast track through the FDA" is ever advisable for any new drug meant for human consumption. Just because it has the potential to cure one of the world's modern plagues doesn't make the likelihood of harmful side effects any less probable.

      Suppose you're dying of AIDS. Suppose there is a drug that might cure you, but it is completely untested with humans so there might be side effects, potentially fatal ones. Your choices are therefore a certain death from AIDS, or a possible death from side effects of untested drug. Which one is good for you ? And which one is good for getting the medicine tested faster ?

      It is permissible to use common sense even in drug testing. A medicine that has a 50% chance of simply killing its user is not appropriate for treating common cold; but as a last-resort AIDS medicine, when the choices are get medicine or die...

      I'm guessing more people would be using this drug than anything else the FDA has had to review and approve in quite a long time, if not ever, and I'm sure no one here wants millions of people across the world to suddely drop dead due to unforeseen effects down the road.

      Well, as I see it, they will drop dead anyway if they don't get effective medication soon.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    204. Re:Raised eyebrows by CB-in-Tokyo · · Score: 1

      "You must not watch much TV. The growth in direct advertising to consumers of prescription drugs is phenomenal. I would be overjoyed if drug companies did focus all their marketing resources on doctors, but in recent years they simply don't. Drug companies increasingly are providing consumers with howto guides on what to tell their doctor in order to acquire the drug they want to sell. Marketing of psychiatric drugs are especially bad, especially when targeted at problem children. You have a problem child, we have the fix for you, put them on an expensive psychiatric drug regimen for the rest of their childhood, some of which were known to have safety issues when given to children."

      You are right, I don't watch much TV, but the more critical factor here is that I work in Asia, where direct to consumer marketing of ethical drugs is forbidden. My mistake! I think direct to comsumer marketing is not in the best interest of the consumers, however, I also think the consumers are partly to blame as well. No one wants to take responsibility for their lives and everyone wants the quick fix.

      I think a purely publically funded system wouldn't work unless it was done in conjunction with business as usual. Profits motivate. Being exessively greedy, in any industry, is not a good thing and leads to the valid points you have mentioned above. But having mix of private and public research is much stronger, from a discovery perspective, than either private or public alone.

      Cheers,

      Steve

    205. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: The name of the company is Ceregenix, not Cenerex as you have erroneously posted. Ceregenix has no ties to GSKline. Much smaller, based in Denver.

    206. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know that Ceragenix would aptly qualify as "Big Pharma." It's a small-time player (as of this moment) in the pharmaceutical world. I think the confusion may have come from the fact that higher up someone mixed up the company with a division of GlaxoSmithKline called Cenerex or something.

      Also, BYU is a private institution, so your assumption that this research was funded by the taxpayers' money is probably off, too.

      Finally, the news story made it pretty clear that Vanderbilt University researchers were the ones who used the BYU-created CSAs to kill HIV cells. Damn people, let's try to keep all of this straight.

    207. Re:Raised eyebrows by poopdeville · · Score: 1
      Who says you need investors? A 501(c)(3) can take out loans or bonds and take in tax-deductible donations. They could also apply for government funding, just like the big pharma companies do. A 501(c)(3) wouldn't even have to sell the drugs at cost, as long as they re-invest their revenue in itself.

      It looks to me like you just said the first thing that came to mind after skipping a few comments.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    208. Re:Raised eyebrows by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      I still get the sense that you're not hearing the part about the patent system being a bad thing. Asking who is using the patent system to save lives is like asking who is using the sedition laws in Australia to protect free speech. They're not only not designed for that purpose, they're designed for a specifically contradictory purpose.

      If on the other hand you were shooting for a non-profit that's developing life saving medicines... the first one that springs to mind is the Institute for OneWorld Health. I'm sure it's far from the only one, but it's the biggest one I'm presently aware of.

    209. Re:Raised eyebrows by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      The pharmaceutical companies would counter that people won't visit the doctor, especially those people who have already seen one, unless they're aware of new treatments. Advertising is a service which benefits both patients and drug companies. Granted the benefits may not be equitable when competition can't or won't affect prices, but advertising in and of itself is not a "Bad Thing."

    210. Re:Raised eyebrows by CB-in-Tokyo · · Score: 1

      I have to say, I find your opinion repugnant. As someone who HAS the disease, and most likely WILL be dying of the disease, your belief that big pharma deserves to price their products out of the reach of the people who actually need them the most to 'make more than a pro golfer' shows a lack of understanding for the magnitude of the issue. People are DYING here. Millons of people ARE going to die.

      First of all, I am sorry to that you are one of the people who has this terrible disease. There are many people dying from it and many other conditions. In a perfect world, these would all be curable and we wouldn't have these issues. I would like to restate a couple of things because I don't think you quite read it properly. First, I never said that they should price it out of reach. Second I said that who ever does find a cure should certainly be rewarded for that. I compared it to a pro golfer because I certainly believe that finding the cure for aids is of significantly higher value to society than knocking a ball into a hole, albeit very skillfully.

      As for your comment about going out of pocket, my yearly drug costs are already $20,000 a year, largely paid by me, to these same pharma companies for drugs that have recouped all costs, many, many, many times over.

      My point about going out of pocket was for people who don't have the disease, yet are hiding behind the argument that the Pharma companies should make their products available cheaply. I think that people who feel that strongly should put their money where there mouth is to help people like you who have these huge expenses.

      Now, if it wasn't for the innovations in medicine, you wouldn't even have the option of medicine. You would likely already be dead. Harsh, yes. Reality, yes. Greed drives the business, true enough, but because of this greed there are products available that can help. Hopefully because of this greed, there will be products available that will cure this, or vaccinate against it. If the price is too high to get to the people who need it, then the product will not sell.

      Are there problems in the industry. Certainly. I would love to see every product available to everyone who needs it. I would also love to be in a world where we all just get along and everybody is happy, but that is not the world we live in, and it won't be in our lifetimes. For now it is what we have. Kill the motivation, and you will kill the innovation. In my opionion the absolute worst part of Greed would be if companies intentionally did not find cures in order to keep people paying all the time for treaments.
      That would be inexcusable.

      I hope that innovations move forward, and that everyone suffering from this disease are fortunate enough to have a cure available.

    211. Re:Raised eyebrows by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Except that's making a few assumptions that aren't necessarily true:

      1. Putting the money toward more research would result in better/faster/more effective treatments. Money can limit research, but it does not, in and of itself, make good research.

      2. a) Advertising costs less than research.

      and/or b) Advertising serves no purpose, or a less worthy purpose than research.

      While I agree that the money spent on advertising appears excessive, the figure is meaningless unless we know the costs of advertising. If it turned out half their research budget was spent on electricity, the possibilities are either that energy costs are high, or that they're being wasteful. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle; they could probably spend less on advertising, but advertising ain't cheap either.

      And advertising does benefit a segment of the population. For example, if someone's been to the doctor for ailment X, but there was no current treatment available other than asprin, the patient is unlikely to seek further medical care unless they are aware of a new treatment. The idea that medical professionals are the only people who need to be aware of new treatments is shortsighted.

    212. Re:Raised eyebrows by CB-in-Tokyo · · Score: 1

      Totally appreciate the way you think. Everything you said is valid. So you mean it? Want to change the world? We could join forces.

      I think we are in a new age, and still playing by the old age rules. Rules that are no longer necessary or valid. This is a transitional period, and an age that will have a large place in the history books of tomorrow. We will never live to see the results, but we are certainly in a position to affect change...just no one really wants to.

      I am glib, but I am also serious...

      Cheers,

      SGCB
      Seriously Glib CB

    213. Re:Raised eyebrows by phiber9 · · Score: 1

      ...A programmer making $35k/year in the US...

      Where does this theoretical programmer live? Alaska?
      35k a year for a programmer in US? Yeah. right.

    214. Re:Raised eyebrows by Courageous · · Score: 1

      This doesn't change the fact that people would rather feed their dog than give, pal.

      C//

    215. Re:Raised eyebrows by clayski · · Score: 1

      This is not real science. Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (National Center for Biotechnology Information) and type in "Ceragenin" in ENTREZ, and you will find zero hits. Anyone who knows how to search the scientific literature will tell that this means this is almost certainly a hoax.

    216. Re:Raised eyebrows by tre4lien · · Score: 1

      I agree. They argue that with every "info-mercial, press release, and "4 out of 5 dentists" advert produced.
      I hear it everywhere, whether I want to or not.

      Since we no longer (or never did) have objective public news media, advertising has come to a point where they can say that they are providing a value-add, and people actually consider it a possibility.

      That being said, I understand people's reactions
      - there are the starry-eyed idealists that still hope that the internet can one day become an un-biased knowledge base and news commons,
      and even the marketing folk who drink their own kool-aid probably recognise that their whole purpose is to bias views, which, by definition , means to divorce sales & production from merit.

      I know it sucks, but as long as marketers are good at marketing, they will control most of our economy; That means they also control information.
      You can fight it, but you're a fool if you expect to "win". If they say Advertising is a service, well... they're the one's who define "Service".

    217. Re:Raised eyebrows by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1

      The term "fast track" suggests that thoroughness is compromised for sake of expediency. That's not the case. It's more like putting certain drugs at the top of the review list, prioritizing based on the lethalness of the disease in question.

      In that case, I stand corrected. I admit to having little knowledge of the FDA's prodecures, and my original comment was based on exactly the misconception you illustrated in your first sentence. Thanks for the insight.

    218. Re:Raised eyebrows by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1

      When you put it like that, yeah, I see your point. If I were slowly dying of a lethal, debilitating disease I might be willing to take the risk too. That's a question each infected person would have to answer for themselves, though if such a drug were available would it be right to take away their choice to use it because of the risks? Something tells me our current administration would disallow such a drug's use, but they probably won't be in power by the time this drug is available, assuming it actually works.

      As I stated in a previous post, my original comments about the FDA's fast-track procedures were based on ignorance; for this I apologize.

    219. Re:Raised eyebrows by stanmann · · Score: 1

      There are already enough donations of food and money every year to feed the entire "third world" of "developing nations" twice, three times over isn't going to make the situation better

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    220. Re:Raised eyebrows by jwd-oh · · Score: 1

      The problem with this kind of statement implies that the pharma industry is not using their funds correctly. R&D spend typically are very large but finite. There is an end to the spend. Marketing dollars are required to keep an establish product in the market place. This spend can be very large too but it is spread across the life of the product.

      So if a pharma develops a new drug they may have to spend $300-400 Million just to get it to market. Now that drug is in the market, how do doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, HMOs, and patients find out about the drug? This is where marketing comes in. If the drug has a life of 10 years, they may spend $1 billion on marketing but that is psent over the 10 years.

      So the stement that the pharma industry psends more on marketing than R&D for a given drug may be true. That does not tke into count all the dollars spent on R&D for drugs that never make it to market.

    221. Re:Raised eyebrows by Sippan · · Score: 1
      last i looked, mr. bush seemed a pretty hardcore christian to me.

      Last I looked, Mr. Bush did not quite forgive his enemies, turn the other cheek, do unto others as he would have them do unto him, or pretty much anything else that I would associate with the teachings of Jesus Christ, whom these "Christians" have for some reason named their religion after.

      --
      Frog blast the vent core.
    222. Re:Raised eyebrows by strikethree · · Score: 1

      shit. if i had a choice between dying from complications due to AIDS and possibly dying from a completely experimental drug, i would choose the drug without hesitation. you do not have the right to make such a choice for me. to be fair to your point of view though, i would agree that such a drug should not be used on someone who is not very near to dying.

      thankfully, i do not have such a decision to make.

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    223. Re:Raised eyebrows by demachina · · Score: 1

      "You are right, I don't watch much TV, but the more critical factor here is that I work in Asia, where direct to consumer marketing of ethical drugs is forbidden."

      Well if you are ever in the U.S. again you will be shocked at the extent to which prescription drugs have taken over TV ads. They are marketed like soap except for a lengthy and scary rendition of possible side effects I assume the FDA mandates. Its also unnerving the extent to which many news channels are now beholden to drug companies for their revenue, and which likely skews there coverage of drug company profiteering and defective products.

      Direct marketing prescription drugs is something that shouldn't be allowed but the U.S. drug industry is so large, rich and powerful now they can pretty much do what they please, and can buy any politicians necessary to get the laws they want.

      I really fear we are headed for a THX-1138 world where people lives are controlled by daily doses of drugs doled out by excessively powerful companies in collusion with an excessively powerful government who want a docile, drug dependent population. The key point is the state sponsored drugs will be tailored to enhance worker productivity and submissiveness, versus illegal drugs which impair productivity and stoke rebellion.

      --
      @de_machina
    224. Re:Raised eyebrows by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      I freely and unreservedly grant that the patent system is a bad thing, for the purpose of this discussion.

      However, the patent system allows people to do pretty much anything they want with patents they hold. It allows greedy people to license their patents for a profit. It allows altrustic, caring people to license their patents for free. Since the patent grants the same privileges to people who care about money and to people who care about helping other people, I conclude that the problem in this scenario isn't the problem of the patent system, but rather it is the problem of the people who care about helping other people not caring enough.

      That is, we could fix the patent system, but that probably wouldn't have much effect on the motivation of people who could do the work for humanitarian reasons, but won't. The Open Source Software community uses copyright law to enforce their no-copyright ideals (e.g., the GPL, Copyleft, etc.). Why doesn't the Open Source Humanitarian Biochemist community leverage the entitlements of the patent system in the same way? After all, there are many people who have waived their patent privileges, or licensed their technologies for little or nothing, out of a spirit of generosity and charity. But these are all people who started by doing the hard work, doing it well, and doing it first. Why? Because they cared about getting the work done.

      I'm greatly encouraged to learn that IOWC seems to be on the right track in this matter.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    225. Re:Raised eyebrows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as I see it, they will drop dead anyway if they don't get effective medication soon.

      Yes and no... there are are increasingly effective drugs for slowing down the progress of the disease. Also, you should realize that if an "effective" HIV-killing drug is actually invented, it will likely destroy a great deal of the funding currently going towards creating a new one.
      You might therefore be trying to make the choice between a drug that has a 50% chance of killing you and a 50% chance of curing you now, and one which has a 2% chance of killing you and a 98% chance of curing you 5 years down the line. You might die in the meantime, but as I said there are drugs to extend your lifetime and, as a whole we as a people and AIDS sufferers in specific are better off for safer drugs.

      (I say this as a person who has to take life-saving drugs on a daily basis. I have seen any number of well-meaning people announce magnificent improvements on those drugs and potential cures to my condition, only to be told by the FDA that they needed to think more carefully about what kinds of risks disease sufferers need to take - and I strongly agree with the FDA on this.)

    226. Re:Raised eyebrows by CB-in-Tokyo · · Score: 1

      I have not seen THX-1138, but what you say isn't surprising. We already have an educational system that is setup much the same way.

      The problems are systemic. It is not just one problem, but many of them together. We live in a time of instant communications but a political environment that was setup to govern people essentially through one way communications. The government in no way really represents the will of the people it is designed to serve. Changing that could best happen from within, but people are generally to apathetic. I really like the model that Switzerland uses. Most major decisions are made through a referendum that all citizenry vote on. These referendum's happen all the time. I have never lived there, so I can't speak as to how it works practically, but I certainly like the theory. Big business would have to convince the people that this was best.

      All in all, even with all of the problems, we certainly live in a time of comfort an luxury, especially compared to the rest of the world. I really like Japan because it is in many ways like living in the past in North American (I am from Canada). It is a totally different world here, but at the same time it is almost like the 50's. It is hard to explain, but essentially, it is pretty safe to walk the streets. You don't have to worry about everything you say being politically correct, there are no real frivolus lawsuits going on, no direct to consumer marketing of ethical drugs...things like that. Many other issues but all in all I like it here.

      Anyhow, enough of my pre-coffee rambling. I have to get ready for work.

      Cheers,

      CB

    227. Re:Raised eyebrows by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Well... here's one major contradiction:
      ... but rather it is the problem of the people who care about helping other people not caring enough.
      After all, there are many people who have waived their patent privileges, or licensed their technologies for little or nothing, out of a spirit of generosity and charity.

      And to answer why "the open source..." doesn't leverage the patent system the same way, it's the same reason as, in my previous example, a free speech advocate doesn't "use a sedition law to enhance free speech", or why libraries don't use the Patriot Act to protect records from the government... they're not designed to do that, and they couldn't be made to do so even if they wanted to.
      The patent system is designed to keep medication out of the hands of people... if your goal is to get an already developed medicine to the people who need it, the patent system has nothing to offer.

    228. Re:Raised eyebrows by AngryUndead · · Score: 1

      Yup because thats where all the talented scientists are, you know, in the high risk world of not for profit pharmecuticals. I read the 501(c)(3) thing. I think you're wrong. I also think that the same people that burn the for-profit companies would burn the not-for-profit ones as well for not selling at or below cost, however unsustainable the action.

    229. Re:Raised eyebrows by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      What risk? What are you talking about? The only relevant difference between a 501(c)(3) and a regular corporation is that a 501(c)(3)'s revenue isn't taxed, so long as any 'profits' are re-invested in the company. Scientists would have to be scouted for, just like a for-profit company would have to do. Just because there currently aren't any 501(c)(3) pharmaceutical companies doesn't mean there can't be.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    230. Re:Raised eyebrows by ksheff · · Score: 1

      He wasn't "hanging out with sinners". He was preaching the Gospel to those who needed it, admonishing them to "repent and sin no more". He also didn't turn the other cheek when it came time to driving an abomination out of the temple. Christianity isn't supposed to be some hippie love fest where everything is OK because you have a "get out of Hell" free card. It's about living a Christ-like life: following God's commandments, helping those in need, encouraging others to repent and follow the same path, etc. But that's now "hateful". No wonder I feel like my sig more every day.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    231. Re:Raised eyebrows by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      That's a dumb statement. Research does not have to be profit motivated. A lot of research comes from universities which in turn receive funding from the government. I believe this model is better suited to pharmacuetical research than corporations trying to maximize profits.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    232. Re:Raised eyebrows by fferreres · · Score: 1

      I have a gold course in from of me, a yacuzzi, a very cute piano and everything i need. It's not someone paying for another, is realizing that fixed pricing is not always right, especially if it doesn't affect companies profits. Government giving away the meds is ok, but it's be better to buy the patents, not the medicine.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    233. Re:Raised eyebrows by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about already-developed medicines.

      I'm talking about new medicines. The patent system, rather than forcing the developers of new medicines to donate their work to the needy for free, instead grants the developer total control over who gets to benefit from the work, and on what terms.

      It seems to me that the patent system would absolutely allow the developer of a new medicine complete authority to help as many people as possible, charging them as little as possible, if that's what they wanted to do.

      So how come only the greedheads seem to be developing new medicine? It seems like the best way to keep future cures out of the hands of the greedheads would be to develop those cures first and enjoy all the privileges that the patent system would grant them for being first to market--including the privilege of giving their cure away for free instead of selling it for profit.

      And the same reasoning applies to already-developed medicine. The situation with already-developed medicine clearly demonstrates that the humanitarians have never cared about being first to market with life-saving new medicines, just as the current situation clearly demonstrates that they still don't care as much about saving lives as the greedheads care about money. These past and present scenarios suggest a trend where the humanitarians will continue to not care in the future, and will continue to see all of humanity's greatest medical advances achieved by people who care about money.

      Your comparison to the Patriot Act is mistaken. Patent Law grants the patent-holder total authority over the application of their patent, including licensing fees and terms of use. There are plenty of rich people who claim to care about poor people. Why don't they use their patents to help poor people then? Because they don't hold any patents. And why is that? Because they don't care enough to develop new medicines and patent them before the greedheads do.

      All patent law says is, the person who cares the most gets the prize, and once they have the prize they can do whatever they want with it.

      Nothing in patent law prohibits the prize-holder from donating that prize to the poor. It only says that you can't force a free person to donate his patent prize if he doesn't want to.

      Again, why don't the people who want to donate prizes to the poor ever want to try to win any of those prizes?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    234. Re:Raised eyebrows by Rimbo · · Score: 1

      Research does not have to be profit motivated. A lot of research comes from universities which in turn receive funding from the government. I believe this model is better suited to pharmacuetical research than corporations trying to maximize profits.

      The government will always refuse to support vital and important research for various political reasons. It also has limited amounts of money to provide, and what the government determines should be a priority may not be what you think it should be; they may determine that a new weapon is more important than a certain virus pandemic. For these reasons, societies that limit their research dollars to the government's whimsy fall behind technologically, or even destroy their own advances in a government-sponsored fit of nationalism.

      I won't go as far as T. Boone Pickens' assertion to the Amarillo Rotary Club that "Greed Is Good," but to deny researchers even the option of reward for their endeavors historically leads to slow progress or even a reverse.

    235. Re:Raised eyebrows by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      All patent law says is, the person who cares the most gets the prize

      ...wow...
      So your view is that the US Patent Office is basically a sweepstakes, with the supreme right over life and death to thousands or millions (depending on the contest) as the prize. And they decide these contests though some (magical?) caring-meter.
      Can't understand why so many people are still so opposed to that system.

    236. Re:Raised eyebrows by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      The Patent system itself is the measure of caring: the more you care, the more likely you are to do the hard work, do it right, and do it first, thus securing to yourself all the privileges of being the patent holder on whatever it was you cared about.

      Why don't the humanitarians ever care enough about helping people to be the first to market with lifesaving new medications?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  2. The Stock by Mrs.+Grundy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Although the scientist doing this work stated, "we would like to formally show this before making any claims that would cause unwanted hype" and the "few AIDS research luminaries" mentioned in the article are not willing to comment this early, it looks like there may already be some interest in Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals' OTC stock which closed at 3.67--up a healthy 122.42% today.

    1. Re:The Stock by the-amazing-blob · · Score: 1

      A little hype won't hurt anyone. Could even help funding for more research. Also, gets the public's eye on AIDS cures again, which could speed up the process. (Think Eye of Sauron staring at researchers trying to find the cure as quickly as possible. You'd want to hurry up too)

    2. Re:The Stock by Quinn_Inuit · · Score: 1

      From ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggedey beasties
      And volatile penny stocks on the web
      CmdrTaco, deliver us!

      --

      Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
    3. Re:The Stock by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      I don't think a flaming pit of despair is QUITE what we want to think of when we think "AIDS Research"...

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    4. Re:The Stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interesting stuff indeed.

      Ceragenix was founded by Steven Porter, and is a subsidiary of his other venture: Osmotics Cosmeceuticals. Yes, "cosmeceuticals".

      http://www.osmotics.com/

      "OSMOTICS is the leader in Cosmeceutical skincare, offering the finest and most advanced technology available to treat and prevent signs of aging and damaged skin. Our products offer a streamlined yet highly effective approach to the total care of the skin."

      "HIV cure" licensed to pseudo-scientific moisturizer maker; founder makes millions as stock surges in its first week of trading.

      There's a something born every minute, I forget what.

    5. Re:The Stock by NatteringNabob · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And they had a book value of about $98K as of their last quarterly report in Yahoo (which was Mar 05, I think) and just borrowed $3M at 10% interest last december - with a 10% commission to their loan agent. Their R&D budget seems to be a steady $0/quarter, so they don't do any of that. Their scientific advisor is a dermatologist, which isn't too surprising since they are a spinoff of a skin creme company. The website looks amatureish. As of todays market close, this company with a book value of (at most) $98K, no products and no R&D budget, now has a market cap of $46M. Can you say scam?

    6. Re:The Stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you say scam?

      Another Utah stock-pumping scam? Can SCO sue them for intellectual property theft?

    7. Re:The Stock by fellip_nectar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can you say scam?

      sc... scor... scat... scrot.. sca..., erm no, it appears not.

      --
      Worst. Signature. Ever.
    8. Re:The Stock by paulthomas · · Score: 1

      If you have the wherewithal to stand the huge upside risk (if they do have a cure), this would be a prime target for shorting once it gets absurdly high.

      Not my game, as I don't speculate, but it looks like it could be a money-maker for someone other than the scammers operating it.

      Best,
      Paul

    9. Re:The Stock by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Yeah .. should have bought stock of this company 3 days ago when I got a spam message telling me to invest because they would be climbing fast (get 3-4 of those a day..). Selling today would have multiplied my investment by 3 !

  3. Drug overuse by rootofevil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Insert generic comment about the overuse of a drug leading to the evolution of the disease to a new super form that is resistant to all known treatments.

    --
    turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    1. Re:Drug overuse by alphax45 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. Wouldn't the virus over time just mutate to get around this?

      IANAS (I am not a scientist) but I think that could happen...

      --
      K Man
    2. Re:Drug overuse by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      If it really kills HIV as well as they say, it would probably require someone to underdose on the meds by corrupt doctors who want to resell the meds their government gives them. Super AIDS is on the way!

    3. Re:Drug overuse by Ekarderif · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. But we did manage to eradicate smallpox. It's possible to destroy a disease before it mutates too much.

    4. Re:Drug overuse by Expert+Determination · · Score: 2, Informative
      Viruses probably mutate at similar rates regardless of whether or not they are subjected to antiviral drugs. The whole point about antibiotics, say, is that antibiotic-resistant mutant bacteria are preferentially selected for as a result of antibiotic abuse. The same might happen with viruses. But to describe this as "mutat[ing] to get around this" is a horrible abuse of evolutionary terminology and has unwarranted teleological implications. I guess one could talk about the population mutating as opposed to the individuals, but that is non-standard terminology.

      (What I say isn't strictly true as some bacteria will mutate at higher rates when subject to certain types of stresse, but that isn't an important part of the mechanism of antibiotic resistance.)

      --
      "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
    5. Re:Drug overuse by RoadDoggFL · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If smallpox is eradicated, then why am I going to have to get a vaccine before going to Korea?

      --
      "This is considered plagiarism."
    6. Re:Drug overuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      leading to the evolution of the disease to a new super form that is resistant to all known treatments.

      and I, for one, welcome our new super-disease overlords.

    7. Re:Drug overuse by kahanamoku · · Score: 1

      or IAIDS: Immune Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome - Immune to the cure!

      --
      ----- Concentrate on promoting more than demoting.
    8. Re:Drug overuse by kahanamoku · · Score: 2, Funny

      just realised.... apple probably already has the rights to the iAIDS name....

      ---
      I apologise for the attempt at humor on such a serious topic! but laughter is sometimes the best medicine!

      --
      ----- Concentrate on promoting more than demoting.
    9. Re:Drug overuse by Ekarderif · · Score: 1

      Fear of biological strike? Last natural case occurred back in 1977, and the last known case of the disease anywhere was in 1978. As far we know, the only sources of the virus remain in labs. If it still existed in the wild, we'd all be getting vaccinations. 25% death rate with a moderate to high spreading capability... not exactly pleasant. I can't even get a vaccination if I wanted to unless I join the military or work at a contagion lab.

    10. Re:Drug overuse by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      It's the proximity to those wacky North Koreans. See, their philosophy of Juche claims that illness is caused by insufficient devotion to the Party. Imperialist vaccination with strange western chemicals is no substitute for hard labor for the benefit of the DPRK!

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    11. Re:Drug overuse by wbren · · Score: 1
      Insert generic comment about the overuse of a drug leading to the evolution of the disease to a new super form that is resistant to all known treatments.
      Insert generic comment about you never having to watch someone die from this disease. It's easy for you to say things like that... until it affects you.
      --
      -William Brendel
    12. Re:Drug overuse by NATIK · · Score: 1

      While his way of writing it may be stupid, he does have a point and I fail to see, how that becomes less true by him knowing someone who died from this.

      IMO his post isnt insensitive in any way. I think it is you that have the problem here and you might want to talk to someone about it. It is people like you with that hypersensitive feelings towards stuff that ruin our world on all levels.

    13. Re:Drug overuse by AoT · · Score: 1

      I know there is some sort of gender preference joke to be made here; but I am waaay to mature to make it.

      And I am posting on a mac.

    14. Re:Drug overuse by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Viruses aren't as good as bacteria in mutating to avoid treatment, anyway. Bacteria reproduce all the frickin time, a virus has to be inside a cell.

      Once in the cell, they turn out a lot of copies, but these copies have a very low amount of mutation, because they are produced by human cells, and human cells like to copy things correctly, even when they're copying the wrong thing, vs. bacteria which don't give a damn.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    15. Re:Drug overuse by Descalzo · · Score: 1

      If it did mutate aroud the cure, we wouldn't be any worse off than we are now, would we?

      --
      I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    16. Re:Drug overuse by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      Wow. I apologize for what you obviously interpreted as a personal attack, somehow slighting your personal experience. I did not mean to do this at all. HIV/AIDS is a terrible disease to be sure, and I am all for furthering the treatment/cure of the disease itself.

      However, my post was meant to remind people that overuse of a drug tends to lead to resistant strains that are even harder to treat. If this is a substantial cure for the disease, it needs to be used responsibly to prevent any resistant strains from being passed on. Specifically, imagine someone is treated but the infection is not removed, and they infect someone else, assuming somehow that they are now cured. This kind of irresponsible behaviour is not altogether unlikely, given the infection vectors that are most common (unprotected sex, sharing needles).

      This is no miracle cure. The miracle cure is a level of responsibility that most people lack entirely.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
  4. I hear plutonium kills AIDS too. by autopr0n · · Score: 0

    The question is, is this compound safe for humans as well as harmful to HIV? (asside from the obvious other question of wether or not it really is as harmful to aids as they say it is)

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:I hear plutonium kills AIDS too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      IT doesn't matter! Any heathen that would be in contact with the AIDS virus deserves to die!!!

      Condoms leads to Abortion - Kid Killing!!!!

      The Bush Administration

    2. Re:I hear plutonium kills AIDS too. by TheComputerMutt.ca · · Score: 1

      True. If it's so efficient at finding different variations of the virus, doesn't it seem likely that it may not be specific enough in what it targets and do undeeded damage to subjects?

  5. Let's hope. by mctk · · Score: 0

    I also refuse to comment until further results are published.

    --
    Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
    1. Re:Let's hope. by RoadDoggFL · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heh, you refuse to comment on this until further results are publsihed... except for this. Soo... starting...

      NOW!

      --
      "This is considered plagiarism."
    2. Re:Let's hope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for that comment.

    3. Re:Let's hope. by mctk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Though I wanted to, I will not reply to your comment.

      --
      Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
  6. This isn't by scenestar · · Score: 1, Redundant

    the first "cure for AIDS" story that i have read on slashdot.

    call me cynical......

    --
    perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
    1. Re:This isn't by imemyself · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. I'm really, really tired of hearing about stuff like that - stuff that has basically no chance of ever developing into anything meaningful. And this goes for the technology stuff, not just the science. Even more tired than I am of seeing dupes. Call me back when someone has developed a treatment for AIDs that has actually been tested on humans and works.

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    2. Re:This isn't by LoonyMike · · Score: 1, Funny

      Geez, when are people going to stop joking about the dupes issue?

    3. Re:This isn't by krusbjorn · · Score: 1, Informative

      Who cares about aids? The article states they found a cure for the influenza! No more catching the flu!

    4. Re:This isn't by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      But it is my first. Woohoo! A cure for AIDS!

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  7. Pulp fiction cures AIDS! by ereshiere · · Score: 1, Funny

    Developed by DOC SAVAGE! Will The Shadow get Osama bin Laden next?

  8. never going to work by hamanu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Well, I was cautiously optomistic until I saw it was from BYU. Now I think it's just B.S. Sorry, but they are not known for being smart about this sort of thing.

    --
    every _exit() is the same, but every clone() is different.
  9. More than just HIV by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This substance is a mimic of a current human body chemical, and attacks one hell of a lot more than just HIV- my guess is it will end one of two ways. It will either strip the body of everything including our normal colonies of beneficial bacteria and yeasts, and thus be too dangerous to use. Or it won't work for some mutation, and we'll still have a million or so HIV patients after it's in widespread use.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:More than just HIV by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      easy way to fix the "strip the body of all bacteria" problem 1 put the patient in a clean room 2 wait for things to work out 3 feed the patient a "starter culture" (cup of yogurt maybe??) 4 profit!!

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    2. Re:More than just HIV by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      It will either strip the body of everything including our normal colonies of beneficial bacteria and yeasts, and thus be too dangerous to use.

      I know that's what The Andromeda Strain said about super-infections, but given a choice between HIV infection and having diarrea (the side-effect of having no flora), I'd choose the latter. Just eat some yogurt after the treatment to reestablish the gut flora.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    3. Re:More than just HIV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a very similar reaction.

      Ok it kills AIDS great, what else does it kill while it's at it?

      In related news: HCl kills aids!

    4. Re:More than just HIV by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Kefir - it contains almost exactly the right balance of the various types of good microbes.

  10. but... by JeffSh · · Score: 3, Funny

    but the AIDS virus was a god sent plague upon the morale-less soul sucking evil anti christian gays... surely the doctors who are pursuing these so called aids cures are performing work of the devil and funding should be withdrawn immediately.

    +5 sarcasm

    (+5 funny? +5 sad? +5 satire, cause you know there are people out there that really think that way, freaks)

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

      -5 karma whore

    2. Re:but... by w1ll0w · · Score: 1, Troll

      Doesn't mean they are truly Christian. You are right thought that some people will think that they are messing with a God sent plague, but that's nonsense. I hope this turns out to be a cure for aids and I'm a Christian. I'll be praying for a positive outcome on this.

    3. Re:but... by dasnov · · Score: 1

      try logging in saying that.

    4. Re:but... by JeffSh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      meh, i have enough karma to last me until the second coming!

    5. Re:but... by JeffSh · · Score: 1

      i don't intend to be anti christian, i know there are good eggs! but thanks for your post.

    6. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... I didn't realize that Pat Robertson /.'ed (or even knew how to spell it -- even with that sarcasm/funny/sad/satire part...)

    7. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Muslims burn embassies and demand death over a comic but bashing Christians is what's fashionable here? Wait till Muslims get a hold of your fag asses, you won't laugh as they murder you in public for your sins.

    8. Re:but... by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously God has forgiven them, or punished them enough. A 30+ year worldwide killing plague is a good chunk of our 6000 year history.

      --
      I am Spartacus
    9. Re:but... by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

      Most Christians are, myself included, and 99% of all churches as well. It's truly sad that a vocal minority could make it seem that all Christians are fanatic nuts like this. It's like calling someone a terrorist simply for being a Muslim. I don't know about these nuts, but the God I serve doesn't punish people on Earth as that is nothing in comparison to Heaven or Hell.

      --
      I am Spartacus
    10. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait -- if you're going to supply a miracle cure for a gay people disease, you also have to be ready to supply a miracle cure for a fundamentalist Christian disease!

      Honestly, man, don't you read Slashdot?

    11. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you're going to supply a miracle cure for a gay people disease, you also have to be ready to supply a miracle cure for a fundamentalist Christian disease!

      The muslims will cure both gays and christians with a bullet. Who'll be laughing then, motherfucker?

    12. Re:but... by jafac · · Score: 1

      Wait till Muslims get a hold of your fag asses, you won't laugh as they murder you in public for your sins.

      They won't get ahold of our "fag asses" because our fag asses have jet bombers and depleted uranium bullets and lasers and shit like that. (yeah, that's right, "fag asses" like Alan Turing are smart, and invent things and figure things out). They've got rocks. That's what religious fundamentalists get. Because, you see, if you believe your scripture is inerrant, than you must accept that Pi=3.0, and your backwards ass is not going to be designing a lot of jet bombers or nuclear bombs or any shit at all. (certainly nothing as advanced as a "round wheel" but I guess that was invented BEFORE scripture came around. Good thing too.)

      Hell, it's a sin to draw cartoons? Where would we be without Dilbert? Well, if the Christian fundamentalists get their way, we'll be back in the stone age soon enough, and THEN the Muslims will come and get our fag asses.

      Or - we could just round up all the fundamentalists, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, and send them to their Holy land, build a fence 'round it and wave 'bye.

      I like that plan.

      That plan sounds good.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    13. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, don't you mean 2000yrs?

    14. Re:but... by Descalzo · · Score: 0

      Interesting, considering BYU is a Christian university.

      --
      I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    15. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to close your flame tag.
      If you're not careful you'll burn up the world.

      You terrorist!

  11. Ahh, yes, the cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, all it takes is a few hundred copies of the virus to hide somewhere for a few years and resurge. It is a tricky bastard and already does this to some extent. I think that at best we can hope for a sustained treatment program that renders aids non fatal. Unfortunately, this will do little good in countries in Africa and such where people still die of dieseases that have been long eradicated in the west.

    1. Re:Ahh, yes, the cure by mkavanagh2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      smaaaaaaallllpox

      (biowarfare labs don't count)

  12. Finally, a direct attack. by rob_squared · · Score: 1, Informative

    From TFA: "the compound invented by Paul D. Savage of Brigham Young University appears to hunt down and kill HIV.
            Although so far limited to early test tube studies, CSA-54, one of a family of compounds called Ceragenins (or CSAs), mimics the disease-fighting characteristics of anti-microbial and anti-viral agents produced naturally by a healthy human immune system."

    So basically, unlike other drug treatments which aide the natural immune system by making aids easier to find or retard its progress, this can act as a immune system copy, which is very important for when someone moves from HIV to full blown AIDS.

    --
    I don't get it.
    1. Re:Finally, a direct attack. by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      So basically, unlike other drug treatments which aide the natural immune system by making aids easier to find or retard its progress, this can act as a immune system copy, which is very important for when someone moves from HIV to full blown AIDS.

      We saw something like this in Stargate SG-1 called Tretonin to replace the immune system loss when a Goa'uld symbiote is removed from a Jaffa. Now we're inventing drugs that will replace our immune system.

      Next, we find a way to create evil symbiotic creatures to take over people and make them too smart to engage in behaviors that created the need for the drugs. And then a drug to combat the creatures. And then....

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    2. Re:Finally, a direct attack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OT: Nice, I'm a huge Stargate fan. But I'd much rather have a nanobot maintained immune system, that way it could transform my DNA on the fly, modify any material as food to keep me alive/generate oxygen, and expand and sustain my mental pathways. Also, if it allowed for external swarming I could have multiple sensory fields, maybe even manipulate matter and energy remotely.

    3. Re:Finally, a direct attack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the world will be saved by Doc Savage? Why does this sound like a dime store novel?

      (OK, perhaps I am showing my age here)

  13. Fast Track by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As nice as it is to think that we have an AIDS cure, and that we don't have to worry about it anymore. But I think that rushing it through a FDA approval, without exploring its full consequences could be a little dangerous. If this drug was passed, and everybody who took it got rid of their AIDS, but developed some other condition which killed them in a year, then we'd all look a little stupid, and the drug company would probably be under a lot of scrutiny.

    Another thing though, is this drug patented, or will this be cheaply available for everyone who needs it, especially AIDS ravaged countried in Africa.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:Fast Track by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it is patented. It, and the whole class of drugs in its catgeory - Cationic Steroid Antibiotics ("CSA") , has been exclusively licensed by Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals, inc. from Prof. Savage at Brigham Young University.

      In my opinion, this is a big dog & pony show based upon very initial findings.

    2. Re:Fast Track by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's possible that a governmental body might try to do an end run around the patent, if they decide that AIDS is "epidemic enough" for that sort of thing.

      Also, I don't have any good numbers right here to back this up, but I don't think that today's "standard track" is even as rigorous as yesteryear's "fast track," and I don't think that "fast tracking" is as uncommon as you might think. The FDA is _woefully_ understaffed and underfunded considering the bulk and weight of what they do. Can anyone close to the FDA on here back me up on this?

    3. Re:Fast Track by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      It's possible that a governmental body might try to do an end run around the patent, if they decide that AIDS is "epidemic enough" for that sort of thing.

      This will likely be the case.

      It is probably the reason why most major pharma companies only make half-hearted attempts to discover AIDS medications. After all, the folks who need them most can't afford them, and live in countries that won't pay for them. And, with the huge activist community laws are likely to be slanted against AIDS patent rights.

      My guess is that if AIDS is cured it will either be because somebody offers a bounty (of a billion dollars or some crazy figure), or a government agency funds it completely...

    4. Re:Fast Track by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

      From what I've read, NIH-funded projects tend to do most of the "discovery"-type work, leaving Pharmaceuticals to purchase the licenses after the fact... So, if this is true, then the Pharmaceuticals aren't going to discover the cure, period. They'll be happy to charge $10000 per dose to make up for their overwhelming research budget, I'm sure.

    5. Re:Fast Track by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If it turns out to be safe and effective, even if it's patented, you can expect a few countries with industrial capacity and sane politicians (e.g. India, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil...) to say a big 'fuck' to international patent law and start producing it on a large scale to provide it to third world countries at a low cost, if not for free.

    6. Re:Fast Track by SIGALRM · · Score: 2, Interesting
      rushing it through a FDA approval
      This is a common misunderstanding of the FDA "fast track" process. The various stages of clinical and human trials are not skipped during an expedited approval; instead the FDA itself allocates a greater effort/resources toward getting applications and data processed quickly.

      In other words, an FDA "fast track" does not mean they will overlook a critical step in the efficacy of the candidate drug.
      --
      Sigs cause cancer.
    7. Re:Fast Track by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 4, Funny

      They'll be happy to charge $10000 per dose to make up for their overwhelming research budget, I'm sure.

      You mispelled "advertising budget."

    8. Re:Fast Track by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this drug was passed, and everybody who took it got rid of their AIDS, but developed some other condition which killed them in a year, then we'd all look a little stupid, and the drug company would probably be under a lot of scrutiny.

      By that same logic, what if this drug really does cure AIDs, but because it is withheld from the public for so long, millions die in the mean time? I guess we'd look a little stupid in that situation, too. Why not let the patient decide? Patients are generally rational human beings, just like you. Wouldn't you want to make your own decision?

      Another thing though, is this drug patented, or will this be cheaply available for everyone who needs it, especially AIDS ravaged countried in Africa.

      You are free to use your own money to purchase as many drugs as you want and distribute them to Africans. Who are you to tell others what to do with their property? No one is entitled to another's work.

    9. Re:Fast Track by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Another thing though, is this drug patented, or will this be cheaply available for everyone who needs it, especially AIDS ravaged countried in Africa.

      Yeah, because nothing encourages billions in R&D investment like socializing the results. I don't know about you, but I like seeing new cures for dangerous illnesses. I'd like to think that our rush to end one particular scourge didn't destroy our ability to fight others.

      And to those who would suggest "fairly compensating" them for the stolen patent: isn't that the whole purpose of the market? Any pharma company who expects to make $X from their research, but only gets $X/5 because the government decides to "liberate" the work, will not make the same mistake again.

      Whether you think medicine-for-profit is right or wrong is immaterial; that's what we have under the current system. Take away the profit and you take away the medicine as well, and I think that's the far worse crime.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    10. Re:Fast Track by Highrollr · · Score: 1

      It's true this might be a little dangerous, but you know what's really dangerous? AIDS! :P

    11. Re:Fast Track by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worthless statement. Big Pharma already has a disincentive to making cures. Treatments are considerably more profitable and cheaper to research. Even if the cure wasn't socialized for the good of humanity. Name a cure for a serious disease that came from their research engine? Sure are plenty of treatments upon each other.

      On the other hand. Being the company that made 'the cure' could be good for PR. And the 'obscene profits' lost from it being socialized would be inconsequential to the good will by the people. After all, most reasonable people (I hope) are already suspicious of the nefarious efforts of these companies.

    12. Re:Fast Track by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sane politicians (e.g. India, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil...)

      You forgot to add Iran and N.Korea to that list as well.

    13. Re:Fast Track by jafac · · Score: 1

      It will be available cheaply to everyone.

      Everyone who considers $800 per dose "cheap".

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    14. Re:Fast Track by comp.sci · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact the "fast-track" in the FDA is not a rushed process at all, just the same process, only faster and with higher pressure. More people get appointed to it, the paperwork gets done and the movement between the stages of approval is faster. The clinical trials will still be equally rigorous. (It basically gives work on this complex/drug priority)

    15. Re:Fast Track by jafac · · Score: 1

      Profit and not "socializing the results" is all fine and dandy. But if you consider that the existence of poor people infected with a deadly disease they cannot afford to cure IS A THREAT TO ME AND YOU AND OUR LOVED ONES (ie. blood transfusions, etc.) then this is clearly a matter of public health and safety. It has nothing to do with charity for the poor unfortunate (immoral gays/johns/perverts/etc.).

      Necessity is the mother of invention.

      Not "Make $$$ Fast!!!"

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    16. Re:Fast Track by jafac · · Score: 1

      Name a cure for a serious disease that came from their research engine?

      They seem to have a jim-dandy cure for the dreaded Middle-class.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    17. Re:Fast Track by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Being the company that made 'the cure' could be good for PR.

      Which is just! wonderful! because we know how so many people know and care who makes MiracleTreat(tm) that they saw on TV. I'm married to a doctor, but I can't name more than 3 or 4 major drug companies, let alone which one makes any given drug.

      And the 'obscene profits' lost from it being socialized would be inconsequential to the good will by the people.

      I didn't major in economics, so please clarify for me the exchange rate of good will units per dollar. Can you pay your employees in good will, or is it the sort of thing you'd distribute as a dividend instead?

      OK, yeah, I know I'm being a smartass. However, I still have yet to hear an explanation for how socializing medical patents would support continued R&D. This isn't like a software patent where you get to write "$common_process, on a computer!" and start suing people - this stuff takes some real investment.

      And no, I don't work for a pharmaceutical company, nor do I own stock in any (that I know of). I just think that people who advocate this approach are likely to get steamrolled by the Law Of Unintended Consequences, and I don't want to see that happen.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    18. Re:Fast Track by jonwil · · Score: 1

      IANA biochemist but from reading the article, it seems as though this is a synthetic re-creation of a chemical that appears in the body naturally (is it a direct copy or just something that looks the same to the viruses?)

      Assuming this is true (and its not just a chemical that happens to have the same proprties as this body chemical), its not something that should be patentable. Patenting a specific method for extracting, producing, cloning or otherwise manufacturing the chemical would be ok but no-one should ever be able to patent a chemical, compound or gene sequence that is produced nautrally by the human body.

    19. Re:Fast Track by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Everyone who considers $800 per dose "cheap".

      No, that won't happen. AIDS is a high-profile desease and there will be enough publicity to force the drug companies to lower the price. Outrageous prices are reserved for "orphan deseases," like MS. My sister takes Avonex once a week, at a price of about $400/shot. If it weren't for Medicaid and her union benefits, she'd be out of luck; no way she could possibly afford that on her own.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    20. Re:Fast Track by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      But if you consider that the existence of poor people infected with a deadly disease they cannot afford to cure IS A THREAT TO ME AND YOU AND OUR LOVED ONES (ie. blood transfusions, etc.) then this is clearly a matter of public health and safety.

      But here's the problem: if you put the smackdown on the inventor of the cure for AIDS, then the company that was investing $15B on the cure for cancer may decide there's a better return on investment in building casinos. If I knew AIDS were the last great disease left on Earth, and that only a piece of paper with a patent stamp on it were standing between death for millions and life for all, then I'd be a pretty easy sell for your position. However, there's still a lot of things that I want cured, and I don't want the incentive to find those cures ripped out from under the people capable of finding them.

      It has nothing to do with charity for the poor unfortunate (immoral gays/johns/perverts/etc.).

      I wholeheartedly agree. I'm not particularly interested in how someone contracts an infectious disease other than for academic purposes.

      Necessity is the mother of invention. Not "Make $$$ Fast!!!"

      And companies need to make money on their investments, so they invent things on which to profit.

      I am in no way opposed to an organization research a cure for some illness and then distributing it at cost. I think that's a noble and worthy pursuit, and I'd be the first to commend anyone who does that. However, I don't hold the profit motive against someone, either.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    21. Re:Fast Track by Durandal64 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, because nothing encourages billions in R&D investment like socializing the results. I don't know about you, but I like seeing new cures for dangerous illnesses. I'd like to think that our rush to end one particular scourge didn't destroy our ability to fight others.
      Pharmaceutical companies make billions of dollars per quarter in pure profit, with their R&D budgets being dwarfed by their advertising budgets. Even if their profits were cut in half, their R&D would be totally unaffected. In other words, despite all this blustering about socialized medicine and price controls stifling their ability to compete, they could easily take a hit and charge less for their drugs here in the States. But they don't, because their products are necessary for our survival and well-being, and we'll pay whatever we have to. Why do you think that there hasn't been a mass boycott of oil and gasoline lately? Because people would freeze to death or not be able to get to work.

      There is no "invisible hand" with these people. They've formed a cartel to make sure that there are no market checks on themselves.
      And to those who would suggest "fairly compensating" them for the stolen patent: isn't that the whole purpose of the market? Any pharma company who expects to make $X from their research, but only gets $X/5 because the government decides to "liberate" the work, will not make the same mistake again.
      Oooh no, you mean they'll only make $1 billion in profit per quarter instead of $5 billion? Oh Heavens NO! Whatever will the CEOs do?!
      Whether you think medicine-for-profit is right or wrong is immaterial; that's what we have under the current system. Take away the profit and you take away the medicine as well, and I think that's the far worse crime.
      The crime is the pharmaceutical industry colluding against the interests of the consumer. The United States is the only country which does not cap prescription drug prices, so Pfizer and their ilk gouge our citizenry to maintain their insane profit levels and bribe Congressmen and Senators (sorry, I meant "lobby") to keep things that way. They are corporations; it's not their job to protect human life or rights. Their only concern is to make money, and they'll step on whoever and whatever they can to do so. That's why the government has to step in from time to time to keep them in line. If the drug company CEOs have to live without a new yacht for a year so that the world can be rid of AIDS, I'd say that's a more than fair trade-off.
    22. Re:Fast Track by jafac · · Score: 1

      Yes, I would love very much to be the manufacturer of a product which I could sell to a customer for $50, and the government would chip in an additional $350 for each widget. Better still, if the customer would die without this product. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    23. Re:Fast Track by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, god forbid that Venezuela actually put their oil profits to pay for the drugs. Steal them instead, I say. Why should we reward those who produce drugs as such behavior will only server to encourage the creation of even more drugs? Instead, I say that we all live in this utopian world of yours where socialism actually works and punishing those that produce serves the best interests of everyone. Yes, oh yes, if only the entire world would act in these sanme ways.

      Sane == Chavez? Good lord, I bet you think Che and his self hardning toothpaste were the boon of Cuba.

    24. Re:Fast Track by Ariane+6 · · Score: 1

      My mom's in the same boat. Thank God or whatever deity you prefer that she got her job as a state employee before her diagnosis. MS is nasty, and the price they charge for Copaxone is simply criminal. I'm all about compensating the drug companies, but it's something that we should all do collectively, IMO. When your "market" is a very few people who will die or suffer debilitating consequences without the product, gouging them individually so you can make a profit is simply immoral.

    25. Re:Fast Track by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      The drugs are expensive because the testing is ridiculously expensive due to regulations and paperwork which have little bearing on the quality of the science. Things are set up that way because big pharma paid for those regulations to keep barriers to entry high, which protects their obscene profit margins from competition. Drugs would cost a lot less if the drug companies took the same long-term net margins as other companies.

      The only reason to allow these companies to do business is to serve the public. If a company allows people to die to boost its share price, that is not OK. Any alleged indirect harms from imposing standards of corporate responsibility must be great and certain if they are to outweigh the benefits of lives saved, and that certainty and magnitude has never been shown by people who are statist enough to believe in FDA drug testing requirements but laissez-faire when it comes to corporations extorting money from poor people with terminal illneses.

      If drug trials were integrated into the developing electronic medical records system the cost would be far, far lower, and the effectiveness and side-effects of drugs could be measured using every patient who took the drug, even after approval.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    26. Re:Fast Track by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Outrageous prices are reserved for "orphan deseases," like MS. My sister takes Avonex once a week, at a price of about $400/shot.

      You've got to understand the economies of scale behind that, though. There's an estimated 250,000 to 350,000 MS cases in the US. Those prices really suck, and I'd hate to be paying them myself, but the reality is that there aren't very many patients to spread the R&D and manufacturing costs across. Contrast with something like Aleve, where you can expect to find a bottle in every other medicine cabinet in the country.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    27. Re:Fast Track by arpajian · · Score: 1

      Red balling some drug through to distro is kinda scary... Would hate to hear: "We never saw those side-effects in our limited clinical trials... but we cured your HIV/AIDS, and after all what do you really need a {liver, heart, spine, brain} for anyway?"

      Or how about: "We'll just use the existing population of desperate people as our clinical sample". Ouch.

      (Reminds me of the Stargate SG-1 2010 and 2001 episodes: "We eliminated the plague from your entire species... too bad you're all sterile. oops." 'course that was an all encompasing innoculation.)

      But then, if I was one of the unfortunate HIV positive? Hmm... no, I might still hold out for proper testing... Er, hang on. How long are those studies? And what are the odds that things would progress to AIDS before the FDA approved this treatment?

      My probable attitude if I had AIDS? "Does it look like it might work? Gimme. Gimme NOW!"

      I guess it all comes down to the old rock and a hard place doesn't it? If and when a drug get approved, if there are nasty side effects, no matter how much testing you did, it wasn't enough. If there aren't any problems with the treatment, no matter how fast you got it to market, you were too slow.

      --
      -dean
      -----------------------
      hey, well, its just my $0.02us
    28. Re:Fast Track by lateralus_1024 · · Score: 1

      Hey it could be worse. It could've been licensed by this Dr.Savage

      --
      If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.
    29. Re:Fast Track by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      You seem to have the weird idea that it's possible to buy Avonex for $50/dose. It isn't. Not anywhere. If my sister didn't have help, she'd either have to come up with $1200/month, or allow her MS to get progressively worse.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    30. Re:Fast Track by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

      is this drug patented, or will this be cheaply available for everyone who needs it

      Are you mad, man? Of *course* it will be patented! The company that makes it will sell it at an even higher premium than the current cocktail that just keeps the patients alive longer. And then they'll all be *billionaires!* Rich beyond their wildest dreams! Fame and fortune!

      Oh, and the Africans? There's just too many of them to fix the problem really...

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    31. Re:Fast Track by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      I don't really know what the "fast track" in the FDA means, though I seriously doubt that what you are afraid of would be a consequence. Not because I think the govt is infallable or some great entity, but they will always err on the side of caution - CYA is the name of thier game. The few years I spent working as a govt contractor "fast track" meant "twice as slow as you need" vs "5 times as slow as is normal", though it cost 10 times as much to go that way (of course, numbers are only a "feel" - I never really sat down and ran them).

      "Another thing though, is this drug patented, or will this be cheaply available for everyone who needs it, especially AIDS ravaged countried in Africa."

      I highly suspect the answer is "Yes" (assuming it is real - my guess is it's not and this whole thing is irrelevant for now). It will be patented and in first world contries that most have insurance and it will be expensive. There will most likely be some initial govt subsidies. Third world countries will either ignore the patent or get it cheaper. That's the pattern most medicines like this follow - those of us that can afford it pay a huge price for our medicine. We pay for the research, development, and testing to create safe and useful drugs - somebody has too. The rest of the world pays as well as they can or are willing too.

      Yes, it sucks to be us and yes there are some that fall through the cracks. But in the long run it creates a MUCH better world to live in. Better to have the drag later than never if those are the only options.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    32. Re:Fast Track by Toby_Tyke · · Score: 1

      You've got to understand the economies of scale behind that, though.

      Well, I know next to nothing about the durg industry or ecomonics, but I'm not bad at maths, so lets try and understand that economy of scale.

      lets split the diffrence and say 300,000 MS cases.

      300,000 * 400 = $120,000,000

      And they take it once a week right? so 52 shots a year.

      120,000,000* 52 = $6,240,000,000

      6.2 billion dollars a year. And thats just US sufferers. Thats 31 billion dollars over a 5 year period.

      Like I said, I know nothing about the drugs industry, so I don't know whether that's profiteering or not. How much money would have been spent bringing the drug to market?

      --
      "I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
    33. Re:Fast Track by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I almost hope you get infected. Or your mother. Or your daughter.
      Ohhhhh... and that you lost any money you could have.
      That for sure would change your point of view.

    34. Re:Fast Track by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      6.2 billion dollars a year.

      Yes, but if it costs 6.0 billion dollars a year to produce, that still may not be so hot. I don't know if that's the case, but it's possible.

      The economies of scale I'm talking about are the fact that they can't just stock the stuff in every pharmacy in North America, since not every pharmacy will be filling that prescription, so you have to have a separate distribution system for it from the one you'd use for more "popular" medicines. Also, the relatively tiny volume probably means that they can't justify spending billions of dollars to find more efficient ways of making it. It makes sense to build a goat that squirts Claritin milk, but perhaps not so much for this one.

      Again, I have no particular love for pharmaceutical companies. Still, they spend mind-boggling amounts of money to do stuff that we never have to think about.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    35. Re:Fast Track by jafac · · Score: 1

      Still, they spend mind-boggling amounts of money to do stuff that we never have to think about.

      . . . yeah, like producing a mind-bogglingly diverse array of Viagra commercials. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    36. Re:Fast Track by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If that were true there would be a simple solution.

      You could form a corporation and bid on the cure, develop itself, and sell it for a small fraction of what modern drugs cost. After all, if pharma companies don't have any real expenses then you would easily outcompete them.

      The reality is that most purchased leads don't amount to anything, and the ones that do involve substantial R&D costs in addition to whatever the NIH did. Most modern drugs are discovered internally (or from commercial biotechs). At most, the NIH typically just comes up with a concept of some sort.

      If it were as easy as you suggest there wouldn't be high drug prices...

  14. That's an amazing step forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But even if it works-- how long until a strain of AIDS virus evolves with resistence to it? Even if it kills all known variants of HIV, a mutation which creates a resistant strain only has to happen *once* and we (as a species) are stuck with it forever...

  15. yee-haww! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to fuck like rabbits again!!

    Many a slashdotter can now get laid!

    (provided they do not differentiate between being in the same room where a sexual encounter occurs and actually having one)

    1. Re:yee-haww! by Enrique1218 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Many a slashdotter can now get laid!

      I don't think the fear of contracting an STD was preventing that

      --
      You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
    2. Re:yee-haww! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you want to reset the clock to the 1970s? Swap your SUVs for vans, hand in your cell/pda/pods and pick up your CBs. CDs for 8-track! Luckily I've still got a computer that boots:
      EXPLORER-85 VER 1.4
      COPYRIGHT 1979
      NETRONICS R&D
      NEW MILFORD, CT.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  16. let the... by mattkime · · Score: 3, Funny

    let the fucking begin!

    --
    Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
    1. Re:let the... by Ionizer7 · · Score: 5, Funny

      AIDS cure or no AIDS cure, you still have to have a willing partner...

    2. Re:let the... by Ekarderif · · Score: 1

      Never said anything about legality.

    3. Re:let the... by Mechanik · · Score: 5, Funny

      Giggidy giggidy giggidy... alright!

    4. Re:let the... by dartarrow · · Score: 1

      AIDS cure or no AIDS cure, you still have to have a willing partner...

      DAMN! so THATS where i got it wrong......

      --
      I love humanity, it is people I hate
    5. Re:let the... by kfg · · Score: 1

      AIDS cure or no AIDS cure, you still have to have a willing partner...

      Or a Louisville Slugger.

      KFG

    6. Re:let the... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      AIDS cure or no AIDS cure, you still have to have a willing partner...

      With enough money, that problem is solved. And remember, this is NOT rent-to-own.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:let the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...fucking resume

    8. Re:let the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AIDS cure or no AIDS cure, you still have to have a willing partner...

      Yeah but they already have pills for that.

    9. Re:let the... by dave1g · · Score: 1

      not to mention the 10 or so other nasty, no-cure STDs you would still be subjected to...

    10. Re:let the... by drxenos · · Score: 1

      And the award for "The Best Use of a TV Reference" goes to.....Mechanik!

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
  17. Just remember Bill Hicks by pyros · · Score: 2, Informative

    The day there is an available cure for AIDS, there will be fucking in the streets.

    1. Re:Just remember Bill Hicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one, welcome our herpes overlords.

    2. Re:Just remember Bill Hicks by Colin+Cordner · · Score: 1

      > The day there is an available cure for AIDS, there will be fucking in the streets. ...And the day after that, we'll all be visiting the doctor's office with an embarrasing case of genital warts!

    3. Re:Just remember Bill Hicks by AoT · · Score: 1

      Dude, RTFA.

      It cures herpes, too.

      Resume the fucking.

    4. Re:Just remember Bill Hicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you bet it makes the pill ineffective? There's ALWAYS a caveat.

  18. Don't break out the champagne just yet by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although so far limited to early test tube studies, CSA-54, one of a family of compounds called Ceragenins (or CSAs), mimics the disease-fighting characteristics of anti-microbial and anti-viral agents produced naturally by a healthy human immune system.

    While the tests are repeatable, there's a long distance between the test tube and human trials.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Don't break out the champagne just yet by humphrm · · Score: 1

      Yes, as we learned with Interferon. In the early 80's Interferon was touted as a cure-all for cancer. While it is still used to treat some cancers, it has fallen far flat of a cure and it's main FDA-approved purpose is treating Hepatitis. Certainly some good will come of this, but I have learned not to get my hopes up. Also, as we've learned from "curing" Smallpox, once we beat the disease, we become less immune to a flare-up because the Government has declared the disease dead, stopped production of immunizations, and now everyone who got the smallpox vax in the 70's are possibly no longer immune.

      --
      -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
    2. Re:Don't break out the champagne just yet by davidstrauss · · Score: 1

      There are three big differences with HIV, though. Only tiny numbers of people are capable of fighting HIV effectively, HIV takes a long time to progress to AIDS, and HIV isn't easy to transmit. That means, first, that losing immunity isn't a big loss, as few people have it, second, that the initial infection, if curable, isn't a big problem, and, third, that having a few people out there with HIV isn't going to destroy progress as much as a few people with smallpox.

  19. Wait for the peer-review by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is being promoted by Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals, inc.. Here is the press release behind this article - Novel Drug Compound Kills Multiple HIV Strains.

    "Ceragenix has licensed the exclusive worldwide rights to a patented new class of small molecule compounds from its developer, Professor Paul B. Savage at Brigham Young University."

    IF the claims are reproducible, this is a major medical breakthrough and will place Prof. Savage among such immortals as Jonas Salk. However, I'll wait for the independent verification before getting excited though.

    1. Re:Wait for the peer-review by MikeWasHere05 · · Score: 1

      Jonas Salk? O.o

    2. Re:Wait for the peer-review by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 1

      The developer of the Polio vaccine.
      Salk bio

    3. Re:Wait for the peer-review by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 1

      Buy stock now...don't wait for cure!

      --
      I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
  20. That Risk is Unfounded by eldavojohn · · Score: 1, Informative

    Bacteria and Yeast are not the same as the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS and HIV are viruses.

    Therefore, speculating that the same thing that stops viruses will also inhibit yeast or bacteria is erroneous. One consists of live cells--the other merely protiens (and is debated whether or not it is 'alive').

    A million AIDS patients is about 1/40th of today's problem. Either way, you're painting a pretty damn good picture if your 'prediction' holds true.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:That Risk is Unfounded by lubricated · · Score: 2, Informative
      >> Therefore, speculating that the same thing that stops viruses will also inhibit yeast or bacteria is erroneous.

      From TFA
      CSA-54, one of a family of compounds called Ceragenins (or CSAs), mimics the disease-fighting characteristics of anti-microbial and anti-viral agents


      emphasis mine. Yeah, in general bacteria and viruses are quite different, in this case it's not a totally off-base speculation.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    2. Re:That Risk is Unfounded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. CSA's have been studied for quite a while because of their use against microbial and bacterial infections.

    3. Re:That Risk is Unfounded by mizhi · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't AIDS a condition and not a virus?

      E.g. HIV causes AIDS?

      --
      Humorless sig goes here.
    4. Re:That Risk is Unfounded by mshurpik · · Score: 0, Troll

      >E.g. HIV causes AIDS?

      Does HIV actually cause AIDS? The human immune system is a chemical and virus killing machine. I can't imagine a worse fate for a virus than to go up against 520 million years of vertebrate evolution. And yet the HIV virus does this and more - it actually disables and removes the immune system with surgical precision.

      Wow. And it evolved within the last twenty years. And it only infects gays and black people. And it doesn't kill. And it's easily cleaned up with bleach. And it removes stains from carpets, takes the kids to school, and does your taxes by February.

      Why cure HIV? It seems to do just about everything.

    5. Re:That Risk is Unfounded by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      RTFA- the chemical in question was ORIGINALLY being investigated for it's antibacterial properties, it was only by accident that they found it killed viruses as well (including HIV).

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  21. If they're smart ... by Keyslapper · · Score: 1

    they'll make the treatments as inexpensive as they possibly can.

    This way, they'll have every HIV/Aids patient with two nickels to rub together beating down their doors, and they'll make an up front killing for the record books.

    Oh, and everyone will be really happy with them too.

    Of course, we know what will really happen ...

    1. Re:If they're smart ... by Esteanil · · Score: 1

      Economically, they'd be better off making it really expensive, thus making sure that everyone will *not* be cured, and that the disease will continue to spread, recruiting new customers for decades...

      But, of course, if this drug actually works, there *will* be lots of pharmaceutical companies throughout the world who'll copy it, IP be damned.
      And of course, the political pressure to rid the world of AIDS will be rather intense.

      Twenty years from now, AIDS could exist only in labratories...
      *Way* to early for any conclusions tho, let's see what the peer review says.

      --
      I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
  22. Re:Don't do it by kaffiene · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    fuckwit AC's like you, I spose

  23. Less than a decade? by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

    A fast track through the FDA could have one of the world's leading problems licked in less than a decade.

    Huh? AIDS has been a "leading problem" for around 25 years by my count. What clock are they working off of?

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    1. Re:Less than a decade? by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      The clock with a start point of discovery of the cure, and an end point of eradication of the disease.

    2. Re:Less than a decade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is suggesting that they could have it licked within ten years from now. Not from when it started being a problem. Was that really so difficult to understand?

    3. Re:Less than a decade? by koko775 · · Score: 1

      The clock after it's submitted to the FDA. In case you don't know what the FDA does, it spends lots of time making sure that medicines are safe for your consumption. Thus, he said, the problem (no *approved* drugs that kill HIV) would be solved (by approval).

    4. Re:Less than a decade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish (-1, Stupid) was a moderation option.

  24. Future Headlines: by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 2, Funny

    These two headlines would occure together:

    "HIV/AIDS Extinct After W.H.O. Global Campaign!"


    "World Population Skyrockets to 9 Billion in Unprecidented Babyboom!"

    --
    Demented But Determined.
  25. Re:breakthrough cure by kaffiene · · Score: 2, Funny

    See if it will cure you of being an asshole

  26. Eww... by Kesch · · Score: 1

    A fast track through the FDA could have one of the world's leading problems licked in less than a decade.

    Even with an AIDS cure I wouldn't lick it.

    --
    If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
  27. Check out the Ceragenix website... by Necromancyr · · Score: 1
    The compound 'is highly effective at clinically relevant concentrations against a broad spectrum of bacterial infections, including multi-drug resistant organisms such as Pseudomonas, MRSA and VRSA. The compounds are polyfunctional and have activity not just against bacteria, but are also active against certain fungi (Candida), viruses (orthopox family) and many cancers as all these cells share in common the presence of negatively-charged phospholipids on the cell membrane surfaces.'

    So, it could work against certain pathogens, similar to the way antibiotics work against specific pathogens. Interesting, but a LOT of work will have to be done before these ever get into people on any level.

  28. Journalist discovers cure for HIV! by ChePibe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Forgive me for saying this, but how much of this is trumped up by the scientist vs. the journalist? The researchers stated "we would like to formally show this before making any claims that would cause unwanted hype", yet the journalist went on and hyped it up.

    The headline could've easily read:

    "Professor makes steps in war against HIV/AIDS"

    "New lead in fight against HIV/AIDS"

    Or something along those lines.

    I'm actually a BYU student and I'd love to see a terrible disease like HIV/AIDS destroyed as much as the next man - I've met many people suffering from this disease in Latin America and it's horrible to see. I just think the journalist decided to soup up the story by taking what are very preliminary results and making a huge deal of them.

    Then again, I do have my fingers crossed...

    1. Re:Journalist discovers cure for HIV! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seen it in Latin America? I came down with a sudden and extreme case of what I HOPE is the flu a couple days ago. Today I'm fine. This can be caused by acute HIV-infection which happens around 2 to 6 weeks after initial transfer of HIV to a new host. I'm a 22 year old college student. The rate of HIV in my state alone for 18 to 28 yr olds has more than doubled since 2002. Next time you comment about seeing the effects of HIV/AIDS make sure you let people know how there has been a huge upsurge in early adult HIV transmission. I'm going in to be tested on Monday.

    2. Re:Journalist discovers cure for HIV! by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      Stating that I have seen it in one area does not eliminate any sympathy I have for those suffering it in other areas.

      Let me put it to you this way - be happy you can treat it. I saw people die in South America because they were diabetic. Period. They couldn't get simple things like insulin, nobody told them how to treat it, no one knew.

      I sympathize with your plight, but you'll get treatment. It's not an automatic death sentence like it is for so many in the developing world.

      I hope and pray your results are negative and you recover from the flu.

    3. Re:Journalist discovers cure for HIV! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't get AIDS from other people.

  29. I received that email too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I received that email too, but it's a few weeks later now and stocks didn't raise ... :-)

  30. It's much more possible than you think ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As we all know, the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a desease that attacks the body's immune system.

    I'm no med student but the article states that:
    CSA-54, one of a family of compounds called Ceragenins (or CSAs), mimics the disease-fighting characteristics of anti-microbial and anti-viral agents produced naturally by a healthy human immune system.
    Ok, if this is true, then we've overcome the large part of AIDS (immunodeficiency). We can just boost the hell out of the white blood cell mimicking Ceragenins. Will this stop AIDS? Maybe not, but it will provide the defenses that AIDS rips from its patients. If I recall correctly, it's not the AIDS virus itself that kills a victim but instead another desease/sickness that occurs from a weakened immune system.

    What's exciting is that the AIDS virus probably doesn't infect/reproduce when it is being killed by Ceragenins like it does to white blood cells. Thus, they may have something here if their premises hold true.

    Googling for "Ceragenins" results in zero hits. Which means this is some magical elixir that is a mistakened cure all. Or perhaps it's something very obscure that no one has thought of until today? We shall see.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by RingDev · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Googling for "Ceragenins" results in zero hits. "

      Maybe Ceragenins have been black listed for having 'penis size', 'discrete medication', and 'horny teenage girls' on their web site ;)

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by joecr · · Score: 1

      Googling for "Ceragenins" results in zero hits. Which means this is some magical elixir that is a mistakened cure all. Or perhaps it's something very obscure that no one has thought of until today? We shall see.

      One possibility for that is that the writer & or the editor spelled the word wrong. I've seen that to many times when they write about computers & many things in the other sciences as well. I'm not 100% certain though.

    3. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It appears that the company (Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals) has invented this term for their own products. As none of these claims are in the literature, googling won't find much. You find a bit more searching for CSA. Apparently in December they had a compound namded CSA-52 that killed e.coli and staph aureus (among other things). Again, that was published in the news before any scientific literature (has it been published yet, a quick pubmed search doesn't return anything?).

      Anyway, I'd bet they're pumping the stock. I'm not particularly confident that they've got what they claim (or that its efficacy is as high as they claim).

    4. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by gx5000 · · Score: 0

      Web Results 1 - 8 of about 20 for Ceragenins. (0.05 seconds)

      Pharmaceuticals - bizjournals.com
      Ceragenins, or CSAs, are synthetically produced small molecule chemical compounds
      comprised of a sterol backbone with amino acids and other chemical groups ...
      www.bizjournals.com/industries/health_care/ pharmaceuticals/2006/02/06/nashville_daily5.html - 49k - 6 Feb 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

      PharmaLive: Trial Results ... called Ceragenins (or CSAs) shows potent virucidal activity in in vitro
      laboratory tests against multiple strains of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), ...
      www.pharmalive.com/News/Category.cfm?categoryid=40 - 37k - 6 Feb 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

      Welcome to Chemweb -- Welcome to Chemweb ... seeking a joint patent on technological uses of compounds called ceragenins
      that have been shown in laboratory tests to kill multiple strains of HIV. ...
      www.chemweb.com/sinList?synmap=Chemistry - 36k - 6 Feb 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

      California Medical Information Act ... Brigham Young University and Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. today announced
      that one of a family of compounds, called Ceragenins shows potent virucidal ...
      medicalalarmpage.com/ california-medical-information-act.html - 42k - 6 Feb 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

      Nashville News - Nashville Newspaper - Nashville Business Journal
      Vanderbilt University and Brigham Young University are seeking a joint patent on
      technological uses of compounds called ceragenins that have been shown in ...
      nashville.bizjournals.com/ - 79k - 6 Feb 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

      ID: Password: Forgot? Young School Recent Young School articles ...
      Although so far limited to early test tube studies, CSA-54, one of a family of
      compounds called Ceragenins (or CSAs), mimics the disease-fighting ...
      young_school.newstrove.com/ - 85k - 7 Feb 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

      Tennessee Globe - daily news and current events
      Amcity Vanderbilt University and are seeking a joint patent on technological uses
      of compounds called ceragenins that... LifePoint earnings rise 5%, ...
      www.tennesseeglobe.com/ - 64k - 6 Feb 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

      Denver Globe
      Vanderbilt University and are seeking a joint patent on technological uses of
      compounds called ceragenins that have been shown in laboratory tests to kill ...
      www.denverglobe.com/ - 101k - 6 Feb 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

      In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very

      --
      End of Line.
    5. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      The first time I Googled for it I got nothing. The second time, three seconds later, I tried I got a few results.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    6. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by zpeterz63 · · Score: 0

      I recieved a few results for a google search. However, it didn't appear that any of them were from scholarly journals and I have a sneaking suspision that most of them are news articals about this "breakthrough".

    7. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by timster · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not exactly a med student either, though I know a little bit about immunodeficiency. While this compound may or may not fight AIDS, it will not work by overcoming the immunodeficiency. It's not possible to replace the functions of a white blood cell with some chemical compound. It's like trying to make honey without bees.

      The immune system is one of the most complex systems in the body, and it has one of the most difficult jobs. There is just an incredible array of different cells and substances running around inside a person, and the immune system is required to pick out the few that are hazardous and develop countermeasures to eliminate them. A white blood cell is not merely a little factory that secretes some kind of anti-virus substance -- it's a member of an intricate network of decision-makers.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    8. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try searching for cationic steroid antibiotic instead.

    9. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by murfman5000 · · Score: 1
      " The first time I Googled for it I got nothing. The second time, three seconds later, I tried I got a few results."

      I did the same thing but kept hitting the search button. Sometimes I would get about 7 results, sometimes I wouldn't. Huh. Odd behavior. Bug? (sorry somewhat offtopic)

    10. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by priich · · Score: 1

      "Googling for 'Ceragenins' results in zero hits. Which means this is some magical elixir that is a mistakened cure all. Or perhaps it's something very obscure that no one has thought of until today? We shall see."

      Try cationic steroid antibiotic.
      http://www.google.com/search?q=cationic+steroid+an tibiotic

    11. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by mrbnsn · · Score: 1
      Googling for "Ceragenins" results in zero hits.

      Try this: Cationic Steroid Antibiotics

    12. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Huh. Odd behavior. Bug?"


      Inconsistent data across the cluster?
    13. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Odd behavior. Bug?

      No, this is a feature of Google now.

      In true innovative style, Google is now using the Uncertainty Principle in results.

      Due to this drug not actually being real yet, the cat is sometimes alive, sometimes dead.

      Another theory is that the CIA just made this feelgood story up because they are going to stop giving AIDS to poor nations and the leak to Google hasn't propogated throughout their servers yet ...

      Take yer pick, the tinfoil is in the second drawer down.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    14. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by Aurisor · · Score: 1

      Either that or placement of german sports cars that is indicative of SEO meddling...

    15. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Disclaimer: I too am a skeptic, and for good reason. I would call that a proper scientific attitude.

      There appears to be a reason why a search for "Ceragenins" turns up zero results. So far as I can tell, up until this Press Release the term did not exist in the knowledge of the general public. The new compound appears to be named after a company called Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals who performed the laboratory tests on the compund, likely funded associated research at BYU, and was granted the sole license of sale for the compound.

      Please don't call HIV/AIDS the "AIDS Virus". This is misleading. AIDS is not a "thing", it is a condition. AIDS can be caused by a wide range of immuno-destructive "things", such as the "HIV" virus which due to a lack of understanding (and intentional dumming down) shares the same namespace as AIDS. To state what is probably obvious, he AIDS condition is a condition where the body doesn't have the resources to remove or kill off something that is damaging the body. The HIV virus must achieve a level of concentration high enough to cause AIDS (now called 'full-blown AIDS' to create distinction). This can happen over time (run your air conditioner at the highest setting 24 hours a day, with all your windows open), or it can happen when some other factor causes an immune deficiency in relation to the progress of the HIV virus (Go outside naked in freezing rain for five or six hours while you have a nasty flu). Eventually the immune system wears down, can't do it's job as well, and something is going to get the better of it. The body is not incapable if destroying HIV, it just isn't geared up for the rate at which it infects healthy cells in the body, healthy immune system or not. Some interesting thoughts come to mind when considering what HIV itself actualy does, in contrast to other infectious viruses. Indirect vs. Direct.

      AIDS as you know it today is "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome". AIDS is also "Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome" (or Autoimmune Deficiency Syndrome). Today the two terms in long-form are used almost interchangably to refer to HIV or "HIV/AIDS", adding to the confusion. AIDS, as a whole, shares a common set of general symptoms such as wasting, and the general inability of the body to handle with grace the wide range of attacks it endures every day. A person or animal with the so-called "Auto" version of AIDS, is similarly unable to handle the common cold, the flu, a sunburn.. as the person with the "Acquired" version. One might even be tempted to reverse them.. or in frustration throw them both away and create terms that are a little more clear. Anyway, all of this deserves greater research on the part of the public in general to be understood.

      I welcome the thought of a compound, a drug, a chemical, a substance, which will work alongside the immune system to combat deadly conditions imposed upon us by our physical nature. I also fear it when it doesn't come from the sometimes delicate hand of nature. Consider the long term effects of drugs like penicillin. Such amazing drugs have saved many lives, reduced symptoms for so many more.. but viruses and bacteria are alive too. They evolve under pressure and become resistant to the drugs we develop to combat them. Imagine a virus similar to HIV, now resistant to the point where we must all take our "ceratabs" every morning in order to stave off the next generation of AIDS causing nasties, whatever we choose to name them at that time.

      Clearly the above is not inclusive.

      I'll be hopeful, optimistic, concerned, and skeptical. All at the same time.

      Proceed with the bashing...

    16. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Nope, Google always behaves that way. We just rarely notice that different machines in their cluster give different results. It can pay to just reload your search a couple times sometimes.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    17. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by jbash · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The stock of Ceragenix just started being traded. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CGXP.OB&t=5d

    18. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by timster · · Score: 1

      This is complete misinformation. AIDS is ALWAYS and ONLY "acquired" immune deficiency syndrome, and it is caused ONLY by the HIV virus, which can fairly accurately called the AIDS virus, though it does not always cause AIDS (any more than influenza viruses always give you the flu). Nobody got AIDS before the introduction of HIV into the population.

      There is another disease -- autoimmune disorder -- that is not very much like AIDS, but perhaps you are confusing the two. Autoimmune disorder is not an immunodeficiency disease, though; it's almost the opposite, an overactive immune system.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    19. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by StikyPad · · Score: 1
      No, but Googling for "CSA-54" does. Ceragenin is, presumably, derived from the name of the company, Ceragenix. (Although the opposite could be true). Anyway, among the results is this article which has significantly more information:
      CSAs were invented by Dr. Paul D. Savage of Brigham Young University's Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and exclusively licensed to Ceragenix. Ceragenins, or CSAs, are synthetically produced small molecule chemical compounds comprised of a sterol backbone with amino acids and other chemical groups attached to them. These compounds have a net positive charge that is electrostatically attracted to the negatively charged cell membranes of certain viruses, fungi and bacteria. CSAs have a high binding affinity for such membranes (including Lipid A) and are able to rapidly disrupt the target membranes leading to rapid cell death. While CSAs have a mechanism of action that is also seen in antimicrobial peptides, which form part of the body's innate immune system, they avoid many of the difficulties associated with their use as medicines.
  31. Huh? by winkydink · · Score: 1

    Let me understand this, when it's a good idea or a great idea, it should be patentable, but then it's a fan-fucking-tastic idea, it shouldn't? If this is the real deal, how much money will be spent to bring it from test tube results through human trials & regulatory approvals? Are the people doing this just supposed to do it for the "greater good"? Last I looked you can't buy food or pay a mortgage that way.

    If you solve a really big problem, you should be entitled to a really big reward.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Huh? by AoT · · Score: 1

      If this is really the cure for AIDS then Doc Savage will be so insanely famous. He could probably walk up to any house in a city and knock on the door and be like, "hey, i kinda need a place to stay and some money."

      Then the people there would say, "holy shit, you cured aids, come in. Here is a bunch of good food and some money, come back anytime."

      Man, I wish I invented the cure for AIDS.

      Fucking sweet.

    2. Re:Huh? by winkydink · · Score: 1

      I, for one, cannot remember who developed the smallpox vaccine.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  32. MOD PARENT DOWN by ucahg · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Absolutely disgusting...

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on... where's your sense of humor? It made me chuckle.

  33. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by hmbcarol · · Score: 1

    If private money funded the research, then they have a much stronger claim to be able to control it. Don't like it? Come up with your own billion dollars and find your own cure.

    If we go around cherry picking the truely ground breaking inventions "for the public good" from people who spent their own dime and took their own risks, I can assure you no one will do that in the future.

    Conversely, if the US funded it or it was otherwise paid for with public money then the public took the risk and the public should own the benefits. Most University research falls into the evil loop hole where _I_ paid for it, but _THEY_ benfit. That stinks.

    Private money? You win/lose on how good your bet is. It encourages really clever thinking.
    Public money? We all gonna share.

  34. Science by press release by John+Newman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Repost this after they've shown some actual data, gotten it published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, and had independent investigators replicate it. There isn't a single hit for this "family" of compounds on PubMed, and the compound is named after a frikkin biotech company, so color me extremely skeptical - of both data and motives.

    This is why normal people get fed up with science. Their exposure to science is through media stories, PR bullshit like this, which says "Huzzah! Cure for X found!" Later on, we find out that the data is too weak to pass peer-review, that the new compound is toxic, that it only weakly suppresses X in animal models, and that X is not yet, in fact, cured. The real scientists around the world keep at their benchwork, with barely a glance up, steadily and (to the public) inconspicuously advancing our fundamantal understanding of X. But five years later, Mr. Normal Person hears another story like this one and says to himself "Didn't they cure X years ago? What are those ivory-tower leeches spending my $30 billion a year on, anyway?"

    1. Re:Science by press release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Search for "cationic steroid antibiotic" on PubMed. I'm pretty sure this is the family of compounds they're touting/studying. I'm not familiar with the field and therefore don't know anything about any in vivo testing of the compounds, so can't say anything about their efficacy. The press release is certainly typical company rhetoric.

    2. Re:Science by press release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't see anywhere in the article that stated the information came from a press conference or a press release. I was unable to search the abstracts on the www.retroconference.org/2006 database (the link is either broken or for conference attendees only) but either of the professors quoted in the article may simply have been submitting there. Bob Mims is a well-known senior journalist for the Salt Lake Tribune.

      Paul Savage is a well-published and notable researcher. http://people.chem.byu.edu/pbsavage/publications.h tml

      Derya Unutmaz is no different.
      https://medschool.mc.vanderbilt.edu/facultydata/ph p_files/show_faculty.php?id3=915

      Your accusations of "PR Bullshit" and the lack of "real scientists" are baseless supposition given the dearth of information currently available.

  35. Back to the 60s then... by js92647 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Free love it is.

  36. I'm Excited! by Quaoar · · Score: 1

    Frankly, I've been disgusted with the slow progress of cures for debilitating disease in the past 50 years. We've cured almost NOTHING in that time, only found treatments. If this truly is a cure, then we're witnessing something that has happened in half a century. Absolutely incredible.

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    1. Re:I'm Excited! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      BS. There are alot of cancers "cured" in the last 50 years. I'm one of the people in whom a cancer was cured. I came down with Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), also known as acute lymphocytic leukemia, in the fall of 1980 with first symptoms discovered on Oct 16 1980. I was cured in October 1982, relapsed the same month, then finally cured in 1985.

      In 1990-1991 I had an unrelated Lymphoma which was treated with drugs and surgery and cured by 1993.

      I've had two cancers CURED, not just treated but CURED in the last 50 years.

  37. hold the champagne a bit longer? by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I dunno. So the compound destroys HIV in the test tube. AFAIK, this is underwhelming, because the problem with HIV is that it hides out inside cells where blood-borne drugs can't get to it. (I don't even think it's in there as a complete viral particle, probably just the RNA.)

    You could hope that if you kept your bloodstream flooded with the drug you could nail each new virus as it emerged, but I seem to recall HIV can go directly from cell to cell, without entering the bloodstream at all.

    I think our natural immune system kills off viral infections in substantial part by recognizing which of our cells are infected and killing them. That is, it's not just a question of wiping out the free virus, I think.

    1. Re:hold the champagne a bit longer? by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


      Yeah, I can kill HIV in a test tube with some damn Simple Green, or Lysol.

      It's just that I can't pump someone's arm full of Bleach.

      ~W

      --
      sig?
    2. Re:hold the champagne a bit longer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I dunno. So the compound destroys HIV in the test tube.

      No kidding. So does Lysol. Slashdot is trolled again.

    3. Re:hold the champagne a bit longer? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Grr, yeah. The thing is that for a while, HIV and the body reach an equilibrium. The body is able to get rid of HIV infected cells indefinitely. HIV stays in the nerves, though. Eventually, it overwhelms the body through attrition and AIDS results.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    4. Re:hold the champagne a bit longer? by reverseengineer · · Score: 2, Informative
      An excellent point- there certainly have been many potential drugs that work much better in the test tube than in the human body. In particular with this class of compounds, a modified steroid, I would be concerned with the half-life of a drug in the body- what if this drug is rapidly metabolized in the liver to an inactive or toxic form? According to the company press release, tests have shown that the compound is not toxic to human cells at the concentration necessary to kill HIV, which is encouraging, but until animal and clinical trials are conducted, the safety and efficacy of this compound in vivo are not known.

      The reasoning for the functioning of a CSA as an antiviral seems fairly sound to me- the molecule structurally resembles peptides called defensins, which have potent activity against bacteria and viruses. The method of action, attacking the viral envelope, may make it more difficult for HIV strains to develop resistance. Current HIV drugs target specific molecules involved in the life cycle of HIV- reverse transcriptase, proteases, and the receptors involved in fusion with cells. Minor changes in these molecules could result in resistance to the drugs that target them. An approach based on the general properties of the viral envelope might be more difficult for HIV to sidestep (but by no means impossible).

      That being said, I'm curious to know how specificity for HIV will be possible with this line of attack. One of the issues with defensins is that in addition to their direct attack on antigens, they stimulate the immune response in a more general fashion. Which sounds good, except that this stimulation includes inducing mast cells to release histamine, and encouraging the production of cytokines. Too much of those, and you can get anaphylaxis and septic shock, respectively. While this seems like a ludicrous notion for immunosuppressed AIDS patients, it's worth noting that one of the functions of the helper T cells that HIV destroys is to help put the brakes on the immune response once the threat of infection has passed. I'm not saying all CSA drugs would necessarily cause shock in all, or any patients, but I am tossing it out as an example of the sorts of hurdles this and every other promising compound in vitro can face on the way to becoming a drug approved for use in humans- a lot of complicated things are possible in vivo.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
  38. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's another known cure for AIDS that has been well known for years and absolutely free.

    Don't fuck strange people without protection. Seriously, put the dick down and you won't get AIDS.

    Thank you.

  39. Re:breakthrough cure by Attack+Squirrel · · Score: 1

    That's just silly. You've got the added problem of having a moonroof in your skull.

  40. 'Researchers' Find Aids-Killing Compound? by Mad+Martigan · · Score: 1

    I think we all know, specifically, who actually found the compound.

  41. You'll just have to wait.... by Ekhymosis · · Score: 2, Funny

    for the playstation 4. I mean THIS time it will sport a processor so powerful it will cure all ailments, get you laid AND have great games. Go Sony! Or maybe install a rootkit in your DNA and sue AIDS for DRM infringement?

    --
    Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
  42. There will never be an AIDs cure. by (negative+video) · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Never.

    The reason is that HIV integrates itself into the victim's DNA and hides there, pretty much forever. Short of rebuilding the victim molecule-by-molecule, you can never get rid of HIV. The best you can hope for is to put the virus into remission, and hope people take their pills faithfully enough to prevent a shadow epidemic from forming.

    And even if the drug works and is nontoxic, there is another big hurdle: the blood-brain barrier. The brain is extremely picky about which chemicals it lets in, and a lot of drugs just don't make the cut. Unfortunately, HIV is perfectly happy to grow in the brain, where it gradually kills off nerve cells. IIRC the existing anti-HIV drugs have this problem; AIDS-related dementia is a feared complication.

    1. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't so picky about cocaine...

    2. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      Couldn't you setup another virus that modifies the DNA, thus, undoing or sabotaging the HIV dna that gets into the cells?

    3. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by Oxen · · Score: 1

      While it is true that HIV "hides out" inside cells, in their DNA, if we have a drug which is effective against the virus this will not be a real problem, because every time that the virus escapes the cell it will be immediately destroyed.

      --
      First you animate. Then you SUSPEND!!!
    4. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by optimus10 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Never say never. I think there are a number of studies that have yet to be done on latently infected cells with integrated HIV. Without fully characterizing the latent cells, we can't really say that there isn't something different about them that can't be exploited for targeting treatments.

      If leaders of the field are to be believed, anti-retroviral drug regimens can currently eliminate all infected cells in the body save for these latently infected ones. And if developments arise that allow specific targeting and elimination of the latent cells, boom problem is solved. I'm prophesizing a system of targeted immune activation to draw out the hiding infected cells, and letting existing drugs get rid of em.

      I think the problem of replication and infection in the brain is also poorly understood. Personally, I think the extravasation of infected immune cells into the brain is the source of replication, rather than any of the resident cells. The cells in the brain that can host replication are extremely limited (microglia, barely in astrocytes), and there are already promising developments to stop replication with drugs that easily cross the blood brain barrier (minocycline stops hiv replication in microglia, attenuates neuronal apoptosis).

      Gene therapy to deliver RNAi targeting HIV mRNAs offers another potential solution to this whole problem. I think the tools and most of the knowledge are out there. We just need to develop them to the point of usability. However, I really have little faith in the utility of the drug outlined in this study. Tons of crap kills HIV in a test tube. Let's see how toxic this drug is and its bioavailability/pharmocokinetic profile.

    5. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      Suppose you come up with a way of identifying and eleminating latently infected cells. What good does that do you when doing so dissolves half the patient's nervous system? That is to say, why wouldn't this process just kill the patient outright?

    6. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by glacote02 · · Score: 1
      Many virii integrate their gene DNA code into the cell DNA: that's what we call lysognic vrii.

      The specificity of Hiv is that it targets T-lymphocyts (defense cells). Hence you eventually die from benign illnesses.

      In theory finding a way of preventing [i]specifically[/i] Hiv to penetrate lymphocyt's membranes is indeed sufficient as a cure. All Hiv eventually die for lack of the ability to reproduce.

      That they succedeed in doing so is questionable. At least they found a way to cure their stock price...

    7. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by jonwil · · Score: 1

      HIV only infects the white blood cells.
      So, you kill off all the free aids viruses and existing infected cells using existing drugs then you killk off the cells where it is "hidden" using new drugs. Then you let nature take its course and produce new white blood cells (with no aids left, the new cells cant become infected)

    8. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by tsotha · · Score: 1
      That's just silly. Just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean it can't be done.

      If we knew the chemical trigger that causes the virus to come out of dormancy we could certainly cure it - either by forcing all dormant cells to start producing virus and then killing them (along with the virus).

    9. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by Quantam · · Score: 1

      Ummm... am I the only one who has never heard that HIV infects anything apart from T-helper (CD4 T-) cells?

      --
      You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
    10. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by BearRanger · · Score: 1

      We're spending our research dollars on HIV in the wrong way!

      Beam me up, Scotty.

    11. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to add to the movie like text above....

      Tyrell: [Tyrell explains to Roy why he can't extend his lifespan] The facts of life... to make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
      Batty: Why not?
      Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship, then the ship sinks.
      Batty: What about EMS recombination?
      Tyrell: We've already tried it, ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkalating agent and potent mutagen, it created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before it even left the table.
      Batty: Then a repressor protein, that would block the operating cells.
      Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries with it a mutation and you've got a virus again....but this, all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.

    12. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by Anon.Pedant · · Score: 1

      "Many virii integrate their gene DNA code into the cell DNA: that's what we call lysognic vrii."

      If by "we" you mean to imply that you are some kind of biomedical researcher, you must be the only one in the world that thinks that "virii" is a real word.

      If you do a pubmed search of the biomedical literature for "virii", this is what you get:

            "The following term was not found and ignored: virii."

      (It isn't in Websters either.)

      VIRUSES! VIRUSES! VIRUSES!

      The plural of VIRUS is NOT VIRII! And it is not VRII either.

      What the hell is wrong with slashdotters and the word "viruses"?

      Furthermore, HIV is not a "lysogenic" virus because by definition only phages (or their host bacteria) can be lysogenic. You probably meant to say that HIV is a retrovirus.

      Also:

          lysogEnic
          lymphocytE

      -- Annoyed Molecular Biologist

    13. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by seanduffy · · Score: 5, Informative
      The HIV virus does not "embed" itself into the dna of a victim. It inserts it's rna into t-cells and uses the t-cells to replicate itself. The problem is that this kills the t-cells, thus killing you. The HIV virus has no chemical affinity for the rest of the cells in your body - thank God, otherwise it would destroy just about every part of the victim. It does NOT hide away and wait to pop out the second a victim stops taking his or her cocktail.

      As for the blood-brain barrier: the barrier is made by what are called "glia cells." Or more specifically, astrocytes, a type of glia cells. The lipid membranes of these cells only allow certain molecules that are lipid soluble (non-polar) to enter the brain barrier. That is why when you add only one acetyl group to morphine, it becomes heroin and can act on the brain simply because it is non-polar enough to pass through the barrier. Most anti-viral drugs can indeed get through this barrier. Even if that were not the case though, HIV is a blood pathogen and circulation in and out of the brain would likely be enough to contact all HIV molecules with the anti-viral medication. How else would today's HIV cocktails work? HIV does NOT camp out and slowly kill neurons. At all. It cannot attack neurons. Only t-cells. When enough of your t-cells are attacked and killed, you get AIDS.

      --
      check out my music biatches. www.seanduffymusic.com
    14. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's not as if HIV integrates itself into the victims cromosomes, it just hides out in the T cells. Like all other cells, T cells die off and get replaced, so if the patient goes on a treatment that kills off all free HIV (that is, HIV in the act of reproduction), they will eventually be free of it.

      The hell of it is that HIV is not a particularly hardy disease, it's just that it shuts down the immune system. If you could normalize the patient's immune system it would wipe out the virus itself.

    15. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's too bad it doesn't destroy "just about every part of the victim". If that were the case, the first few people to catch it would have died quickly, and we would have never heard of it.

    16. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by vga_init · · Score: 1

      HIV does not work that way. The HIV virus is only able to enter specific cells. Because it attacks those cells exclusively, not every cell in your body is going to get infected, so for the most part your genome will be unaltered. The cells that HAVE had their DNA messed with are going to die anyway when they can no longer coninue producing more HIV. A cure that destroyed the HIV molecules would indeed be effective.

    17. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by optimus10 · · Score: 1

      Using highly active anti-retroviral treatment (HAART) regimens comprised of a combination of 3-4 drugs from the following classes: protease inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, we can essentially eliminate all productively infected cells and the only infected cells remaining are transcriptionally latent, producing no new virus, causing no symptoms and giving the patient essentially virus-free blood. There are a number of suspected "reservoir" populations where latently infected cells can be found (resting memory CD4 T cells, macrophages). Only latently infected memory T cells have been proven to be clinically relevant. The stats on infection for these cells are that on average around 1 in every 10^6 resting memory CD4 T cells is latently infected in any given patient. This number can vary between HAART patients to
      HIV infects cells of the immune system; HIV's receptor is CD4, coreceptors are CXCR4 and CCR5, all found exclusively on immune cells, not neurons. The cell death and dementia associated with HIV is most likely a bystander effect, where immune cells in the brain are replicating virus and some product or downstream effect of the replication cycle is causing neighboring cells to die. Again though, the number of infected cells is low. The main issue with the brain is that it is immune privileged, so it is under less rigorous immune surveillance than the rest of the body. Combine that fact with the fact that HIV infects immune cells and disrupts their function, and you have a recipe for disaster in the brain. Antiretrovirals that can penetrate the BBB can effectively stop virus replication there without destroying nervous function.

    18. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by optimus10 · · Score: 1

      Sorry about this double post, low sleep = mistakes. But I wanted the full and proper reply to go up.

      Using highly active anti-retroviral treatment (HAART) regimens comprised of a combination of 3-4 drugs from the following classes: protease inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, we can essentially eliminate all productively infected cells and the only infected cells remaining are transcriptionally latent, producing no new virus, causing no symptoms and giving the patient essentially virus-free blood. There are a number of suspected "reservoir" populations where latently infected cells can be found (resting memory CD4 T cells, macrophages). Only latently infected memory T cells have been proven to be clinically relevant. The stats on infection for these cells are that on average around 1 in every 10^6 resting memory CD4 T cells is latently infected in any given patient. This number can vary between HAART patients from less than 1 in 10^6 to even 10s in 10^6. In order for HIV to replicate, it must integrate itself into the host cell's DNA in every infected cell. Only a select few cells will integrate, then become latent and enter hibernation. Eliminating these cells will not likely cause any perceptible deficit in immune function.

      HIV infects cells of the immune system; HIV's receptor is CD4, coreceptors are CXCR4 and CCR5, all found exclusively on immune cells, not neurons. The cell death and dementia associated with HIV is most likely a bystander effect, where immune cells in the brain are replicating virus and some product or downstream effect of the replication cycle is causing neighboring cells to die. Again though, the number of infected cells is low. The main issue with the brain is that it is immune privileged, so it is under less rigorous immune surveillance than the rest of the body. Combine that fact with the fact that HIV infects immune cells and disrupts their function, and you have a recipe for disaster in the brain. Antiretrovirals that can penetrate the BBB can effectively stop virus replication there without destroying nervous function.

    19. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by adrianmonk · · Score: 1
      The reason is that HIV integrates itself into the victim's DNA and hides there, pretty much forever. Short of rebuilding the victim molecule-by-molecule, you can never get rid of HIV. The best you can hope for is to put the virus into remission, and hope people take their pills faithfully enough to prevent a shadow epidemic from forming.

      I think the problem here is that you know too much about biology. Thus you know the difficulties of curing AIDS too well, and you conclude that a cure is impossible.

      However, look back at the things people thought were impossible, or even inconceivable, in the past. A few hundred years ago, most people were certain it was impossible that man would ever develop the ability to fly. 500 years ago, the idea of travelling to the moon wasn't even thought impossible: it was so out there that it was inconceivable, because I don't think they even thought of the moon as a place. It was just a light in the sky.

      Also, think about radio. Do you think that 500 years ago people would think it would be ever be possible to send invisible messages from one side of the planet to the other almost instantly? Back then, the only way to get a message across the ocean was to hop on a boat.

      The point is, it may be really, really damned difficult to cure AIDS. So tough that it's hard to imagine how it could ever be done. But, that doesn't mean it will never be done. It might be a century or two before it's figured out, but it may eventually be solved.

      Yes, the AIDS virus gets into the victim's DNA and messes with it. But, if the AIDS virus can get in there and mess around with the DNA, then some perhaps some other virus can be engineered to go in and fix it back. Unless that virus can check every strand of DNA in the whole organism, it will from that point on be a constant battle between AIDS and the other virus, but if you can design a virus that's more efficient at repairing DNA than AIDS is at messing it up, that may be a non-issue.

      The blood-brain barrier issue sounds tricky too, but obviously there is some sort of mechanism that the brain uses to control access. If that method can be understood, then there is the potential that it can be controlled. Furthermore, if AIDS can make it past that barrier, then some other virus (carrying a cure) can then potentially make it past the barrier as well.

      I'm not saying I have feasible ideas on how to get around these problems. I'm just trying to think of examples to challenge your assumptions about why it's supposedly impossible.

    20. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by optimus10 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The HIV virus does not "embed" itself into the dna of a victim.
      Lesson on the viral life cycle:

      HIV --> injects RNA genome + tRNA primer --> reverse transcription to double stranded DNA --> integration ("embedding") into host genome --> transcription of viral genes from integrated HIV DNA to spliced and unspliced mRNA--> translation/export of mRNA and formation of virus particles

      It inserts it's rna into t-cells and uses the t-cells to replicate itself. The problem is that this kills the t-cells, thus killing you.
      The cause of massive T cell loss in HIV infection has yet to be concretely determined. Direct cell killing due to viral cytopathic effect is not believed to be a major factor. Rather the dysregulation of immune activation, function and apoptosis associated with infection are thought to be the primary causes for T cell loss. Your death is also not a direct effect of T cell loss, but rather the emergence of a combination of opportunistic infections and oncogenic viruses such as Kaposi's Sarcoma Herpesvirus which kills a person.

      It does NOT hide away and wait to pop out the second a victim stops taking his or her cocktail.
      And actually, the latent reservoir DOES wait to pop out the second a victim stops taking his/her cocktail. It isn't quite as malicious as you imply though...the "popping out" occurs naturally as cells from the resting memory reservoir are activated by antigen stimulus and then reinitiate productive infection. This occurs periodically even when a patient is on medications, but fail to produce virus due to drug blocking virus life cycle. But when a patient has to inevitably stop treatment due to prohibitive cost, toxicity or other side effects, these re-activation events are allowed to proceed and reinitiate full-blown infection.

      It cannot attack neurons. Only t-cells.
      It has been shown that HIV can enter neurons, but it just fails to produce virus. HIV infects not only T cells, but macrophages as well. Additionally, some groups have reported evolution of viruses which can use their co-receptors as the entry point, opening HIV to a wider range of host cells.

    21. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Ebola kills its victims pretty quickly, yet we've heard of that.

    22. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by (negative+video) · · Score: 1

      It is completely plausible to engineer something that can snip selected DNA out of a cell, curing it of HIV. Unfortunately there are millions of infected cells and you have to fix every last one. Even if the failure rate is only 0.01%, that would leave many thousands of infected cells. Inevitably, a random mistake will accidentally transcribe one of the remaining HIV sequences, and the infection will be resurrected.

    23. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by (negative+video) · · Score: 1

      That would not be the claim touted in this story, just another lifelong regimen of pills/injections, probably at a rather high dose and with exciting new side effects.

    24. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by (negative+video) · · Score: 1
      It's not as if HIV integrates itself into the victims cromosomes, ...
      Yes, it is. HIV has an enzyme called integrase that cuts a host chromosome and inserts the HIV genome. Here is a paper that talks about retroviral integration. Figure 1 shows a diagram of HIV being spliced in, and Figure 3 is a pretty picture of integrase itself.
      Like all other cells, T cells die off and get replaced, so if the patient goes on a treatment that kills off all free HIV (that is, HIV in the act of reproduction), they will eventually be free of it.
      Unfortunately, the half-life of the relevant immune cells is measured in years. For a cure you need to wait until the expected number of infected cells is significantly smaller than one, which would take many decades.

      Worse, based on the existence of brain damage in HIV victims, there is a good chance that HIV occassionally integrates itself into astrocytes, which live a very long time. Astrocytes are pretty important, too, so you probably would not want an add-on therapy that simply kills all infected cells.

    25. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by (negative+video) · · Score: 1
      Well, my comment did say that rebuilding the victim molecule-by-molecule is an approach that would actually work. And realistically, that is what it would take. Retroviruses chop the host DNA up at random and insert other DNA: their own genome, little pieces of their own DNA, random snippets of whatever happened to be lying around, other viruses, and so forth.
      But, if the AIDS virus can get in there and mess around with the DNA, then some perhaps some other virus can be engineered to go in and fix it back.
      HIV is the genetic equivalent of tossing a grenade into a china shop. Sure, the laws of physics allow you to repair that sort of destruction. However the required action is so pervasive and detailed that you are basically rebuilding from scratch. And that's the easy part. The hard part is that you're working on a living person. They have to remain alive and viable while you're fixing them. That severely constrains the methods that will work.
    26. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by sjames · · Score: 1

      I misspoke. What I should have said is that only certain cells are affected that way. An adjunct therepy that kills affected cells and does not cross the blood-brain barrier would have potential benefit.

      The open question would be viral reproduction within astrocytes. A number of trade-offs present themselves. If the viral reproduction will destroy the affected astrocytes in short order, destroying them thereputically might be worth it. If not, the patient will potentially be left with a simpler drug regimen and essentially asymtomatic (including a rebuilt immune system). If (admitedly a big if right now) antibody production against HIV could get going once the immune system is repaired, the patient may not need any ongoing drug treatment as the HIV would be destroyed upon reproduction.

    27. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There aren't 40 million people living with and/or slowly dying from Ebola.

    28. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by teklob · · Score: 1

      Not a troll, just a question from a curious biochem enthusiast. I was under the impression that heroin is diacetyl-morphine, meaning 2 acetyl groups. Also, how does morphine work if it can't get into your brain?

    29. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by Cadallin · · Score: 1
      Ah, thank you, that is very clear now.

      However, wouldn't a patient have to remain on such a regimen for the rest of his life to avoid resurgence of the virus? And while it would probably lessen the degree to which people would be contagious, I wouldn't think the risk would be eliminated. Also, this would seem to create selective pressures for a variant of the virus that would bind to alternate receptors, which would be quite worrying.

    30. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by optimus10 · · Score: 1

      If a patient stays on a regimen until only latent cells are left, we can then use a latent-specific immune cell activator to purge these last remaining infected cells. However, the latter part of this treatment methodology has yet to be discovered; until it is, yes the patient must remain on the drugs for as long as possible.

      The drugs in the cocktail would not create selective pressure for alternate receptors since they all act on aspects of the virus life cycle downstream of the receptor/entry point.

  43. Overpopulation by teslatug · · Score: 1

    If this is true it will indeed be a great thing. Something callous that came to my mind, if we can find cures for aids, cancer, etc., might we find ourselves in a really bad overpopulation problem a hundred years down the line? It seems like wars will be the only tool nature will have to pare down the population of the most dominant species on this planet. I sure hope that we can find a way to space travel and terraform planets in the next hundred years.

    1. Re:Overpopulation by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Urbanization and developed economies do a really good job of lowering birthrates. It's happened in the United States, Europe, Japan and is starting to happen in India. China's is dropping too, but that is more of a side effect because of government planning.

    2. Re:Overpopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I sure hope that we can find a way to space travel and terraform planets in the next hundred years.
      You don't think that's something bound to happen? I find your lack of faith disturbing.
    3. Re:Overpopulation by slashdotmsiriv · · Score: 1

      Long before we travel to the stars, we should be capable to "terraform" deserts (would you like a California-like Sahara?). Inhabit the poles, build huge artificial islands, efficiently utilize the energy and food resources of the oceans (remember Sea Quest?), build huge underwater cities, increase the average height of city buildings to something like 500 meters tall. Of course we would be already using renewable energy or cold fusion and most likely genetic engineering in agriculture will have solved any food shortages.

      All these should happen long before we have huge "warp-driven" ships and planet-wide force fields... and would increase earth's capacity substantially.

    4. Re:Overpopulation by skoaldipper · · Score: 1
      Overpopulation is a politically contrived fallacy to support current economies and hinder the growth of others. Even most malnourishment in Africa comes from strife associated with warfare and government corruption (or neglect). There are vast untapped agricultural resources in various parts of the world, including here in the United States. Unfortunately, there is not much profit in developing third world countries to sustain themself, independently or by assistance. It's the nature of greed. Malthusian prognosticators of doom and gloom alarmed us that population growth would become geometric while foood production remained arithmetic. It's simply not the case, but quite the inverse. Technology in agriculture has dramatically improved since.

      As for over crowding, the more the merrier. You never know where the next Beethoven, Rembrandt, or Einstein will arise. In probability, the higher you saturate an event likely to occur, it will. Reducing that chance will only prolong the birth of the next great scientist of our time who will provide us those means to terraform other planets, or another philosopher to etch out a new form of government, or another Mozart, et cetera. I believe history will rightfully conclude a direct parallel between the 18-20th century technology explosion and the world's population growth rate over that same period. And that's not really a stretch of the imagination. What other corelation would there be?

      Historically speaking, the Roman empire collapsed upon itself when it's death to birth ratio fell dramatically. In response, immigrants had to fill that void. As with insecure borders and constant uprisings, the parallels today amongst some developed Western civilizations is ominous.

      Celebrate every birth as a blessing, which it is. Of course, I'm Catholic (and a socialist at heart) and my perception of reality is tainted by rose colored glasses (much like the ones Bono wears), but I'm optimistic nonetheless. If I may, I'll use my own family as justification for more optimism. I come from a family of 5 children, 1 brother is a V.P. with Rockwall currently living in China with his family of four children, helping retool their manufacturing infrastructure to support their economic growth. China and it's 1 billion populace is a perfect example of how an inept government can hurt their demographics. Birth control there is mandatory simply because the government has no manufacturing controls (his role) or government incentive (to be determined) in place to supplant a larger populace. You can always build larger and taller housing structures and retool the city's infrastructure to support it. Instead of a few New York cities (composed of 10+ million people) like several Shanghais sparsed across China, you could have hundreds. Why not? Anyways, to continue illustrating my point, I myself have a post graduate degree in Computer Science and have worked on SDI based systems in defense of our nation. I have served in the Army and like to think contributed to our Nation (in some small part). My other brother has built hundreds of homes across America (as a rough framer with his business), while providing work for immigrants from South America. My other two sisters each have four children of their own. One sister has a Masters in Special Education and is a teacher. The other has no degree but has the highest level of certification as a Deaf Interpreter, and has appeared on television as part of the weather team while also travelling to various parts of the world (like Russia and it's former Soviet satellites) to assist emerging global companies with hearing impaired staff. So, would the world be better off if say 2 of us children were not born? 3 of us? Granted, others could equally have taken our place and provided the same "benefit". I concede that. However, you should know that our family was dirt poor growing up. In fact, we were homeless for a short period of time. Sometimes, I had one meal a day as a lad. We had meager beginnings and lived the American dr

      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
  44. How WONDERFUL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now all we have to do is figure out how to weasel HIV viruses out of bone and brain before the medicine kills the patient.

    But since this is being reported on slashdot, it's undoubtedly uncorroborated bullshit that can be dismissed out-of-hand. When did this site become such a intellectual backwater?

  45. HIV is a virus by istewart · · Score: 1

    How can you kill something that's not technically alive? Furthermore, I was under the impression that it was a retrovirus, so its DNA is inscribed into infected cells of the patient which in turn produce more viruses. Does this treatment somehow reverse that? If so, one would think there would be huge implications for genetic engineering and virology.

    1. Re:HIV is a virus by Capitalist1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless HIV works differently from other viruses, it does eventually kill the infected cell it used to replicate itself.

      Why? Because virus replication dumps all the copies *inside* the cell walls. Eventually, the cell gets as full as it can be and pops - releasing all the newly-formed copies. The cell at that point is damaged beyond recovery and dies.

      There is nothing to reverse once the infected cells have cycled. The real problem is getting *all* copies of the virus, since it can hide dormant in other types of tissue.

      *I am not a doctor, but I play one on dates.*

      --
      One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
    2. Re:HIV is a virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's not alive, why the hell does it have "it's DNA" and how the hell can it convert cell into viruses? Are teh virus turning cell into virus making factory?

  46. Truly a great day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for herpese, syphallis, and gential warts

    make way for the new bacterium!

  47. WoW LGBT's, Rejoice by winphreak · · Score: 0

    Using a game to escape reality. Now, part of reality can be fixed, thus furthering them into the enjoyment of the game.

    --
    "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
  48. Side effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The S in CSA stands for steroid. I've seen firsthand what steroids do when used to treat autoimmune disorders (sort of the opposite of AIDS in some ways, a hyperactive immune system attacks the body). They do some of the things you might imagine steroids do. Also, if this stuff can attack a virus, it might be a lot like chemo--atacking other cells also.

  49. morale-less? by DreadSpoon · · Score: 2, Funny

    The beatings will continue until morale (and spelling) improves!

  50. Very short on details. Another way to kill Hiv. by zymano · · Score: 1

    How about put patients in clean sealed confinement and then kill all his Tcells with tailored antibodies ?

  51. I WISH THE RESEARCHERS OF THIS THE BEST OF LUCK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WELL, I for one, hope to heaven they have a cure.

    This NASTY pestilence has killed people and is killing more (slowly, the worst part) by the droves. When they say that e.g.-> 10 million KNOWN cases are worldwide or folks are HIV positive?

    Heck, imo? You can TRIPLE that number! It's out there & spreading like fire!

    Not only that, but I am SURE I am not the ONLY one here who will say it has royally messed up my social life!

    (I.E.-> You practically need a resume nowadays & medical readout, if you catch my drift, & I am one of the folks from the tail-end of the 70's "free love" time to early 90's generation that never had to worry about any STD's really - there wasn't much you couldn't take a penicillin variant for to kill anything IF you were unfortunate enough to catch something (other than herpes, which wasn't bad in THAT time-frame, not like now)).

    I wish them the best of luck personally & HOPE it works out! I hope this especially for the young folks who (yes I remember my teens & twenties) have a 'harder time' controlling their hormones/urges... so they can enjoy a 'normal' youth, best time of your life really imo & experience thusfar!

    * :)

    APK

  52. Cures AIDS but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It cures AIDS but probably causes untreatable pancreatic cancer with death resulting within 3 months.

    1. Re:Cures AIDS but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like AZT and retroviral cocktails?

      *ouch* :)

  53. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Ahnteis · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'd prefer to just mod this "flamebait" but instead, I'll point out that the "Mormon" church donates millions each year to needy people including 3rd world countries. But hey, you keep smokin' whatever it is that lets you ignore reality in favor of your prejudices.

  54. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

    Don't worry about it. If a cure is found, but only sold in limited quantities and for prices that are not related to the drug's manufacture cost, many countries will ignore patent law, and start manufacture the drug on the double. For many countries out there, getting rid of their AIDS problem is wa more valuable than any trade restriction that the US might impose. Just look at what India and Korea are doing with Tamiflu.

  55. Just one teensy thing they didnt mention.... by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There's no shortage of chemicals that kill the AIDS virus. Problem is, they also kill good cells.

    So just the fact that they've found something that kills AIDS is not particularly interesting.

    What's required is to also do tests on cells, then animals, then humans. If they don't immediately keel over, then we can get a tad excited. Until then, it's about as promising a treatment as red fuming nitric acid (a real good AIDS zapper).

  56. Rock on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's fuck!

  57. My biology teacher... by wilburdg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This reminds me of something my biology teacher told me in high school:

    HIV is very easy to kill. Anyone with a bottle of Clorox has a powerful tool for killing all variants of HIV.

    The hard part is killing it without killing or damaging other tissues.

  58. We already know how to stop it. by arthurpaliden · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Just stop screwing around and sharing drug needles.

    1. Re:We already know how to stop it. by famebait · · Score: 1

      Just stop screwing around and sharing drug needles.

      Wow, thanks for stopping AIDS dead in its tracks for us!

      That's a pretty nifty trick. Let me try:
      World leaders should just make up, hold hands and be friends.

      Whoah, doo0d, I just like totally wiped out war! This totally rocks! Why didn't anyone think of this before?

      --
      sudo ergo sum
  59. Google does not have much to say either by Large+Bogon+Collider · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oddly enough, despite what may seem like a breakthrough in HIV research, the word "Ceragenin" brings up ZERO hits in Google. If this was really hot or big, you think it should bring up lots of hits.

    1. Re:Google does not have much to say either by Haertchen · · Score: 2, Informative

      'Ceragenin' results in no hits. However, 'Ceragenins' does. They all seem to be referring back to essentially the same article. But it is getting some attention. As icing on the cake, it is also really easy to search for the company that seems to have been sponsoring the research (Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals Inc.) As far as I can tell, they're a legit company that recently changed their name after a merger, with a history on Wall Street, etc. Really, I'm starting to think that Google spoils us. There are lots of things that are so obscure, even Google can't find them until this kind of publicity occurs. Finding useful information on, say, cutting-edge specialized physics (say, the statistics of correlations functions between scattering matrix elements of a classically chaotic cavity), is essentially impossible on Google, even using Google Scholar. I can only imagine how much worse it must be with the fantastically large number of different organic compounds that can be created.

    2. Re:Google does not have much to say either by biraneto2 · · Score: 1

      Two ideas. 1 - It's supposed to be a breakthrough that would even cure HIV. If you could google it you could have discovered it by yourself. 2 - People say pineapple helps cure cancer. The fact you can google pineapple and a lot of medics say pineapple is healthy don't make this true.

    3. Re:Google does not have much to say either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite obvious that google has join in with the Military Industrial Complex and the grand league of Stonemasons to keep such a miracle cure hidden. After all, wasn't it these same people that said cold fusion couldn't work, and spy satellites can't read your thoughts. Or how about the misinformation that tinfoil hats actually amplify EM radiation.

      It's all propaganda to keep you down.

      Fight the power. /me straightens tinfoil hat.

    4. Re:Google does not have much to say either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they call Ceragenins (specifically CSA-54) belong to a class called Cationic Steroid Antimicrobials. Google and Medline know about them.

      Google for Cationic Steroid Antimicrobial

      MedLine for Cationic Steroid Antimicrobial

    5. Re:Google does not have much to say either by khallow · · Score: 1

      I've had similar problems with some mathematical concepts. Sometimes they are highly visible and sometimes not. I think it has a lot to do with the nature of the field. Some fields encourage people to post preprints online and such. Those fields become a lot more visible to Google.

  60. What the government doesn't want you to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the CURE for AIDS is SUGAR WATER

  61. I'm gettin a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VASECTOMY and some ROPY!

  62. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  63. HIV != AIDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are just going to kill a harmless little retro-virus.

    AIDS is a whole 'nother thing entirely.

    http://www.virusmyth.net/

  64. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That sir, is the worst crap I have read in weeks. And mind you, I've been reading 1984 for the past 2 days(about 1/2 done).

    Without the capitalist system, a cure will most likely never be made for aids. That line of thought leads to socalism-> communism-> complete-literal-slavery. The overwhelming common good is the protection of the patent system. After all the patent system is the epitomy of freedom. What good is a cure for aids if we're all slaves?

  65. if... by Bizzeh · · Score: 1

    if it is true, what will be bigger? this, or the cure to cancer when it comes around?

    1. Re:if... by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

      Hey man, not to be a troll, but the URL in your tagline caught my eye so I checked it out. I'm in the midst of a similar project: http://picmojo.go2mojo.com/ What are the odds you'd be interested in working together?

      --
      Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
  66. Re:Very short on details. Another way to kill Hiv by Randseed · · Score: 1

    I've asked the same question. It's an intuitive solution. The problem is that HIV infects all cells which express the CD4 receptor, which includes glial cells in the central nervous system, among others. If this wasn't the case, you could induce aplastic anemia and use a bone marrow transplant.

  67. News Agencies by yincrash · · Score: 1

    news agencies once again promote illiteracy. HIV stands for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Why would you need to say HIV/AIDS virus??

    1. Re:News Agencies by geoff127 · · Score: 1

      Umm...sort-of. Yes, they are the exact same virus, doing the same thing to the human body. However, the terms are different. HIV is the early infection, from the day you catch the virus until your T-cell count drops below 200. Also, at the point you will not show any symptoms, besides a few flu-like symptoms very early in the infection that go away fairly quickly. Once your T-cell count drops below 200 or you start to show some signs/symptoms of AIDS than you are no longer labeled as an HIV patient, but rather as an AIDS patient. This is where the symptoms start to appear, and more or less the end is near.

  68. The Children are Right to Laugh at Me by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, so I missed that word. I did RTFA but I'm still skeptical.

    Viruses and bacteria are so different to me, rarely a treatment affects both.

    CSA, in fact, stands for Cationic Steroid Antimicrobial and almost every piece of research involving them is centered on attacking bacteria.

    How come zero hits turn up for Ceragenins when I search for it?

    This article didn't include much of the above information and seemed to give a completely different name for CSAs than what they truly are--compound steroids used to primarily combat bacteria.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Children are Right to Laugh at Me by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      How come zero hits turn up for Ceragenins when I search for it?

      I got 50 hits, but they were all on Slashdot and Utah newspapers.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  69. MEDLINE doesn't know about it. by Randseed · · Score: 1

    Of course, since Medline doesn't have a single reference on these revolutionary compounds called Ceragenins, I call bullshit on this one.

    1. Re:MEDLINE doesn't know about it. by InsurgentGeek · · Score: 1

      Medline? Not even Google knows about it. Who knows - it may be so rare that there isn't even a domain with that name (but I'm too lazy to check).

  70. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, I'm sure if it was in the hands of Pfizer they would just give it away for free.

    --
    We are all just people.
  71. This is old news... by jonadab · · Score: 1

    > Researchers believe they have found a new compound that
    > could finally kill the HIV/AIDS virus,

    We've known of compounds that will kill HIV for a long time, that's nothing new. HIV is actually rather fragile; *lots* of things kill it. Phenol, betadine, chlorine bleach, ...

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  72. Alright now! by eheldreth · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who finds it ironic that we may lick aids. I mean I thought that was one way it spread.

    --
    The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
  73. One other problem... by cleetus · · Score: 1

    ...getting the compound/pill/elixer to everyone with AIDS.

    This is both a problem of physical distribution and of law. Africa (where the greatest number of cases have been recorded) is not the easiest place in which to widely distribute medicine, especially given the stigma AIDS has gained in certain countries there. Not to mention, there is a thicket of IP law to navigate. While I believe the scientists behind this discovery should be amply rewarded, IP law shouldn't hold millions of people hostage.

    Tough problems, but perhaps some hope.

    cleetus

  74. Corrosponding rise in non-fatal STDs by davidwr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Whether we want to admit it or not, the spectre of a fatal, wasting illness does influence sexual behavior.

    During the late '80s and early '90s, when their friends and partners were dying long, drawn-out, horrible deaths, unsafe sex practices declined rapidly in the gay male population.

    With the advent of "maintenance drugs" that make living with HIV somewhat akin to living with diabetes or another chronic, life-impacting-but-usually-not-fatal-in-the-short- term illness, risky behavior rose.

    Once HIV is cured, expect sexually risky behavior to go up, possibly approaching its pre-1983 levels. If this happens, you will see a corrosponding rise in Herpes and other incurable STDs, along with a rise in the attending public health costs.

    Yes, we should be working to cure HIV and for that matter Herpes and other diseases. However, we should continue to educate our youth that the only sure-fire prevention of getting and STD or worse, giving it to someone you love, is abstenance, and where that is not possible, the 2nd-best way is to use some combination of barrier and/or chemical to block STD transmission.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  75. Finally! by Ober · · Score: 0

    If you can't get laid now, that there is a cure, GIVE IT UP.
    I think I might just take up a little sodomy, and thumb my nose at the
    now deposed death spore.

  76. What studies? by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1

    What studies to date show is a compound that attacks HIV at its molecular membrane level, disrupting the virus from interacting with their primary targets, the "T-helper" class white blood cells that comprise and direct the human immune system. Further, CSAs appear to be deadly to all known strains of HIV.

    Umm - What studies? Does anyone else find it strange that there is no reference anywhere in the article as to how they came to believe that CSAs had this effect? Or am I just blind?

    Was it tested in a test-tube? In monkeys? In humans?

  77. Just another cure for aids... happens every week by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    I'll beleive it when i see it. Until then i'll just chalk it up as another attempt to raise the value of a medical research firm.

    There has been an aids cure anounced every month for the past 5 years... none have surfaced.

    There's been cures for skin cancer anounced... even with amazing pictures to prove it... but it never made it to market.

    These press releases/stories are the medical version of "killer bee" stories on the news. They use them all the time, but they never amount to anything.

    If it were a real cure... it would be out in the field right now, doing its job... just like the aids coctail was.

  78. It is possible that it is that simple by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

    HIV is a retrovirus based on RNA and is prone to mutation. However, there is a common feature amongst all HIV virus particles that makes them HIV. If you can exploited that feature either by antibodies or a inhibitory compound, you could theoretically cure it. But, I would think this may still be tricky to cure in a human. HIV genome resides in the infected cells DNA. An application of this drug would attack only the viruses in the bloodstream but not the infected cells. The infected cells only produce HIV when actively fighting an infection. Thus, they could continue to make the virus long after the drug is filtered out of the bloodstream. So, the drug would have to be administer either in tantem with a deliberate infection or over an indefinite period.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  79. World's leading problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Uhm, I'm pretty sure that the world's leading problem is Islam and its pig fucking leader Muham/b>met.

  80. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by slackartist · · Score: 1

    Some responders have posited that the Mormon Church is interested only in making money. If the cure is legit, and I doubt very seriously that it is on any number of levels, then what better publicity for the church itself than to give the cure away? Offer salvation in this life and the next! Rake in the bucks from all the tithing from new members...

  81. There's already a 90% effective cure for AIDS... by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

    ...have sex with a Slashdotter.

    01000010011001010110001101100001011101010111001101 10010100100000001110010011000000100101001000000110 11110110011000100000010100110110110001100001011100 11011010000110010001101111011101000111010001100101 01110010011100110010000001100001011100100110010100 10000001110110011010010111001001100111011010010110 11100111001100101110001000000010000001000111011001 010111010000100000011010010111010000111111

    --
    If you can read this sig, you're too close.
  82. Cure??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps I have a misunderstanding, but...

    Has a CURE been found for *any* virus ever??? I don't mean a vaccine, or something that reduces symptoms, but an actual CURE, i.e., you are already infected by a virus after the initial incubation period, receive a medication and are then free of the virus.

    I was under the impression that there never has been a cure for any virus up to this point, and in fact, once infected, you always have a virus. For example, most of us get chicken pox as children and our bodies learn to fight off the virus but it never leaves 100%. Some of us get a flare up later in life i.e. 'shingles'.

    Am I mistaken?

    1. Re:Cure??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rabies

    2. Re:Cure??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are shots for rabies really a cure though? I thought you can get the vaccination shots within a certain timeframe *after* being bitten by a rabid animal (incubation period), after that, you are toast.

      I believe the same is true for smallpox, you can be vaccinated within 4-5 days after infection and repel the virus.

  83. And Government money too! by RingDev · · Score: 1

    They'll get subsidized through the nose. Think about the billions being spent by governments around the world trying to provide socialized health care/medicare/medicaid to people on AIDS cocktails.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  84. No, the cat does not "got my tongue." by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > A fast track through the FDA could have one of the world's
    > leading problems licked in less than a decade

    2 million a year x 10 years = 20 million dead. And the FDA is humanity's friend just how again?

    No, seriously, I'm looking at you dear reader. The wildest crap of all the snake oil salesmen in the world wrapped together wouldn't kill 20 million in 10 years.

    Ah, who cares. A dead man in front of the cameras a politician can pontificate about is worth 20 million dead away from the cameras. See also: socialized medicine slowing the rate of technological development, causing an ever growing pile of bodies who died, who wouldn't have had technology been advancing faster.

    But this is a troll. 20 million dead is not.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  85. possible method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    It will either strip the body of everything including our normal colonies of beneficial bacteria and yeasts, and thus be too dangerous to use.

    I have wondered whether HIV/AIDS could be treated by haemodialysis (AKA dialysis); since HIV seems to act on white blood cells (right?), couldn't the blood be cleansed by a miraculous substance such as that in the article? if the miraculous substance itself is toxic, then perhaps that could be filtered from the blood after having been active briefly

    unfortunately, cleansing an HIV patient's blood of HIV would probably not be enough to remove HIV from all the tissues in the patient's body, so this process would have to be repeated to keep HIV subdued

    GrimRC
    1. Re:possible method by jafac · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most of the herpes family of viruses tends to retreat to the spinal cord where the immune system can't get at it to finish it off. Hence, when you get an outbreak of herpes zoster (chicken pox/shingles) - it travels along nerve clusters and surfaces on the skin in very distinct patterns deliniating the specific area that's covered by a given nerve.

      For everyone who had chicken pox as a child, and is dreading an occurrance of shingles later in life (my wife was struck by this after a cortisone shot in her back supressed her immune response enough to give the virus a shot at an attack), this potential treatment is very good news indeed.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  86. Drug Companies by porkThreeWays · · Score: 1

    Forgive me for sounding like a slashbot, but I feel the drug companies are preventing these breakthroughs from seeing the light of day. The money is in the treatment, not in the cure. It has been known for quite awhile that certain people's bodies posses certain evolutionary characteristics that prevent them from getting aids. Basically nothing has come of this. It's scary to think the world will probably see very few cures in our lifetime. Like Chris Rock says, in our lifetime we will talk about our AIDS like its arthritis. "Man, my AIDS is actin up again. It gets like this when it rains."

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    1. Re:Drug Companies by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      You didn't want to sound like a Slashbot... and then you quoted Chris Rock? You might as well have thrown in an anti-Bush line and one about how great life is in the U.K. for good measure.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    2. Re:Drug Companies by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      If you think its so simple to cure, then do it yourself.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  87. Er...it kills viruses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The description is...wrong. You can't "kill" a virus. Viruses are non-living.

  88. Mark my words by dbucowboy · · Score: 1

    Within the same decade the pre-marital birth rate will skyrocket because there will be no "real" consequences for unprotected sex.

    --
    This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
    1. Re:Mark my words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you think we need a fake one. Personally, I enjoy the fear of contracting AIDS from fat chicks because it keeps me from putting my dipstick into margianlly attractive women. I'm glad the federal government has ideas about who is/isn't attractive enough to sleep with, and I hope this kind of intrusion into my personal life goes on forever.

  89. An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by Loundry · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Beware: what I am going to write is one-thousand times more offensive than claiming that I don't believe in god, or that I don't believe in human races.

    I do not buy the notion that A. HIV exists, or B. HIV causes AIDS. This statement usually elicits boatloads of insults calling me stupid, blind, unscientific, or someone who is solely motivated by a desire to have non-stop unprotected sex. Keep in mind that none of those statements mean that HIV exists or causes AIDS. They are merely punishment for someone who isn't buying into the orthodox theory. I believe that I can provide you with enough material to inspire you to doubt the HIV/AIDS theory, but it is very long, very difficult reading, and replete with many concepts about which I am only barely versed. I am no virologist, but that doesn't mean I have to accept the word of someone else because I am not.

    I believe that this press announcement is sound and fury signifying nothing. AIDS will never be cured because it is, more than anything else, a jobs program for A) AIDS researchers, B) pharmaceutical companies, and C) the press. If AIDS is cured then all of these people are out of jobs.

    The reason why this press release exists is because it's salacious. "A cure for AIDS! Can you believe it!" Perhaps you all don't remember when "eradication" was the AIDS buzz of the day. "Hit early, hit hard" was the mantra. Of course, it was bullshit, and no lives were saved, but it did help warm us up to the idea of getting people on the drugs as soon as they "tested positive" for HIV rather than when they started getting sick.

    I know that there will people who will want to mod me to oblivion for stating that I do not believe the "accepted" view. I do not deny that people have died and are dying. My position is skepticism, and I despise conspiracy theories. There will also be people who reply to this with insults and those posts will get modded up. AIDS is part of our culture and it fulfills many different roles. As a gay man, I am committing high treason to the "gay cause" by stating my skepticism. If the skeptical position is utter crap (and it may very well be), then it can be critically analyzed and it will be found lacking. I invite that kind of criticism (but have rarely seen it).

    The skeptical position is worthy of being investigated. I warn you: it is not an easy read, and the ugliness of the HIV/AIDS proponents is breathtaking. For example, they have openly stated that people like me should be thrown in jail for not believing.

    If you are interested in the topic, I invite you to examine the articles at the Perth Group, which has been skeptical of a human immunodeficiency virus as the cause of AIDS since it was announced by Dr. Gallo. http://www.theperthgroup.com/ It's all science. Slow reading.

    If you are interested in the topic but want something more "juicy", then you might want to read about black children being taken from their parents and forced to be human guniea pigs for AIDS drugs that poisoned them to death via stomach tubes. Yes, this happens in America. Welcome to the AIDS industry. http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/house.htm (warning: not safe for work)

    Despite what others think about me personally, I think my position (skepticism) has merit and deserves a place in the table of discussion. I pray that the moderators will see that free speech and scientific discussion, even regarding positions that others hate, has more merit than censorship and invective.

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    1. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      I'm confused... so what is this:
      http://www.aids-info.ch/bilder/schule_aids/jpg_bil der/koch9_2.jpg
      And what is killing people who supposedly don't actually have aids? The better question is... let's just say they're dieing from a mystical force which isn't caused by a retrovirus. This mystical force is passed from one individual to another through body fluids... why don't we just call the mystical force HIV? Who cares if it is or isn't a virus. Who cares if our drugs are actually summoning 8th dimensional worm people who feed on our negative energy. The results are the same. HIV is infectious. Your life can be extended with drugs designed to treat it. If untreated, you will die*.

      *One or two exceptions on the planet.

    2. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by mshurpik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank God I'm not the only one. My own wake-up call happened when I stumbled on Peter Duesberg's paper The Chemical Bases of the Various AIDS Epidemics: Recreational Drugs, Anti-viral Chemotherapy and Malnutrition. (pdf). In other words, destruction of the body's immune system is reasonably caused by:

      * Pounding the body with massive doses of intoxicants, most notably nitrite poppers (anyone up for gay anal sex?)

      * Highly toxic anti-viral medication, such as AZT, which is sure to cause death if ingested.

      * Malnutrition, or the shutting down of the body's systems though sheer neglect, mostly seen in Africa.

      In other words, when you consider that statistically, all early AIDS patients were gay, most of them used "batteries of recreational drugs" before sex, all were told they were going to die, all were given toxic AZT, all died, and that poor Africans have nothing to do with this, then you can neatly explain the AIDS "epidemic" in you armchair without even hitting reload.

      Problem is, AZT and other retrovirals cost $25,000 per year, and if you explain away the AIDS epidemic, then you destroy everyone's profit and research incentives. Meanwhile, the gay community is complicit in this deception, because no gay man wants to admit that he is a drug addict or gave the disease to himself.

      Remember Richard Nixon's "War on Cancer?" This was a viral research program that concluded in the late 1970's with nothing to show for its efforts. Except that a few years later, along came HIV and a massive new round of research funding. Convenient?

      As the OP says, debunking HIV/AIDS takes a lot of reading. But that's also kind of the point: the evidence against HIV is so massive that even paraphrasing it would leave you breathless.

    3. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by Triple+Click · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think I'll go surfing on dubious websites for a few hours without a virus scanner or a firewall, because I don't really believe that computer viruses exist. You can't prove that I infected other users from my address book. It could be something totally random that caused their hard drive bits to flip. This whole computer virus thing is just a conspiracy designed to sell useless software and spread fear.

      In two years, I will graduate from medical school and treat, without predjudice, patients who might believe as you do. If you should become infected with HIV and acquire AIDS, but refuse treatment, I'll wish you well. But if you should have a change of heart, then I will use my conspiracy-driven science to help you to the best of my ability.

    4. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by eluusive · · Score: 1

      Okay. I'm a skeptic most of the time but I don't buy the perth group's basic arguments. I haven't read through their entire document, but I smell a rat. AIDS obviously does exist, and if HIV doesn't cause it what does? Cellular Redox? That's an obsurd statement. If it was cellular redox, why is there no diagnosed cases of HIV/AIDS in people that have never had any type of blood mixing, or sex with another person?

      And If hiv doesn't exist, what is this: http://www.avert.org/virus.htm ??

      I could go on for hours about problems with their arguement, but I suspect they have some motive for believing what they say other than the facts presented.

    5. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      >This mystical force is passed from one individual to another through body
      >fluids... why don't we just call the mystical force HIV?

      Because this "mystical force" isn't passed from one person to another. AIDS isn't infectious. At all. Neither is diabetes, cancer, arthritis, obesity, heart disease, cirrhosis, or Alzheimer's.

      That's the gaping flaw in your idea. You haven't shown any evidence that AIDS is transmissible. Even the government admits you can only get it from gay ass fucking. A gay assfucking virus? You actually believe this?

    6. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by Triple+Click · · Score: 1

      You can't honestly believe that malnutrition in Africa (or anywhere else) didn't exist 100 years ago.

    7. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      You can't honestly believe that African diseases were classified as "AIDS" ten years ago.

    8. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Well actually the government isn't that specific, some of the ways they sudgest you might contract it are: "gay ass fucking", beeing jabbed with a contaminated needle, heterosexual fucking, blood transfusions, coughing up blood into someone else's mouth, ambilical cord, infected blood in eyes and contact with feces/urine to infectable site. For a full list I refer you to http://www.aproposinc.com/hap/catch.htm

    9. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      I just hope this isn't some form of self denial. "There is no way I can get HIV, or pass it on to my partners... therefore there is no reason to get tested." Complete disregard for the safety of others is almost criminal. I don't think these opinions are inherently evil to have. However, if people with that opinion are also participating in unprotected sex, and are unwilling to be tested, that is irresponsible to society.

    10. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by Loundry · · Score: 1

      Okay. I'm a skeptic most of the time but I don't buy the perth group's basic arguments. I haven't read through their entire document, but I smell a rat.

      It's not "entire document" but rather "all of their documents". Plural. And yes, it is difficult reading.

      AIDS obviously does exist, and if HIV doesn't cause it what does?

      AIDS is defined as "HIV plus one of many other illnesses, all of which can exist in the absense of HIV". All of the "AIDS-associated" illnesses existed before AIDS and before the HIV/AIDS theory. If HIV doesn't cause it, then perhaps it is one of the many, many causes which typically cause the AIDS-associated illnesses. This is an answer that humans don't like to hear: the solution to this problem might NOT be a single pathogen. It might be many unrelated causes.

      This is not the first time this has happened. Scientists used to believe headstrong that a pathogen caused pellagra. Lots of people died unnecessarily because of that belief.

      And If hiv doesn't exist, what is this: http://www.avert.org/virus.htm ??

      If HIV does not exist, then the data on that page is creative fiction. Everyone can repeat the AIDS dogma, but it doesn't answer tough questions that HIV/AIDS proponents don't like to answer. If you scroll down on that page, you'll see a link that reads, "evidence that HIV causes AIDS". (Interesting that they would need to include this.) Click on it and go to the next page. Halfway down the next page they mention Koch's postulates and then make this extraordinary statement: "Even Koch recognized that in some cases not all of his conditions could be met, so other evidence should also be considered. This is particularly true when the germ is a virus rather than a bacterium. Modern scientists are willing to consider a wide range of evidence."

      The reason why that statement is extraordinary is because the HIV/AIDS heretics have long claimed that the HIV/AIDS theory did not fulfill Koch's postulates, and the orthodoxy has countered, "Yes, it does!" The writers of this web page acutally admit that HIV does NOT fulfill Koch's postulates. Instead, they claim that Koch's postulates are irrelevant.

      Reading that page is difficult because the page relies on the reader's ignorance of terms such as "isolation" to make its points. The page claims, "Researchers have been able to isolate and culture HIV from most AIDS patients whom they have examined". To "isolate" means to remove everything that is not-X from a melange of X and other stuff, and the way that it is done with retroviruses is through a cetrifuge with bands of increasingly dense sucrose. It's well-known that retroviruses band at 1.16 g/mL density.

      No one has done this with HIV. It's likely that when the writers say "isolate" they're acutally referring to something quite different that does not actually isolate anything. HIV/AIDS researchers have played this trick many times. After all, it's what they're paid to do. No one outside of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy gets funded.

      I could go on for hours about problems with their arguement, but I suspect they have some motive for believing what they say other than the facts presented.

      I, too, can go on for hours about this subject. It is deep, complex, and not for the faint-of-heart. And I believe that I can convince you that there are unfixable flaws in the HIV/AIDS theory if you are willing to accept that you might be wrong and are patient enough to hear the evidence. I also believe that you might another motivation for defending the HIV/AIDS theory. What is it that you feel you must defend here? Scientific integrity? The honor of the medical field? The pride of the journalists? Lots of "lay people" get really, REALLY angry when HIV/AIDS is questioned, and I am really curious about that anger. I certainly understand the anger of someone who's on the AIDS dole. Yours is more puzzling to me.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    11. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by Loundry · · Score: 1

      This whole computer virus thing is just a conspiracy designed to sell useless software and spread fear.

      First, you are aruging by analogy. It does nothing to show that HIV exists or that HIV causes AIDS.

      Second, if you read my post you'll see that I wrote, "I despise conspiracy theories." AIDS is not a conspiracy theory. It is a huge industry and a part of American culture.

      In two years, I will graduate from medical school and treat, without predjudice, patients who might believe as you do.

      Just remember: "First, do no harm." Then go read that web site entited "The house that AIDS built" to see what other doctors do in the name of medicine. Not all treatments help, and doctors are mere humans who are far, far from gods.

      If you should become infected with HIV and acquire AIDS, but refuse treatment, I'll wish you well.

      I appreciate your well-wishes, but no one can be shown to be infected with HIV. The HIV tests are meaningless. "HIV positive" is meaningless. I may, on the other hand, may acquire one of the many diseases on the ever-changing list of "AIDS-associated illnesses" (excepting cervical cancer, as I am male), in which case I will choose to be treated for that illness. But I will never, ever, under any circumstances have another "HIV test".

      But if you should have a change of heart, then I will use my conspiracy-driven science to help you to the best of my ability.

      It's not my heart that would change (as it is an organ that pumps blood in my chest), but rather my mind that would change. And the only thing that would cause me to change my mind is evidence. Specifically, show me who did the experiment that A) shows that HIV exists, and B) shows *HOW* HIV causes AIDS, and also show me the details of that experiment so I can judge that it's valid and thus does not rely on "I'm a scientist and you're not, so you have to believe me!" and I will change my mind. Perhaps you are aware that it used to be assumed that HIV killed T-cells, but then no one could show how this was happening. So scientists started guessing: "Maybe HIV kills T-cells, but the body replaces them so fast that we can't see it. And then this process gradually wears down the immune system." Plain guesswork -- not science and definitely not medicine! This is the type of crap that passes for "science" and isn't shown by the breathless press releases that journalists live and get paid for.

      Your sneering attitude harms and does not help your cause. The burden of proof is on you.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    12. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by Loundry · · Score: 1

      I just hope this isn't some form of self denial. "There is no way I can get HIV, or pass it on to my partners... therefore there is no reason to get tested." Complete disregard for the safety of others is almost criminal.

      There is no reason to get tested for HIV because the HIV tests are meaningless.

      If you read the article that I posted entitled "The House that AIDS built" you'll read what I post here. HIV test manufacturers (there are several companies that make "HIV tests") are legally obligated to disclose the limitations of their tests. Here is some of the verbiage from HIV test inserts:

      * "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test - ElA)
      * "The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Genetic Systems HIV Test - Peptide EIA)
      * "The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection" (Roche, Amplicor HIV Test - PCR).
      * "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." (Epitope, Inc. HIV Test - Western Blot)
      * "[Positive test results can occur due to] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions... and other potential nonspecific reactions." [Vironostika HIV Test, 2003].

      Do you think that phrases such as "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." would be significant reason to doubt the validity of any HIV test? This is what the test manufacturer admits about their own "HIV test".

      It is, of course, much, much worse that just what I can detail here. What is criminal is that "HIV tests" are passed off as "medicine" or "science", particularly in light of the fact that an "HIV positive" status is a virtual death sentence. If I can, for a moment, assume that the HIV/AIDS theory is completely true, what do you think that the effect on a person's health would be if they are given a FALSE "HIV positive" status?

      I don't think these opinions are inherently evil to have. However, if people with that opinion are also participating in unprotected sex, and are unwilling to be tested, that is irresponsible to society.

      First, the notion of "irresponsible to society" and "evil" are functionally equivalent.

      Second, your statement depends entirely on whether or not the "HIV tests" are meaningful, and that is begging the question.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    13. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by Loundry · · Score: 1

      I'm confused... so what is this:
      http://www.aids-info.ch/bilder/schule_aids/jpg_bil der/koch9_2.jpg


      I don't know. It could be any number of things. I'm certainly not going to assume that it's HIV and that just because a picture of something exists then HIV exists and HIV causes AIDS.

      And what is killing people who supposedly don't actually have aids?

      I didn't claim people didn't have AIDS. I repeat: I don't believe in HIV, and I don't believe that HIV causes AIDS.

      Remeber that the definition of "AIDS" is "HIV + X" Where "X" is one of many diseases, all of which can exists in the absense of HIV. In other words, if you have pneumonia but are "HIV negative", then you have pneumonia. If you have pneumonia but are "HIV positive", then you have AIDS.

      So, in answer to your question "what is killing people", my response would be, "Quite likely, the X." It could also be the poisonous "AIDS therapies" that people take that could be killing them. It's well-known that AZT is highly toxic and eventually lethal.

      "The better question is... let's just say they're dieing from a mystical force which isn't caused by a retrovirus. This mystical force is passed from one individual to another through body fluids... why don't we just call the mystical force HIV?"

      I like the idea of you calling HIV mystical, as I believe its study has little to do with science. Anyway, if what you say is true, then there would be evidence of such. Why has AIDS stayed largely confined to its original risk groups? Why has it not spread into the white, heterosexual population as an infectious, sexually-transmitted disease would be expected to do? As is, you don't have infectious patterns to rely on to show evidence for HIV/AIDS. Instead, you rely on the only two things you have: consensus and correlation (via the "HIV test").

      Who cares if it is or isn't a virus.

      I care, very deeply, that someone show me that A) a unique, exogenous retrovirus exists, B) it is infectious, C) **HOW** it causes AIDS. I regard this issue as vitally important to me believing your point of view.

      Your life can be extended with drugs designed to treat it.

      The drugs designed to "treat" it rely only on CD4 counts and "viral load" to show their effectiveness, and I have questions about using either of those to judge whether or not a drug is helpful. FDA stage III trials are *routinely* skipped for "AIDS therapies" so we specifically don't know anything about their mortality. Based on that, by what means do you conclude that AIDS drugs extend life?

      If untreated, you will die*. *One or two exceptions on the planet.

      Why do you fail to admit that also, if "treated", you will also die? Do you forget that not a single life has been saved following the HIV/AIDS theory? Do you also neglect to admit that AIDS drugs are toxic? Do you know what "buffalo humps" are? Do you know about liver toxicity? Do you know the history of AZT? Of all of the claims of the HIV/AIDS theory, the "You have to take your drugs!" is, by far, the most threatening, the most harmful, the most insidious, and the most irrational. I don't understand why you expect to make that statement unchallenged.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    14. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Home preganancy tests are't scientifically valid either and can return false positives, as such they shouldn't be trusted... but that doesn't mean that pregnancy is a myth perpetuated by the cloning industry.

    15. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by Loundry · · Score: 1

      Home preganancy tests are't scientifically valid either an--

      Stop trying to change the subject.

      I would like an answer to this question: Do you think that phrases such as "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." would give valid reason to doubt the meaningfulness of any HIV test?

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    16. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      I would like an answer to this question: Do you think that phrases such as "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." would give valid reason to doubt the meaningfulness of any HIV test?

      I think all tests have a margin of error. Can any test be meaningful if it has a margin of error greater than 0? Yes. Even if their tests are only 80% accurate, it's meaningful in that it tells you that you "likely" do or do not have HIV. If we stopped giving credence to tests with >0% margin of error we wouldn't be able to operate. There are no guarantees in life, you have to operate with what you got.

      However, that also doesn't mean that simply because we can't have definitive results, it doesn't exist. We don't know the position of any electrons currently in the universe, that doesn't imply they aren't there.

    17. Re:An HIV/AIDS Heretic Responds by Loundry · · Score: 1

      I think all tests have a margin of error.

      This is not about margin of error.

      The statement is this: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood."

      This doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of the test. That would imply that we have a standard of establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1. Since there is no standard, how can we know if the margin of error is 1% or 100%? You are trying to paint the fact that we have no way of knowing if a person is infected as an issue of accuracy.

      However, that also doesn't mean that simply because we can't have definitive results, it doesn't exist.

      That is not my argument at all. It's not that we don't have "definitive" results. It's that we don't know what the results mean because there is no recognized standard of establishing the presence or absense of HIV-1 in human blood. The best we can do is look at the results and say, "I think, but don't really know, that you might be infected."

      Furthermore, I have never claimed that HIV does not exist. I repeat: I do not believe that HIV exists. What this means is that no one has show me sufficient evidence for me to believe that HIV exists. They only arguments that they use are consensus and correlation. Correlation, weak evidence in and of itself, is entirely and solely dependant on the validity of the HIV tests.

      We don't know the pos--

      Stop trying to change the subject.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
  90. Sell Sell Sell by PacketScan · · Score: 1

    Time to Sell of the trojan stock.

  91. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by derfel · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, BYU doesn't have exclusive rights. This was developed jointly with Vanderbilt University and Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals has been given exclusive license. Even though the research was done at these universities, Ceragenix probably provided the funding and thus got exclusive rights. Maybe some Mormons, Baptists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and anyone else sense of compassion could get some money together to get a whole lot of this stuff over to Africa and Asia.

  92. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by utlemming · · Score: 1

    Agreed. Let the Slashdot crowd ignore whatever good may come from BYU or the Mormon crowd (granted that I am Mormon) and have people immediately start to make comments that are disparaging(sp?) just because a Mormon school had a role in making the discovery. If it was a Jewish school people would be screaming, and the moderators would be rutheless, but whenever any Mormon topic is mentioned, the crowd somehow leaches onto the fact and the next thing that happens is that people make comments bashing the faith. Forget the merrits of the topic at hand, whether good or bad, but it immediately boils down to prejudgices of faith. But then again, Slashdot is so anti-faith, that people merely mentioning that you believe in God is going to get to you attacked.

    With that said, I will most likely be MODDED down as FLAMEBAIT. Which is interesting, because it will just further illistrate the anti-faith stance. But then again it is ok to be anti-Mormon, anti-Muslim, anti-Jehovah's Witness, etc., as long as your not anti- .

    So the point to all the closed minded Slashdotters out there that pretend to think of themselves of being open-minded: Just because something of worth, or even something that is undesirable (i.e. SCO) comes from people of faith, it is unfair and bigotted to judge the entire faith based on the merrits of that ONE thing. And it is entirely unfair and entirely inappropriately to discount something of great potential worth, especially in this case because it came from people of faith.

    Well just see how long this post last...

    --
    The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
  93. Re:Don't do it by PsychoBrat · · Score: 1

    They do already... along with the rest of us.

    Next job guys: find a cure for bigotry. ;)

    --
    Invisible to moderators.
  94. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

    Not to challenge your view, but how do you suppose the research should be paid for?

  95. If AIDS is cured.. by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 1

    Nazi's riding dinosaurs will once again walk the earth, and rivers of lava will flow freely across the land.

    --
    "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
  96. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, because you can't get AIDS from a dentist who doesn't wash his hands..

  97. Actually... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
    A fast track through the FDA could have one of the world's leading problems licked in less than a decade.

    ...I think problem licking is one of the issues that needs to be addressed.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  98. Ceragenins Google Search Results by KrackHouse · · Score: 0
    --
    What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
    http://houndwire.com
  99. Yes, plutonium kills people... by mcc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...but that doesn't stop it (or radiation, rather) from being the most powerful tool we have in fighting cancer.

    It doesn't matter if the AIDS drug is harmful. Like the radiation therapy that we treat cancer with, it just has to be less harmful than the disease it treats.

    And existing HIV drugs are already pretty harmful, even though they just contain rather than cure the disease. They're used anyway, because despite the negative effects they're vastly preferable to an uncontained case of AIDS.

  100. Bugs Bunny? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1


    maybe he meant Carotene instead of Caragenics and the solution lies in Bugs Bunny and the carrot?

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  101. In the words of Steve Martin... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

    "Ahhh, it's a profit deal!"

    The price won't have anything to do with the cost of making it. It will have everything to do with patents and what the market will bear. And the market will bear a lot for this drug if it works.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  102. why? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Why are we fucking around with trying to kill viruses, again? So they'll mutate? This is a benign virus, it only infects those that inflict themselves with poor decisions.

    Just stop fucking - how difficult can it be!

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're the guy who's been posting the GNAA stuff obviously. Best troll ever.

    2. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [anger]Once you watch a friend die a slow and painful death because he had a blood transfusion, you might think differently. I wasn't aware that /. people were this ignorant and unkind.[/anger]

    3. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Your ignorance is staggering. Please educate yourself.

    4. Re:why? by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      His ignorance isn't staggering, it's confusing. Yes, HIV is harmless. Those of us who read medical papers can agree on that much. But if HIV is harmless, why do we have to stop having sex? The OP refuses to follow his own thought to the logical conclusion: that you cannot get AIDS from sex and nobody on Earth ever has.

    5. Re:why? by AxelBoldt · · Score: 1
      Just stop fucking - how difficult can it be!

      Well, if you're a male, then the whole point of your existence is to fuck. Why do you think there are two sexes?

  103. "The day they come up with a cure for AIDS by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

    "The day they come up with a cure for AIDS there will be fucking in the streets... if you can't get laid on that day, cut it off..." - Bill Hicks

    --
    "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
  104. OK Debbie Downer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope you won't have to swallow your own words in a few years...if so, some Slashdotter will bring up your comment for your delightful, humilliating embarrasment...

  105. Wooooooooohoooooooooo!! by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    Say goodbye to unprotected sex!!

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  106. Re:There's already a 90% effective cure for AIDS.. by ursabear · · Score: 1

    01010111 01101000 01100101 01110111 00101110 00100000 01000111 01101100 01100001 01100100 00100000 01001001 00100111 01101101 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 00110001 00110000 00100000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01100011 01100101 01101110 01110100 00101110 00100000 01001101 01111001 00100000 01100011 01101000 01101001 01101100 01100100 01110010 01100101 01101110 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110101 01101100 01100100 00100000 01100010 01100101 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110000 01101001 01110011 01110011 01100101 01100100 00100001

  107. Re:Ceragenins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The chemicals in question were invented at BYU and are licensed exclusively to Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals. Hence "Ceragenics." More here.

  108. Not quite by Stachybotris · · Score: 2, Informative

    HIV is an enveloped virus, not a naked one. This means that all of the progeny virus particles bud out through the cell membrane, taking a portion of it with them. There isn't the lysis associated with a naked virus, and the cell doesn't simply explode. Infected cells are instead killed off by other, non-infected immune cells which recognize the foreign proteins (from HIV) that are being expressed on the surface of the infected cells.

    For a while the body can produce new T-cells as quickly as they can be infected and killed off. Eventually, however, production slows, the T-cell count drops, and full-blown AIDS begins.

    Anyway, even if this hypothetical treatment does work, another virus will come out of the woodwork. It's happened pretty much every time we've made any significant progress - why should we expect it to not happen again?

    1. Re:Not quite by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      Your right, smallpox is gone, now it's aids. Bird flu? Can you imagine a wide spread Ebola outbreak? Fast and ugly mass death. Then again with the AIDS infection rate in Africa that may become a lifeless continent in 50 years, very scary thought, but quite possible.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  109. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    They do other world-class research in problems common among their heavily inbred population: some blood disorders and oddly enough, deafness get quite a lot of funding and research coming out of Utah.

  110. Another one? by WheelDweller · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there a rogue early-med-school student got $20,000 and found an HIV vaccine? Whatever happened to that? It was about a year ago, wasn't it?

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  111. Ceragenins = Ceragenix? by Ryan+C. · · Score: 2, Informative

    CSA stands for cationic steroid antibiotics and there is a company, Ceragenix, that works on them. Perhaps that's what prompted this made up word?

    --
    -Ryan C.
  112. Moderation? by jcnnghm · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Just because something isn't PC doesn't mean it isn't the truth. In 2004, only .00541% of the US population died from AIDS, about 15,798(on the decline) people.

    Around 14,900 people fall to there deaths every year in the United States, over 43,000 die in automobile accidents. Over 1.3 million abortions were performed in 2002, over 700,000 died from heart disease, cancer took over 500,000, strokes took out over 150,000, doctors managed to take out 250,000, and Alzeheimers killed nearly 50,000.

    Only 11% of men are exposed through heterosexual contact. That means, that if 100% of the people that died of AIDS were men, 1,738 died from heterosexual contact. That's 0.000588% of the population.

    In short, if you don't want to get AIDS, avoid unprotected homosexual sex if you are a male, and unprotected anal sex if you are a female, and don't share injection drug needles. Additionally, don't have sex with people that are in the risk group. That should bring the odds down to a completely manageable level.

    --
    You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Moderation? by vistic · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... I'd like you to meet my good friend Slutty Sue... she acts so sweet (but she won't tell you the truth about her past). Go on and put it in her vagina, I dare you.

      Muwhahahahahahahahahaa!! >:-)

    2. Re:Moderation? by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      Slutty Sue is in the risk group. She is likely to have slept with bisexual males and/or injection drug users. However, catching anything from her is still pretty unlikely unless open wounds already exist (anal sex is a good transmitter because of the tearing). If you know you're sleeping with a slut, wrap it up. Herpes isn't fun, and neither is the clap.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
  113. pump up that stock price! by Jepler · · Score: 1

    One poster writes "it looks like there may already be some interest in Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals' OTC stock", and others note that the amazing new substance is from "a family of compounds called Ceragenins". Gee, looks like somebody accidentally published a press release, and then somebody else "greenlighted" it here on slashdot. In any case, there's no science here.

    I hope that we at least beat digg.com on this non-science, non-news item.

  114. For all you BYU bashers out there... by Haertchen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would like to point out 1) that it's not just BYU working on this. The person whose results are actually cited in the study is actually Dr. Derya Unutmaz, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. 2) it's being supported by Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals Inc., which is based in Denver. It's probably a long shot, and the company knows it. But it's real research the way it's normally done in this field. 3) it's not the professors hyping the results so much as it is the journalists. As usual. All those saying there's a long way to go are right, and the researchers who did the work would whole-heartedly agree. 4) BYU has and continues to produce research that is published in peer reviewed journals. Just because part of it was done at BYU doesn't make it wrong; BYU has done many things that are actually right. Saying or implying anything different is simply religious bigotry. 5) Oh, and many of you would be surprised to visit the Biology department at BYU. They believe in evolution there. When I went home for Christmas my sister bad-mouthed creationism because, after taking botany at BYU, she knew they didn't have a leg to stand on. (Stories about individual Mormons, even prominent ones, who might have disagreed will be promptly ignored. I probably have seen, heard, and read more of it than you have.)

  115. Cynic by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yes, well, I think there may be second thoughts with the drug companies when they realize they will no longer be able to bleed AIDs sufferers dry until they die. Sort of killing the cash cow, if you will. Look for this to be "shown" to not be a breakthrough after all.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Cynic by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      The parent poster ponders the evil of big companies as he enjoys highest quality of life humanity has ever seen, much of it stemming directly from independant research.

          Stop looking for something to bitch about and realize how much money YOU'D make if you founded a company that produced a cure for AIDS. That's what the big companies are doing and I'll bet good moeny they're actually financing this effort. Jesus christ, find another target for your teen angst.

  116. The easiest solution being... by Centurix · · Score: 1

    Not licking all the worlds problems. Seriously, you don't know where they've been.

    --
    Task Mangler
  117. On the necessity of drug patents: by cheesedog · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Pharmaceuticals don't need patents to recoup their costs or even to rake in the cash hand over fist: Why Drug Companies Don't Need Patents and On the Necessity of Drug Patents

    The truth is, drug patents are the best case to be made in favor of patents. The only problem is that even that example provides a weak case.

    1. Re:On the necessity of drug patents: by CB-in-Tokyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Pharmaceuticals don't need patents to recoup their costs or even to rake in the cash hand over fist: Why Drug Companies Don't Need Patents"

      I work in pharma. I only read the first article, but it was one of the weakest sets of arguments I have ever heard in my life. It sounds good on the surface, but it is based in neither logic nor sense.

      1) The historical argument is baseless one. It argues that the countries with the least Patent protection were the ones that made the most innovations between the mid 1800's and 1980. What it implies is that if your country has no patent protection, then your companies product cannot either, and yopu are more productive. This is intentionally misleading, or just plain stupid. The biggest market in the world for Pharma is the US. No matter where your research is initially being done, you will bring your products to the US market to sell them. You do so knowing that in the world's biggest market (over 50% of the world market for Pharma if I am not mistaken) your products will be patent protected.

      2) The second argument states that Patents Hinder drug research, and that many molecular entities are not being studied due to the liability of patent infringement or the fact that the owners of these products want unreasonable licensing fees. Out of all the arguments made here, this one is the most powerful but it is still slanted in ways that show the author's point of view as opposed to looking at it objectively. Patents do interfere here, but if a product is interesting enough and has enough potential, licensing deals are made and research moves forward. This is a commom practice. New pharmacologically active molecular entities are discovered all the time. Only a handful make it to market. Why? because the risks are high and most active entities will not pass the test. The focus is on the most positive entities, the ones with the chances of returning the greatest profits. Companies with weak or no research look to develop those entities with the most potential. Why should a company that has discovered them give them away?

      3) This argument speaks about publically funded drug development. It is too circular and not focused enough to state concisely so I will try to summarize...err this is difficult.. basically public funding was 55% of the top 5 products in 1995---public funding = tax dollars = we as a society think that creating drugs is good = funding is spent on drug that pharma have no interest in = why patent protection = big bad pharma making profits = no benefit. Then it goes on to throw random facts without any frame of reference.

      Hmmm that argument is designed to say absolutely nothing yet sound good. Our taxes for good of man kind! Big bad Pharma profits, patents bad! but there is no equation here. Here is the real deal. The development of drugs is important. A lot of research does occur in public institutions (Universities) and this is an important part the cycle. Universities are in no position to create, develop, manufacture, market and distribute ethical (prescription) drugs. They do research and creation. They also patent and license this research. When a public institution has discovered a new entity, you can be damn sure they haven't conducted clinical (in vivo or inside a person) trials on it. They has discovered something in vitro that has potential. They then patent the entity and license the technology to pharma companies that are interested in spending the millions of dollars to develop it. After lets say 6 or 7 years, if all goes well, the product will get to market where the Pharma company starts to recoupe some of its losses. Oh, and on average, only 1 out of 10 promising new entities actually make it to market. The institutions stand to profit from licensing deal, without the risk inherent in the rest of the process of bring a product to market. Research is what most universities are about. The big money get spent during the clinical trial (or development) phases.

      4) Builds on three but doesn't get into the patent iss

    2. Re:On the necessity of drug patents: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your involvement in pharma has clearly biased your opinions, but I'll go ahead and respond:

      1. You claim that the historical argument against drug patents is invalid, because regardless of country of origin, a drug can be patented in the U.S. and gain monopoly protection there, and that this accounts for a huge percentage of profit. Yet this doesn't address the critical point: countries with less patent protection have historically produced more innovative and profitable pharmaceuticals. If there are two countries, one with strong patent protection and one with less patent protection, the one with the least patent protection can get their products to market in both countries sooner and more efficiently than the one with lots of patent protection. So if you are a country and you want to grow your pharma industry, what does the historical data tell you to do? Reduce patent protection.

      2. You claim that licensing deals get around the problems of restricted research due to patent thickets. Yet this is absolutely not true in the case where the patent holder wants to develop their own product and lock out all competition. Patents ARE nothing more than a government granted right to exclude others from exercising the claims of the patent. And, sadly, the pharmaceutical companies usually want to create and maintain product monopolies.

      3. You challange the argument that public funding already accounts for the majority of drug research by saying that the argument is circular and ignoring the statistics presented. And then you sprinkle in a bit of 'woe-is-the-pharmaceautical' rhetoric about not all drug investments turn into profits. This isn't a very compelling counter-argument.

      4. You claim that a patent doesn't grant a monopoly. This is untrue. A patent is precisely a monopoly over a method, process, or product. No one, other than the patent holder, can exercise any of the claims of the patent without express permission from the patent holder.

      5. You counter the fact that pharmas have excessive profits by stating that it takes a lot of money to start one in the first place. This doesn't really address the issue, and in fact is another data point supporting the thesis that drug companies are more about marketing and lobbying than they are about creating new drugs. The fortune 500 companies only reinvest 12% of their revenue back into drug development. Where does the other 88% go? Into lobbyists (who push for stronger patent protectionism), into sales reps who lavish attention and trinkets on doctors, and into other forms of advertising. 12 percent! That's far less than is reinvested in R&D in even the software industry, where R&D costs are nothing more than hiring a few geeks to sit in front of a computer and pound out code.

      6. You claim that patents don't really restrict the distribution of life-saving drugs to the poor and poor nations, resulting in millions of deaths each year, because without patents, there would be no drugs. Yet this claim is just an echo of your disbelief of points 1 through 5. If drug development would cease without patents, you'd be right. But your premise is clearly wrong. All the data, both present and historical, indicates that drug development and research would happen regardless of the presence of patents, and many of the points made above indicate that drug development would actually accelerate if patents caused less restriction.

  118. Chuck Norris' tears by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

    Theoretically, Chuck Norris' tears could cure AIDS, cancer, paraplegia, herpes, common cold, mouth ulcers, and hangovers. Too bad that it is impossible to make Chuck Norris cry...

    1. Re:Chuck Norris' tears by mrpeebles · · Score: 1

      Or laugh. Or frown. He only has that one look.

  119. herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool. If the snake oil can hunt down and kill herpes, then I can get Kristen cured before doing her.

    I've been wanting to bang her for sooooooooo long, but the herpes has been such a turn off.

  120. Ummm, a virus isn't classified as alive. by Zencyde · · Score: 2

    Not to be nit-picking or anything, but technically a virus is not alive, therefore you can not kill it.

    --
    What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    1. Re:Ummm, a virus isn't classified as alive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why you gotta kill my buzz?

  121. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

    For many countries out there, getting rid of their AIDS problem is way more valuable than any trade restriction that the US might impose.

    It is not, however, so valuable that these same countries would consider investing their own resources in a cure. Much easier to exploit someone else's hard work, and play the victim whenever someone calls your lazy ass on it, I guess.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  122. Peter Singer by HUADPE · · Score: 1, Insightful
    When you steal an argument from someone, in this case Peter Singer, it's good form to say so.

    In response: people have a right to do what they want so long as they do not exercise force against others. This right is absolute. If the man wants not to save the child, we may call him a depraved individual with a set of values far outside the set of those which sane human beings may hold, we may. We may not however initiate the use of force against him by imprisoning him for no action. The same is true in the case of medication. If you contractually ablige yourself to save another's life, you must; if you don't, you are under no obligation to do so. Even if a law is passed allowing theft (of a drug in this case) it is still wrong. Laws != ethics.

    --
    This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
    1. Re:Peter Singer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want all the rights and none of the obligations. Too bad. You can indeed be held liable for inaction -- the concept of negligence is well-established in law.

    2. Re:Peter Singer by JanneM · · Score: 1

      When you steal an argument from someone, in this case Peter Singer, it's good form to say so.

      I've never read anything he's written, or know anything more than that he argues for euthanasia (or is it the other way around?), so I'm pretty sure I haven't stolen anything from him.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:Peter Singer by HUADPE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe you, but he is the originator of the argument you make (down to the shoes). I took the philosophy course where I cited the argument from, thats how i recognized it. He argues philosophical pragmatism...that is "what works is true" (as opposed to "what is true works...because it is true") He is a fairly radical advocate of animal rights, having written a book aptly titled "Animal Rights" and is an all around anti-individualist (your life may be sacrificed for the betterment of others). I don't know his stance on euthenasia.

      On a somewhat related note, I believe that is the sort of philosophy which resulted in much of the tyrrany of the twentieth century. "Your right to (life/liberty/property) is being taken for the beneft of (Insert group of people here)"

      --
      This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
    4. Re:Peter Singer by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      You can indeed be held liable for inaction -- the concept of negligence is well-established in law.

      Part of proving negligence (generally) is proving that the negligent party owed a duty of care - not just that you failed to act, but that you failed to do something you were supposed to. There is, however, no generally recognized duty to help strangers.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    5. Re:Peter Singer by qeveren · · Score: 1

      In response: people have a right to do what they want so long as they do not exercise force against others. This right is absolute. If the man wants not to save the child, we may call him a depraved individual with a set of values far outside the set of those which sane human beings may hold, we may. We may not however initiate the use of force against him by imprisoning him for no action.

      I should point out that this is not true in all regions of the world. The United States to my knowledge does not require bystanders to render aid, but other nations or regions do. The Province of Quebec is one example.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    6. Re:Peter Singer by HUADPE · · Score: 1
      My argument is one of philosophy...not law. Rights are not decrees of government. There are real and fundamental human rights, including the right not to be forced to act against your will. The Quebec law you reference while probably existient, is morally wrong.

      Rights should be written into law (Hoorah for amendments 1-10 to the US Constitution). However, even if a government completely userps and denies the rights of its citizens, the rights still exist. That is why the Neuremberg trials were legitimate. The Nazis didnt break laws...they made immoral ones. They violated rights which exist above written law, and were legitimately punished for wholesale violations of fundamental rights.

      --
      This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
    7. Re:Peter Singer by JanneM · · Score: 1

      I believe you, but he is the originator of the argument you make (down to the shoes).

      The "save a drowning man" situation is an old trope in moral philosophy (and barroom arguments all over the world). Adding shoes (or, as I almost did instead, an expensive watch) is a pretty obvious embellishment, just to make the injury specific.

      As for the situation, we are living in a world and society where we _do_ have obligations, and these do include obligations to act. We are for instance usually required to report a crime to the authorities if we find out about it, any minor inconvenience or injury to ourselves nonwidthstanding. Similarily, it is AFAIK entirely possible to be convicted if you did not prevent an injury from happening if you could easily have prevented it and did know it was about to occur.

      In your hypothetical world, we would have no society period. There would be no requirement to pay taxes, or fulfil any contracts, or aid anybody in any way ever. Of course, that world is impossible; we face daily situations where no course of action would leave all parties with their liberties (as you define them) intact. Trivial example: I'm sitting in this sunspotted porch, and you have no right to have me move aside from this nice, sunny spot. On the other hand, your apartment is in the building, and I have no right to prevent you from entering it.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    8. Re:Peter Singer by JanneM · · Score: 1

      My argument is one of philosophy...not law. Rights are not decrees of government. There are real and fundamental human rights, including the right not to be forced to act against your will. The Quebec law you reference while probably existient, is morally wrong.

      So, who decides what _is_ a fundamental human right, and what is morally right or wrong? I happen to think your take on this is the morally unsound one; that doesn't carry much weight for you of course, but in the very same way, your assertion of what is and is not morally right has very little value to me.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    9. Re:Peter Singer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a lesser evil to steal a medicine formula than to allow millions to die. Ethics != morality.

    10. Re:Peter Singer by Grant_Watson · · Score: 1

      "[T]he concept of negligence is well-established in law."

      I disagree strongly with the grandparent, but he did clearly say "law != ethics."

    11. Re:Peter Singer by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      FYI, in the US at least, people who are otherwise uninvolved are not obligated to report crimes or help save people from injury. There are exceptions, but they're limited, and generally arise out of some sort of relationship between the parties (e.g. if you created a hazard, you have a duty to save people who fall victim to it).

      So yeah, if I see someone getting attacked on the street, or falling in an open manhole, I can just keep on keepin' on and it's okay for me to do so.

      Maybe things are different in your neck of the woods.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    12. Re:Peter Singer by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      In response: people have a right to do what they want so long as they do not exercise force against others. This right is absolute. If the man wants not to save the child, we may call him a depraved individual with a set of values far outside the set of those which sane human beings may hold, we may. We may not however initiate the use of force against him by imprisoning him for no action. The same is true in the case of medication. If you contractually ablige yourself to save another's life, you must; if you don't, you are under no obligation to do so. Even if a law is passed allowing theft (of a drug in this case) it is still wrong.

      That's an interesting set of beliefs. But that's all they are: your beliefs. The vast majority of people believe otherwise and find your belief system alien.

    13. Re:Peter Singer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people have a right to do what they want so long as they do not exercise force against others.

      Law is essentially a form of force. Patent law would be what stops people from manufacturing this compound.

    14. Re:Peter Singer by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Even if a law is passed allowing theft (of a drug in this case) it is still wrong.

      Theft of a drug? Who said anything about theft? I thought the generics manufacturers were planning to make the cheap copies of drugs themselves, not to steal them from us.

    15. Re:Peter Singer by symphara · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In response: people have a right to do what they want so long as they do not exercise force against others. This right is absolute.

      The only absolute thing is that your argument is completely flawed. People can do many bad things without exercising force - they can cheat, steal, sell deadly products, incite hatered etc. Nobody gives them any right (far less absolute) to do these things. Quite the contrary, people have a right to exercise force against those who cannot live in or with a civilized society.
    16. Re:Peter Singer by somersault · · Score: 1

      stealing of their patents or whatever you get when you invent a drug *shrug*

      I'm not sure that this should be compared to copyright law.. I actually do believe artists should get paid royalties for copies of their songs etc, and that drug researchers (who incidentally will have invested a lot of time and money into creating their product, same as most good bands I guess) should have the control over a drug they've made. Though in the case of a drug like this which is a cure for an out of control disease, then they are going to make bucketloads even selling it cheaply, same as a band that makes good music.

      Just because the RIAA are assholes doesnt mean that copying inventions/violating patents(for actual working products and non trivial ideas..)/whatever isn't bad.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    17. Re:Peter Singer by mtaff · · Score: 1

      "People can do many bad things without exercising force - they can cheat, steal, sell deadly products, incite hatered[sic] etc."

      You are mistaken. Those things are indeed using force. Stealing is taking someone else's property without their consent, hence by force. Also, selling deadly products isn't wrong in the slightest. Natural gas is a deadly product, chlorine is a deadly product, guns are a deadly product. Used properly, none of these products are bad (even if you have an irrational fear of them).

      There is no right to use force except in self-defense, and your assertion of a right to force people to live the way you want them to does not create such a right. I really hate to invoke Godwin's Law, and it isn't my intention to end this debate, but all dictatorships, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, thought they had a right to force people to live the way they wanted them to. Look at how badly this turned out in those real-world cases.

      I submit your principle and a civilized society are mutually exclusive.

      I would hope you can see the error of your assertion of your "right to use force".

      Mark

  123. Cheap drugs, non-profit, blah blah blah by citanon · · Score: 1

    To every one here who says that we should distribute this drug cheaply to the 3rd world and not with mega-profits

    1. AIDS is not what's killing most people in the third world. It's anarchy, ignorance, and poor governance. HIV/AIDS is just an opportunistic infection. There has been a 99% effective prevention aid available at low cost for many many years. It's called a condom. The problems that cause condoms not to be distributed and used are the same ones that will hamper efforts with any wonder drugs.

    2. Those mega-profits go towards incentivising and funding new research. Heaven help us if one day mega-breakthroughs no longer generate mega-profits.

    1. Re:Cheap drugs, non-profit, blah blah blah by Elf-friend · · Score: 1

      99% is a theoretical ideal; real world numbers are more like 75%, and that's at preventing pregnancy, not virus transmission (viruses, esp. microviruses, are rather smaller than sperm cells).

    2. Re:Cheap drugs, non-profit, blah blah blah by citanon · · Score: 1

      Look up the NIH studies. If you are using a condom properly and have sex with a woman who has HIV on a regular basis, your chances of getting AIDs after an entire year of frequent sexual contact is around 20%. Assuming that you have sex 100 times a year, this means that, emprically, your chances of getting AIDS per encounter is around 0.22%.

    3. Re:Cheap drugs, non-profit, blah blah blah by Elf-friend · · Score: 1

      I was reffering to a woman's chance of getting HIV from an infected man. The female-to-male transmission rate is rather lower to begin with.

  124. You mean *THIS* Jesus? by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1
    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  125. It's a little more complicated than that by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    if they did the research and the investments, they should be able to profit from their efforts.

    More precisely, we want to establish a system whereby people will put the effort and money into the research and development in the first place. This doesn't necessarily have to be exclusive control, but you want the thought to be in people's heads that there is good money to be made in developing a cure for AIDS. Exclusive control (a.k.a "intellectual property") is probably the easiest way to do this (from an administrative/policy perspective) but it is certainly not the only way.

    Sometimes, exclusive control turns out to have a significantly negative impact (cf. software patents, and this discussion). Other times, it turns out to be beneficial. You really have to look at the particulars of the situation to determine what's "right" in any given case.

  126. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're going to be a real troll I think you need to fluff this out and throw in some conspiracy stuff. For example, you could mention that the LDS church (possibly change this to 'LDS "church"') has spent millions (probably bold and/or italicize "millions") fighting gay marriage. Then talk about how those millions were actually an investment, since they are trying to further the spread of AIDS so they can eventually reap even more profits from the money they have invested in AIDS drugs.

  127. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

    Well, all the money that was slated to finding a cure for AIDS could then be shifted to distributing the cure to those who need it.

  128. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Jubetas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, based on your views and the beliefs of the Mormon church, it would make more sense for them to distribute it as freely as possible. If they were short-sighted and just wanted to make a quick buck, sure they could sell it for as much as they can, however, I'd have to give such a quickly growing faith a little more credit than that. If the Mormon church were to become known as the religion that cured AIDS, that would likely bring untold amounts of people into their fold, boosting donations and creating more revenue in the long run. Of course, I don't believe that that would be their primary motivation. A large part of the Mormon faith is the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing, and from the way I understand it, this is because they believe that unborn souls need to be brought to the earth before Armageddon or whatever. So, if they were to eliminate AIDS, this would eliminate a large obstacle for their faith. Then again, this is just speculating on yet another wonder drug that'll probably amount to little more than snake oil. And if my views on the Mormon church are wrong, it's because I'm not Mormon, but I am one of thirty-two (first) cousins, and I've received a handful of well-intentioned preachings over the years that have possibly mutated. But I think I'm probably close enough.

  129. Precisely the Problem... by Mekkis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am afraid I agree that we will see no cure in this lifetime. Whether or not cures will be discovered is another matter. Curing HIV/AIDS would create both religious and economic uproar -- and would be therefore highly political. My arguments are as follows:

    1. Religious: Many Christians (Mormons very much included) are of the opinion that HIV/AIDS is "God's punishment" for fornication, and the preach that HIV/AIDS is God's incentive to abstain from sex. Although this is a flawed argument, especially in regard to people who contract HIV/AIDS through non-sexual activity (haemophilacs, newborn children, blood transfusees, etc.), it carries a lot of weight within the Christian community. I find it distressing that this discovery occurred at BYU, due to the religious considerations surrounding HIV/AIDS.

    2. Economic: Every pharmaceutical manufacturer that has an AIDS drug makes money hand-over-fist by selling it. It is more financially viable to "treat" an illness, because "curing" an illness is tantamount to killing the Golden Goose. For example: haemophilacs are considered a target market for drug companies who make clotting factor because haemophilia is a genetic disease and therefore incurable. A severe haemophiliac cannot survive without factor, and drug companies know this. It is common for a family with a child who develops haemophilia to go into bankruptcy over the costs of financing treatment for their disease. Further, the drug companies keep secret the cost to manufacture a single unit of factor-- largely because to make it public would open them to suits over "price gouging". HIV/AIDS patients are no different. It is a chronic, incurable disease that takes a lot of high-priced medicine every day to keep it manageable. An HIV/AIDS cure would close this lucrative market and therefore curtail profits. Due to this fact, I doubt seriously whether we will even know if this new discovery turns out to be a cure, because any peer review be performed at least in part by Big Pharma -- and we already know from experience what altruistic folks they are. I predict this will be like the discovery of any other possible HIV/AIDS cure: it will sound great, it will have a lot of promise, then it will be "discovered" to be yet another red herring.

    3. Politics. When the religious and pharmaceutical lobbies get involved, one can be sure there will be little or no government involvement with peer review of a cure. Any tests from public institutions that dispute those from the pharmaceutical industry will be subject to debate and perhaps even lawsuits. Because Big Pharma and the religious lobby wields such tremendous power, it is inevitable that any funding to a public insitution researching potential cures will be cut. One need only look at the fight over nicotine research and tobacco-related diseases. Big Tobacco fought with public institutions for decades and by dint of keen lobbying --essentially graft-- they kept the real results buried.

    Sorry to be such a joykill...

    Mekkis, The Eyeconoclast

    1. Re:Precisely the Problem... by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      You left out the scientific fact that no cure for any viral disease has ever been found. Not a single one. There are preventative measures like vaccines, but no cures for anyone already infected. Face it they can't even cure the common cold, what makes everyone think a much more complicated virus cure will happen sooner. Gene manipulation has more promise than any chemical drug. If you stop the mutation you stop the disease whether it's AIDS or Cancer. A vaccine is possible but they can't get one to work on the different varieties, and it would do nothing for the millions already infected, they either fight it off or die. It would be nice if we spent as much on viral research as we do on the frivolous crap that our congresscritters dream up.

      Most of us would stop complaining about taxes if we though 60% was being spent wisely.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    2. Re:Precisely the Problem... by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

      (Mormons very much included)

      Very much wrong. While some may have that personal belief, it is in no way doctrine and hasn't been said by anyone in authority.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    3. Re:Precisely the Problem... by Mekkis · · Score: 1

      Please note that at no point in the above post did I say that it was "doctrine', or is stated as such by any religious authority. Religious authorities know better than to state categorically that HIV/AIDS is "God's punishment", for to do so would be to open their church as an instution and themselves as people to public protest and/or litigation over 'hate speech', especially since AIDS is legally considered a 'disability'.

      That being said, it doesn't mean religious authorities can't hint at that inference, however. Many, many Christians-- Mormons included-- with whom I have spoken on the matter of HIV/AIDS have expressed an opinion that HIV/AIDS is a punishment from God. I doubt that so many people came to this conclusion entirely on their own. While it may not be "official doctrine" of any church, as I said in the first post, the "punishment" theory of HIV/AIDS unarguably keeps currency among many devout Christians.

      -Mekkis

  130. It's just an investor communication by rcbutcher · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article is just an investor communication, published on the Ceragenix website under Investor Relations. Such communications are not the same as scientific journal publications, they just tell the investor where his money is going, usually down the drain. Example :- PR guy on phone to head scientist : "I've got a hundred shareholders wanting to know why they aren't billionaires yet... do we have any discoveries yet, any liquids that turn green and smoke when you add the blue powder ?". Head scientist : "Uh, we have something that may go somewhere in a few years, to do with HIV". PR guy : "Great ! We'll announce that".

  131. Peer-Review by writermike · · Score: 1

    comment on this until it passes peer review

    Peering under way!

    AIDS.HIV.DIE.DIE.DIE.torrent

    Comment away!

    --
    If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
  132. Paul B. Savage -- Legitimate Scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Paul B. Savage guy (the scientist mentioned in the article) seems legit. Check out his page at BYU:

    http://people.chem.byu.edu/pbsavage

    He went to a decent school for his PhD (UW-Madison), and his publication list is pretty good (a few Nature papers, etc --> FYI: Nature is a good scientific journal). Publication list:

    http://people.chem.byu.edu/pbsavage/publications.h tml

  133. Just imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine what would happen if we didn't hate gay people so much.

  134. time to update the big board! by prockcore · · Score: 1

    Sweet! Time to update the big board!

    [ ] Common Cold
    [ ] Cancer
    [*] AIDS
    [ ] Male pattern baldness
    [ ] Stupidity

  135. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Anon.Pedant · · Score: 1

    You should check your facts; the Mormon population is emphatically not "heavily inbred." The reason that they are of interest to medical geneticists is that the Mormon church has compiled a huge database of genealogical records, which allows family relationships to be easily determined.

    Why did this get modded up? It is not only factually incorrect, but is basically just an ignorant slur against Mormons.

    (No, I'm not a Mormon.)

  136. It works by killing the host. by 0THE110 · · Score: 1

    It has been show that HIV cannot live long without a host, so researchers have found new methods of killing the host.

  137. Like they will care about the market place... by Bobzibub · · Score: 1

    Should a cure actually exist, IP law will take a back seat to reality. There are many poor nations that are being destroyed from AIDS. They do not have the privilege of paying what the market can bear. On the supply and demand curves, those on the demand curve (below equilibrium) will be dead. Countries will manufacture this product any way they can (Damn intellectual property rights) and they are right to do so. The market place exists for our benefit. So long as there is a benefit people will support it.

    Imagine, however, that only the countries in the world that could enforce IP law existed. The company, it's employees, it's buildings, it's shareholders, would be vilified. There would be a constant riot outside their headquarters. Their branch offices. Their labs. They would not be able to exist as a company. They would cease to exist because business would be impossible. And, quite frankly, screw 'em. Sorry Randians, the lives of billions are more important.

    1. Re:Like they will care about the market place... by mi · · Score: 1
      They do not have the privilege of paying what the market can bear.
      You contradict yourself... If they can't pay it, then the market can not bear it.

      Practically, if the stuff can be made quickly in large quantities, it will be available on poorer markets for less. If it can not — it will be expensive and reach the richest markets first. And that is how the things should be...

      Sorry Randians, the lives of billions are more important. "Billions"? Come, come... The millions were and still are dying waiting for a drug to appear. If a profit-pursuing, IP-protected entity is the first (only!) to deliver it, then the Pursuit of Profit and the concept of Intellectual Property are to be thanked, not vilified....

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Like they will care about the market place... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      All of what you say has merit, but even if it were good and true in every way, it wouldn't change the fact that you and the parent poster are both demanding altruism from someone else that you are unwilling to provide yourself.

      I mean, certainly you have the capability to help poor, sick people in Africa. But I'll bet that every day you use that capability to enrich yourself instead. Screw the Randians? Sure, but screw you too, my hypocritical friend.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  138. Eminent Domain by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well if a city can take someones home to get higher taxes, what is to stop it from being taken and given away for the greater good? In fact that is one eminent domain seizure I can whole heartedly agree with.

    1. Re:Eminent Domain by z4r4thu5tr4 · · Score: 1

      If I understand correctly, the compound would belong to Brigham Young University (a private college). If he recieved government grants, they may be part patent holder on this when it goes through. also, the medication (if and when it would be developed) may be its own patent, with the end producer of the medication liscencing all the component patents. Is my understanding of patent law correct here, or am I mistaken? Also, a cure would have several economic insentives for ngo's and governmental organizations (UNICEF?) over a treatment. A cure is cheaper than a treatment (presumably) bc it is a one-time, not continual reapplication. Also, a cure is an easier sell, I would think, for a lot of people than a treatment. Finally, a cure is prophylactic in a way that a treatment may not be, so there may be less total patients to treat in order to make progress. God I hope that this is it. I am tentative but optimistic.

    2. Re:Eminent Domain by Kombat · · Score: 1

      Well if a city can take someones home to get higher taxes, what is to stop it from being taken and given away for the greater good? In fact that is one eminent domain seizure I can whole heartedly agree with

      "Forced charity" is called taxation. What you're advocating is a property tax rate of 100%; that is, the entire value of the home. The fact that you "wholeheartedly agree" with such a scheme leads me to believe you're not a homeowner. Moreover, you appear to hold those who are homeowners in deep contempt, for some reason.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    3. Re:Eminent Domain by Amouth · · Score: 1

      The pronlem i see with this is times like now .. down in florda..

      there exists an area of low income housing that has been around for 30 years.. people live and work there it has a low crime rate.. it is jsut mainly poorer people.. BUT it also happens to be bay front property..

      A contractor convinced the town to use eminent domain to take any houses that are condimed and allow the land to be redeveloped...

      the contractor then paid for inspectors to go through inspecting ALL the houses.. and condimed jsut about all of them..

      now the people in them get paid the value of their home when it is taken by eminent domain.. but their houses are condimed SOO they are getting next to nothing.. and the developer is taking the land in chunks and turning it into a multi billion dollor yacht club..

      this hasn't fully happend as people are taking it to court and the contractor and his friends in the town are saying that they are doing for the good of the comunity..

      eminent domain is one of the most abused things out there.. and i can not agree with you at all on that topic

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  139. AIDS does more than ruin your immune system by r00t · · Score: 1

    Ultimately it will directly cause cancer and attack the brain. Chances are you'll die of the missing immune system long before the other effects matter, but if not, AIDS will still kill you.

    The brain changes are really interesting. They seem to make people more prone to risk-taking and sexual behavior, which would of course encourage spread of the disease.

    1. Re:AIDS does more than ruin your immune system by modecx · · Score: 1

      The brain changes are really interesting. They seem to make people more prone to risk-taking and sexual behavior, which would of course encourage spread of the disease.

      Well, that clinches it... So who engineered this virus? Was it sent back in time from the year 2134, where George Bush Jr. Jr. Jr. Jr. Jr. is president of the world, in the hopes of wiping out the Bush family simply because everyone got tired of hearing the word "junior" five times in a row everytime the president was addressed--but it all went horribly,horribly wrong? I think it might just be!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    2. Re:AIDS does more than ruin your immune system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great week. I learned that there was a cure for cancer and for AIDS. Yippee.

    3. Re:AIDS does more than ruin your immune system by Thorwak · · Score: 0

      The brain changes are really interesting. They seem to make people more prone to risk-taking and sexual behavior, which would of course encourage spread of the disease.

      Do you have any further info about this? Sounds to me they just don't feel like there is much to loose anymore and might just as well try to enjoy themselves while they can. "The worst" has already happened.

      Compare with the behaviour of many depressed people.

      --
      Connection closed by foreign host.
  140. that method exists by r00t · · Score: 1

    Heating blood will greatly reduce HIV content. It's been done. It's temporary of course, and I'm sure the treatment really sucks. (you have to be out for it)

  141. Re:There's already a 90% effective cure for AIDS.. by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

    90% are virgins! har har har Oh wait, I took the time to decode it. That make me the bigger dork, doesn't it? Damn.

    --
    Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
  142. Before we discredit this too soon... by Pollux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are a few things to ponder...

    First, the article says that, the compound invented by Paul D. Savage of Brigham Young University appears to hunt down and kill HIV.

    Now, doing an actual search on Brigham Young's website turns up 0 hits for "Paul D. Savage". It does, however, turn up quite a few hits for just Paul Savage. In fact, it turns up this dude, a "Paul B. Savage". He seems pretty smart (MS Word document link). Plus, he's gotten recognition for research in T-Cells, important information that could really help figure out how to stop T-Cell destruction by the AIDS virus.

    I guess either the press release is really trying to piggy-back on some smart dude, and hide their tracks by swapping a middle initial, or the Salt Lake Tribune just can't get their middle initials straight. Maybe this "Ceragenins" is something new and undiscovered as well, just like "Paul D. Savage". They both return zero hits when you try to search for them.

  143. not the only one by r00t · · Score: 1

    No, you're one of many. HIV does indeed attack the brain. People often don't survive long enough for this to matter.

  144. The URL says it all by skjaidev · · Score: 1

    Why would it be under the business section of sltrib?

  145. Damn, that'd be nice by DenDude · · Score: 1

    I know it's stupid to get your hopes up at this early date, but I have a good friend that has been living with HIV for almost 10 years, and the last I heard, the average life span from infection is about 9 years. I'd love to see this peer-reviewed, and if no major flaws are found, fast-tracked. It'd be damn nice, and about time.

    --
    A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
  146. The sanctity of peer-reviewed journals by lanzek · · Score: 1

    Scientists are worried that if it comes to out first through a newspaper that people won't have an appropriate amount of skepticism. Maybe they should remember to be skeptical about articles in peer-reviewed journals. It's easy to publish peer-reviewed tripe- just ask Dr. Hwang, or any of his peers that reviewed his fake stem cell research.

  147. every researcher knows this by r00t · · Score: 1

    They can't admit it of course, because that kills the funding.

    Research grants are all about saying that we're probably doomed, but there is a chance if only we do more research!

  148. Re:Very short on details. Another way to kill Hiv by zymano · · Score: 1

    Interesting.

  149. Link to press releases. Too many press releases. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here's the actual press release. Note the strong resemblance of the "story" to the press release. There does not seem to be an accompanying scientific paper.

    It's hard to get that excited about an "in vitro" ("in glass") result. Lots of things work in vitro. There's no indication of whether this works in animals. When they can show it working in mice with human immune systems (there are genetically engineered mice with human immune systems, used for this kind of research), they'll have something. This is a long way from an "AIDS cure".

    The reason nobody can find the term "ceragenins" in Google is that compounds of this class are called "cationic steroid antibiotics" in the literature. "Ceragenins" is a PR term.

    This company also claims that these compounds can be used to treat cancer, macular degeneration, and multiple-antibiotic resistant infections. They also can be used for skin cream for dry, itchy skin. There's an proposed antiterrorism application, to make smallpox vaccination safer.

    However, there are no claims that these compounds improve gas mileage.

    Ticker symbol: CGXP.OB. Up 122% today on this press release.

  150. is the cure.... by ShaunC1000 · · Score: 1

    not f*cking people with AIDS.. I mean.. come on.. know who you're having sex with.

  151. +1? by autopr0n · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's odd that this comment was modded down as "overrated", it looks like someone whent through my history and dumped all their negative mod points on me. Not that I'm worried, in the past 24 comments I've been modded up 8 times, I'm just pointing out how lame whoever's doing it is.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  152. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by protohiro1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think you are attacking the straw-slashdotter. If the science is real and valid I don't care who came up with it. It looks like the very few comments bashing LDS are being modded into oblivion. And dude, don't have a persecution complex. Just because one jackass says something totally stupid doesn't mean the whole of slashdot is out to bash your faith. Personally, I think all the faiths are basically nonsense. But you can believe whatever you want, its none of my business. All a mormon or an atheist or a satan worshipper needs to do to have their science respect is produce good results that can be reproduced. Beyond that its totally irrelevant. I suspect most actual scientists would agree with me.

    --
    Sig removed because it was obnoxious
  153. world population by SilverwoodUG · · Score: 0

    this sucks, AIDS was one of the few things I was counting on to keep down world population.

  154. Let the private sector pay for this. by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I support allowing private corporations, like Google to fund research and make generic drugs. I think it's better for the markets if the private sector handles it, also humanitarian work is not something governments are good at. Governments are not designed for this job, private corporations are.

    1. Re:Let the private sector pay for this. by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Funniest post I've read all year. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
  155. Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals Stock on Yahoo! by Xyleene · · Score: 1

    Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals Stock
    By the jump in stock price it looks like the paper was printed around 10am Tuesday :)

    Seems like a small company but hey anything is possible. /Hopes not up but it would be nice....

    --
    Give them the illusion of choice and they will blindly follow for they choose not to make one.
  156. wow - 25years ....and another 12 years to pass FDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How fast do you think this drug will be available on the shelves?

  157. I will nit you a sweater. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A virus is not alive, and therefore is not killed.

    One can stop the infection, and can deactivate the virus.

    I know, normal people don't care about these semantical distinctions. But we are geeks, and we should hold ourselves to a higher linguistic standard.

  158. Two Words: by Jon-1 · · Score: 1

    Business Section.

  159. But what if you fuck up the treatment? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 0
    OK: picture this : you're a pathetic fucked up junkie shithead, and between screwing crack hos and zoning out on TV, you find out that "there's a cure for AIDS" and you're totally jazzed. So you zip down town and you get hooked up with the latest and the greatest, and it takes (x) treatments to be effective.

    Well, you find this One Little Crack Ho kind of interesting, so you skip oen of the treatments, and thne she has this insane idea of moving to (x) city and you go for it, because you feel healthy and you're too fucking high to remember that you need a few more treatments to kill HIV.

    So you move to X City with the love of your life (an ex crack ho) and you're fucking her all the time and she gets AIDS and she hates you, and dumps your sorry junkie ass....

    So, there you are in X City, and you find some other Crack Ho to fuck, and some of the HIV in your system is now familiar with the anti-HIV killer drugs you took last month, but it survived, and it doesn't give a rats ass about this new treatment -because it has evolved into a NEW AIDS pathogen.

    ANd you go and pump some crack ho full of your special AIDS spooge, and she goes and fuckes some other retard and he gets the new super strong virus and passes it on to some other crack ho.

    I don't see this "cure" as a cure. I see it as a "ratcheting up" of the bbio-arms race.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:But what if you fuck up the treatment? by MozillaMike · · Score: 0

      Number one, you speak in very.... colorful, hypotheticals. Yes, this is a valid point, I'm sure that a certain number of treatments is required to kill the virus.

      Number two, this whole crack hoe story, yes gets the point across but, you didn't have to use such language, such bad spelling/grammar and such a wild story to get your point across!

      Number three, the fact that you got moded up for this uneducated reply makes me feel that our moderators have gotten out of hand.

      --
      GCS/MU d- s: a--- C++ W+++ w+ M-- PS--- PE++ t+ R+ tv b+ DI++ G e- h! !y
    2. Re:But what if you fuck up the treatment? by 16777216 · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder what they got in their hand!
      ( And yes my grammer stinks. :p )

      --
      I am. Lower your shields and power down your weapons, they are useless. Your biological and technological distinctivenes
  160. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

    As Ambrose Bierce noted, it's a mispelling.

    I dont know who Ambrose Bierce is (and I really dont care) but mormon was the dude who supposedly put the plates together, like the editor I guess. It was the macarroni or the moroni dude who was the last of "his" species. So it's a choice (not a mispelling), didn't you see the matrix?

    The claims the mormons make are no different than the rediculious claims any other religion makes.

    Is it stranger that God would choose a "people", a specific genetic line to be somehow better then everyone else (think the chosen people now, old Testement), then it is to believe that god would choose a back-woods 12 year old to bring back the faith? I dont think so, I think these are both very cute stories that go right along with the monster in that damn lake, that white furry dude who wonders around the Klondike, and the UFOs.

    everyone has their God, mine just happens to exist in the low corona.

    --
    "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
  161. What's be funny by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 1

    This has been tested on isolated colonies of bacteria and viruses and proven to just wipe them all.
    What if this drug really really just kills everything... and I mean EVERYTHING :)

    Because we have noo difficulty poisoning ourselves, and medicines should therefore be a little more selective in their actions :)

    Time will tell...

  162. carrot and stick to preserve market share by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    You definitely would NOT mention it to the press if you wanted to get published in a top journal like Nature, Science, or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They have strict restrictions against talking to the press before the work is accepted and published. If you feel like ignoring these restrictions, then these journals can and will yank your paper.

    I read their reasoning behind why they do what they do- except that it's all pretty trivial nonsense.

    You don't revoke "membership" to your clubhouse except to punish people (and they're equally willing to punish authors as well as journalists), and you don't hold people to terms like theirs unless you're interested in protecting your marketshare as the news-bringer.

  163. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...fighting gay marriage. Then talk about how those millions were actually an investment

    Dude, I'm all for the conspiracy stuff but it has got to make a little sence. Work on it, then repost.

  164. Philosophical Models by tehgnome · · Score: 1

    Well who decides this is simple, you. There are several schemes of philosphy which you may adapt to quickly assume your position:

    Absolutist-never break a moral law no matter the circumstances. If wrong comes of your actions it is not on your hands because you acted justly, and "act so the maxim of your actions can be made into universal law" -Kant

    Utilitarian-act to maximize good. Make your actions result it the best possible outcomes for all.

    Virtue-act so that your virtuous character dictates your actions. Once developing virtues into your character you will be led to make the right decision, this often will not maximize good but will be based on how the virtuous person would act.

    Care-adopting your moral role as to care for the subject, including making them comfortable and happy, this usually has an underlying search for maximized good.

    I would classify these as the four most prominant positions to hold, and they are what dictates your moral action. They also dictate your "rights" and how they are to be respected.

    --
    She must be a TIGER in the bathroom... I mean bedroom... ~Ryan
  165. Free love? by null-sRc · · Score: 1

    aids cured...

    herpies cured...

    why should anyone wear a condom anymore?

    hookers for all!!!

    --
    -judging another only defines yourself
    1. Re:Free love? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because they don't want sproglets and don't trust the female when she says she's on the pill?

  166. It doesn't make a difference either way by miro+f · · Score: 1

    Because even if it is viable, there is simply no interest from pharmaceutical companies to develop a cure for AIDS when they're already making so much money off the treatments. They won't make nearly as much money with a cure because they only need to sell it once to each person

    So whether this is true or vapour, don't expect to be seeing AIDS cures any time soon

    --
    being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
  167. New Compound Kills Virus: Bleach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have found through my research that chlorine bleach kills all variants of HIV/AIDS virii known. It does not merely weaken them, but physically disrupts their function by interacting with their protein coating. I will issue a press release immediately.

  168. It's just a misspelling, its 'carrageenan' by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    They just misspelled the work in the article. Its carrageenan

  169. Er, what? by leonbrooks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last I looked, the AIDS toll in Africa stood at 30 million, which is more people than live in my entire country -- and more than another 25 million have the disease and know that they're going to die because of it. In Africa alone.

    The figures for 'way back in 2000 were 10,000 a day, 4,000 of those from AIDS. Last year, there were over 3 million deaths and nearly 5 million new infections. That would wipe out my entire state in five months, eight through AIDS alone, and AIDS alone would do in the entire country in about eight years.

    True, there are those other diseases around -- curable ones too -- but don't underestimate the damage which AIDS does. There are 12 million AIDS orphans alive as I type, for example.

    Amongst other things, a common urban myth in Africa is that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS... so you get AIDS-infected men raping girls who are so young that they have to be virgins. Nice.

    It's also largely curable by the same education which would reduce AIDS and practically eliminate tuberculosis and malaria. In fact, the basic directives for achieving this are something like 4500 years old. Nevertheless, a magic bullet for AIDS would be a more than welcome assistant. My only real reservations center around what else it kills besides AIDS.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Er, what? by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 1

      What an idiot you are AIDs by nature does not 'kill off those engaged in irresponsible behaviour', because the minute they do, they've usually made the female pregnant and so her kid is likely to be born with AIDs. Is THAT kid irresponsible.

      Also, a lot of third world countries aren't over populated, just under developed and thus unable to sustain the population that they contain.

    2. Re:Er, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      unable to sustain the population that they contain.

      Is that not the very definition of "overpopulated" right there?

    3. Re:Er, what? by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is that not the very definition of "overpopulated" right there?

      They would have the ability to provide food for all their population if it weren't for all the tribal wars over territory. If farmers and their families spend all their time trying to keep out of warzones and having their crops raided by guerilla armies, they don't have the produce or time to set up food-markets. Consequently, the country ends up with famines.

      And there is a lot of knowledge required to keep a farm producing food at an optimum level (crop rotation. Look what happened to the farms in Zimbabwe when experienced farmers were displaced by unskilled labourers.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Er, what? by jcgf · · Score: 1
      Amongst other things, a common urban myth in Africa is that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS... so you get AIDS-infected men raping girls who are so young that they have to be virgins. Nice. It's also largely curable by the same education which would reduce AIDS and practically eliminate tuberculosis and malaria. In fact, the basic directives for achieving this are something like 4500 years old. Nevertheless, a magic bullet for AIDS would be a more than welcome assistant. My only real reservations center around what else it kills besides AIDS.

      I think the magic bullet for people who believe that is simply a real bullet. You would think after the first couple times that that doesn't work they would figure it out, but no they just keep on fucking. Idiots.

    5. Re:Er, what? by Talondel · · Score: 1

      unable to sustain the population that they contain
      Isn't that the definition of an "overpopulated" region?

    6. Re:Er, what? by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 1

      It's also largely curable by the same education which would reduce AIDS and practically eliminate tuberculosis and malaria.

      I'm not disagreeing that education is bad, but specifically what type of education would "practically eliminate" malaria? I suspect you may be exaggerating a little, but by all means explain otherwise.

    7. Re:Er, what? by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      AIDs by nature does not 'kill off those engaged in irresponsible behaviour', because the minute they do, they've usually made the female pregnant and so her kid is likely to be born with AIDs. Is THAT kid irresponsible.

      Obviously the kid should have chosen his/her parents more responsibly.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    8. Re:Er, what? by Rimbo · · Score: 1

      I agree with what you're saying: Political situation is as big of a part of a land's production capacity as the health of the land and techniques used for growing. The Soviet Union had as much production capacity as the USA, but the Soviet system lacked the efficient distribution of the United States. The USA's heartland is inviolate, and could easily produce enough food to feed the whole world's population, but there's just no way to efficiently get it into people's mouths in places that aren't free as in freedom and free as in markets.

      So by your own point, Africa is overpopulated. Political and economic systems matter.

    9. Re:Er, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With no birth control available, you would "keep on fucking" too. So would I.
      (Unless you're a monk, that is).
      That's just the way people are.

      So what they need is condoms and sex education.

    10. Re:Er, what? by rrgg · · Score: 1

      >the AIDS toll in Africa ... stood at 30 million,
      >which is more people than live in my entire country

      Um, Africa is not a "country," so your comparison is a little odd.

  170. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1
    Much easier to exploit someone else's hard work, and play the victim whenever someone calls your lazy ass on it, I guess.

    United States
    • adult HIV/AIDS prevalence rate: 0.6%
    • GDP: $12.37 trillion


    Swaziland
    • adult HIV/AIDS prevalence rate: 38.8%
    • GDP: $6.239 billion


    Botswana
    • adult HIV/AIDS prevalence rate: 37.3%
    • GDP: $16.64 billion


    Lesotho
    • adult HIV/AIDS prevalence rate: 28.9%
    • GDP: $6.123 billion


    Zimbabwe
    • adult HIV/AIDS prevalence rate: 24.6%
    • GDP: $23.98 billion


    Obviously they just sit around in the sun all day instead of training highly qualified scientists (a quarter of which would probably die before they even finish their education) and providing them with top-of-the line equipment, purely out of laziness. </sarcasm>
    --
    Free as in mason.
  171. Re:Link to press releases. Too many press releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another instance of Corporate America bullshit.

  172. You do understand how capitalism works, right? by sunbeam60 · · Score: 1

    Because, you know, for a moment there, you sounded like a communist.

    Come on, you remember: Those people who dragged Russia and a bunch of other countries into economic ruin because they thought the concept of profit hurt everyone instead of helped everyone.

    Unless of course you're saying that only elected governments should be allowed to invest in curing diseases, in which case my question is: Overall, do monopolies have a history of providing better products compared to an open market? And what makes you think the lure of profit wouldn't cause governments to charge "extra" (I use the word "extra" here, because that indeed seems to be how you view profit, as an extra charge on an otherwise fixed price product)?

    1. Re:You do understand how capitalism works, right? by somersault · · Score: 1

      it's really hard to tell whether you actually realised the parent poster was being sarcastic o_0

      --
      which is totally what she said
  173. Mormon Tabernacle phenomenon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like cold fusion, I'm afriad this is another one of those scientific breakthroughs that only works within a few miles radius of the Mormon Tabernacle.

  174. it is just a matter of time by Proud_to_be_Pinoy · · Score: 1

    a cure will be developed, maybe now, maybe later, but it is just a matter of when and not if. why not now?

    james

    --
    no sig = no personality(?)
  175. Hiding in the cells... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I don't even think it's in there as a complete viral particle, probably just the RNA.

    Close, but not entirely accurate. The HIV virus hides itself in the cell as DNA, actually inserted into a fairly random point of the cell's own DNA. It uses reverse transcriptase to due this.

    Viruses of this type are called retroviruses, and less lethal versions are modified for genetic therapy. Normal viruses are DNA within the viral protein, while retros are RNA.

    So this would be a cure for AIDS like the invention of artificial insulin was a cure for diabetes. While the human immunoresponse system does have methods for detecting even infected cells, it's a low efficiency system. It's like looking for moles and sleeper agents in the current terrorist situation, you can get some, but have you gotten them all?

    Meanwhile, the infected cell can divide, viral code and all, resulting in two infected cells. This can go on for years. Still, if this drug kills enough of the virus, such that between it and the host's immune system each infected cell releasing it's load of fresh virus results on average with less than 1 more cell reaching the release phase and you might eventually win.

    Still I wonder if something radical like killing off the immune cells that are susceptable to infection, keeping the patient in a clean room, then doing a bone marrow transplant to reactivate the immunesystem after the life expectency of the virus might work.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Hiding in the cells... by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Ah, I wondered about that. Whether the RNA just floated around or whether its reverse-transcribed DNA got inserted into the genome. Interesting.

      Looks like a job for an antisense DNA enzyme, then! Get that baby into the nucleus -- don't ask me how, I'm the big-picture guy, not the details man -- let it bind to the HIV genome, snip it out, presto.

      Ah well. The existence of these deadly little bastards gives one new insight into why so much of our genome is ignored by our own cellular apparatus. It's like most of our own DNA consists of spam, trojans, and phishing attacks "downloaded" over the millenia from invading viruses, and we need to apply a huge filter to make sure only our own genes get transcribed.

    2. Re:Hiding in the cells... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It's even worse. I was just reading in discover magazine that our own cell nucleas may have started as a type of virus. They discovered the largest virus ever. It's DNA code is actually larger than a number of bacteria, and has all sorts of codes common with life with nucleases in it. It even has many of the DNA correction tools.

      It's a bit like trying to keep your twin brother phil out of your house.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  176. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I spoke with Mormons and former Mormons. It's hard to separate out the facts of inbreeding from the racial slurs, I admit. The isolation of the original Mormon group for some generations in Utah, founded by a cult movement driven across America by local communities unwilling to accept them in each State as they gathered, and their very small racial diversity (only white members (with basically no black, Asian, or native American members whatsoever), and the sexual policies of multiple wives (which meant only their local leaders need join) meant they have serious inbreeding issues.

    Their intense interest in genealogies is a big help in reducing the problem, by helping avoid first cousins marrying, and it's very helpful indeed for genealogical research. And they believe in big families, so the group has spread out quite a bit from their relatively small origins, but if you look at those family trees, their family trees all seem be tightly interwoven for those first 3 generations. You're going to have common inherited diseases in a group like that.

  177. If you had a cure for AIDS, what would you do? by zardie · · Score: 1

    As per subject. It's an interesting question because it gives you the power to make a hell of a change in the world we live in.

    But unfortunately, with all the money that companies pour in to the research, it won't come for free (unless Governments subsidise it). Such a breakthrough development could be the *financial* breakthrough that a researcher would long to achieve.

    That's also a hell of a lot of power to place in one person's hands. Or even a group of people. To save lives or to make money... Hmm.

    Either way, it should be interesting to see what comes out of any developments relating to this story.

  178. How Google Works by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

    Contrary to popular belief, Google isn't an up-to-the-second archive of the Internet. It takes a while for new things to get added to their results. Don't believe me? Go the the front page of any news site and look for a breaking news item. Then search for that specific item via Google (even using site:cnn.com if you wish.) You're not going to find it.

    Anyway, as many times as Ceragenins has been mentioned on the high modded comments here, expect it to show up in the near future on Google (even if it's only to this article's page.)

    BTW, I'm getting 20 google hits for Ceragenins, and I'm sure that number will only go up.

  179. Bad science by squoozer · · Score: 1

    The quickest way to spot bad science is by noticing that the press release comes before the journal paper. I would give this a 10% or less chance of actually working.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
  180. Great news - for HIV+ test tubes by paiute · · Score: 1

    Many. many things kill HIV in vitro. Dynamite, sledge hammers, various chemicals, biomolecules, etc. The trick is getting those things to kill the virus in vivo without harming the host human.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  181. What about resistance by RebornData · · Score: 1

    If I'm reading this article right, CSAs are a critical part of the body's immune response. If we start slathering this stuff all over the place (presumably dramatically increasing it's presence in the environment), aren't we risking the evolution of resistance to it in viruses and bacteria? Might that not result in diseases to which our immune system has very little ability to fight?

    Look how quickly resistence to Tamiflu emerged... I know a causal link hasn't been proven yet, but I'm betting it has something to do with the way it was available OTC in a lot of countries. There's no way we can ensure appropriate use of a drug like this sufficiently to prevent resistence from eventually emerging. What will we do then?

    I just get really nervous when we start copying core weapons of our own immune systems...

    -R

    1. Re:What about resistance by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      If I'm reading this article right, CSAs are a critical part of the body's immune response. If we start slathering this stuff all over the place (presumably dramatically increasing it's presence in the environment), aren't we risking the evolution of resistance to it in viruses and bacteria? Might that not result in diseases to which our immune system has very little ability to fight?

      Yep- that's the other danger. The fact that no known CURRENT virus or bacteria can fight back against CSAs means NOTHING- nature is inventive and will fill a vaccuum eventually.

      Look how quickly resistence to Tamiflu emerged... I know a causal link hasn't been proven yet, but I'm betting it has something to do with the way it was available OTC in a lot of countries. There's no way we can ensure appropriate use of a drug like this sufficiently to prevent resistence from eventually emerging. What will we do then?

      I expect we'll die in increasing numbers. Not from HIV, which will have practically been made extinct by this substance, but from something else.

      I just get really nervous when we start copying core weapons of our own immune systems...

      As well you should.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  182. Doc Savage? by moorley · · Score: 1

    Too cool! So is the future going to truly be like pulp fiction?

    For those that are clueless (and since no one commented on it) read about fads of old. Doc Savage. If memory serves Doc Savage was the basis/inspiration for Buckaroo Banzai.

    --
    "Don't fear death... fear not living..." -me :)
  183. Not News At All !! by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1
    I remember not long, say a year, after the discovery of the HIV virus, reading an article said that most hand soaps were storng enough to kill the virus, and that liquid bleach products like Clorox (tm) certainly would do the job.

    The caveat was that they sting like hell when you squirt them into your sexual orifices !!!

  184. Pharma giving a drug away--happened already by snowwrestler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Read about it here.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  185. timing by jthayden · · Score: 1
    Most of the nation's leading AIDS experts were attending the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Denver on Monday. The event's policies prohibits on-site news conferences or releases during the conference, and efforts to reach scientists there were not successful.

    Of the few AIDS research luminaries reached, all said they preferred not to comment on the Vanderbilt tests until full results are published.


    I suspect that the timing was setup so as to make available commentators on this topic scarce. Then the ones that did say it was bullshit were summed up by saying they need to see the full results.

  186. But cold fusion actually exists by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    Not sure how this affects your point, but it turns out that cold fusion actually does exist.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  187. Pharma profitability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone underestimates the United States' ability to revolutionize medicine with our profitable pharmaceutical industry. Now that drug benefits have become such a huge outlay of the government, we have a lot of money going into private research that the NIH couldn't fund. Geeks should know that money spent on research tends to be money well spent (better than cases of Bawls, at least). Sure, its not perfectly efficient, and sure only a portion of the revenues go into research. But theres a reason there are more medical researchers today than there have ever been in history - companies give them a check, and make money doing so.

    The most profound part of this all is that we ain't seen nothing yet - most of the research takes many years to come to market. We're financing a massive investment in medicine that I'm quite happy will be off patent when I retire and there is no Social Security left...

  188. seems like just the other day that ENMD announced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it would SOON end CANCER!

    they are STILL in decade long trials!!!

    so much for fast tracking!

    as for the hiv/aids on the dark continent, could it be the western world cares little about,,,the white mans burden?

  189. Troll?! by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1

    How the hell is parent a troll? Granted, I'm the person he disagreed with, but "troll"? That's pretty damned unfair. I thought his argument was at least "interesting", and I'm sure some others do as well. Mods are on crack today, and I'll gladly go down in flames with him.

    Hit me.

  190. This might cause a problem if true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as this does not give rise to a new era of Disco, I am all for it...

  191. A Modest Proposal by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
    You do understand how capitalism works, right?

    You do understand how sarcasm works, right?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  192. If there is a cure... by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 1

    If there is a cure, then be prepared for divorce rates to skyrocket. For every action...

  193. DRUNK POSTER ALERT by 2names · · Score: 1

    DRUNK POSTER ALERT

    --
    "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    1. Re:DRUNK POSTER ALERT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can ply that two-dimensional Carmen Electra with all the booze you want, she still won't have you.

  194. Aids cure discovered! by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 1

    Common side effects: patient typically dies a slow burning painful death which is onset one hour after taking the cure.

    --

    Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
  195. Repeat After Me... there is no such thing as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a cure for a virus.

    Since they use the host's machinery to replicate. The only way to 'cure' a viral infection is to kill the host.

    Supress, sure. Vaccinate against, no problemo. Cure? Never. The virus is always there in low numbers, whether it is inactive or simply undetectable.

    The language differences may be subtle to the microbiologically ignorant, but they are quite important. FWIW, most nurses and a shocking number of other health care professionals don't get it either, which is why you have them passing out antibiotics for viral infections, like the common cold.

  196. How do you "kill" something that is not living ? : by franois-do · · Score: 1

    A virus has no organs, no circulation of anything within it - not even a flow of information - no energy regulation, no metabolism. It does not belong to the animal or mineral reign, but to the mineral one. You just cannot kill it, because there is in fact nothing to "kill". However it can probably be deactivated by one way or another, fo instance by inserting DNA in it that prevents it to duplicate properly.

    --
    Signature omitted in order to save space. Thanks for your understanding.
  197. I bet I know what it is.. by hesiod · · Score: 1

    I bet it's ground-up Go'auld and everyone who takes it will be addicted for life! Still would be better than wasting away from AIDS...

  198. If it's not in Science, JAMA or Nature... by christoofar · · Score: 1

    Then, this "scientific breakthrough" for AIDS didn't happen. It's crap until it's published, not when it's hyped.

  199. Monogamy by JungleBoy · · Score: 1
    ... A fast track through the FDA could have one of the world's leading problems licked in less than a decade."
    Monogamy would have licked this problem years ago.
    --
    "You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
    -Calvin
  200. Multi Level Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate to break it to you, but this is a Multi-Level Marketing scam in the making.

  201. Let's see by christoofar · · Score: 1

    Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals... some weird compond name, not even a basic description of the molecule they created...

    I wonder if they were also behind the miracle cures Relacore and Trim-Spa?

  202. What's it called? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 1

    "Researchers believe they have found a new compound that could finally kill the HIV/AIDS virus..."

    It's called Trileavinassalone.

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  203. What???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know something about Mormons, but I can't imagine what you're talking about.

  204. NCBI on the subject: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Found an article on the compound class in question as showing promises as a broad spectrum antibiotic.
     
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cm d=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12445638&dopt=Abstr act
     
    Nothing in it, or found elsewhere, that backs up any antiviral/antiretroviral properties. But, at least another topical antibiotic would be good for medical kits, and for those of us that have minor surgeries done in places like ones feet...

  205. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by jafac · · Score: 1

    Personally, I think that as long as plural marriage is banned in this country, as far as the Mormons are concerned, we're just playing lip-service to the concept of Freedom of Religion.

    There is no scriptural ban on plural marriage. Many biblical figures had multiple wives. The plural marriage ban is just pure hypocrisy. Plus, since the main Mormon denomination went along with it, it lent them undue credibility, and drove the practice of plural marriage underground, opening it up for abuses like guys who live in remote areas who marry their 1st cousins, and girls as young as 13, and do so against their will. If it were a legal and openly accepted practice, these abuses would be easier to halt.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  206. Now that's Intelligent Design by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    I haven't RTFA or even the comments. Here's hoping it is true.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  207. Re:Drug companies spend more on marketing by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    You left out the word "deceptive" or maybe you feel the word is redundant?

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  208. Do Mormons "have serious inbreeding issues?" by Anon.Pedant · · Score: 1

    Instead of asking Mormons and former Mormons (how would they know?), you should have asked a geneticist.

    The average coefficient of inbreeding among Utah Mormons is 0.000106.
    The average coefficient of inbreeding in the USA as a whole is 0.0001.

    No difference.

    Compare this with Baghdad, Iraq, where roughly half of all marriages are between first or second cousins. There the coefficient of inbreeding is 0.0225. Even though this is 225 times the value for Utah or the US, this would not qualify as "heavily inbred."

    The original Mormon group was quite large and diverse, as founding populations go, and was only really isolated for one generation, because western expansion of the US population made Salt Lake City a stopping point for wagon trains of settlers and gold prospectors. (Much to the chagrin of the Mormons, who wanted to be isolated.)

    What about polygamy? Even in the 19th century when it was approved by the LDS church, only a small minority of mormons actually practiced it.

    Although of course there are a few small, isolated groups within Utah that practice consanguinous polygamy, the bottom line is that Utah Mormons as a whole are not "heavily inbred", and they do not "have serious inbreeding issues."

    References:

        Jorde LB., Inbreeding in the Utah Mormons: an evaluation of estimates based
        on pedigrees, isonymy, and migration matrices.
        Ann Hum Genet. 1989 Oct;53 ( Pt 4):339-55.

        Al-Hamamy, H., Al-Bayati, N., and Al-Kubaisy, W. (1986) Consanguineous
        matings in the Iraqi urban population and the effect on pregnancy outcome and
        infant mortality. Iraqi Medical Journal 34, 7580.

        Freire-Maia, N. (1968) Inbreeding levels in American and Canadian
        populations: a comparison with Latin America.
        Eugenics Quarterly 15, 2233. (journal is now called "Social Biology")

    -- Anonymous Pedant YIAAG (Yes, I am a geneticist)

  209. i just dont get by Soviet+Assassin · · Score: 1
    how they can finally develop something that can mimic something that was un-mimicable. unless i read it wrong, but how is it possible? the hiv/aids virus keeps changing but if we finally found something that is a key component to each change, why havnt we figured this out before?

    i smell a conspiracy...

    --
    Menya zovut Shnur :P
  210. Small "family"? by refraxd · · Score: 1
    "Although so far limited to early test tube studies, CSA-54, one of a family of compounds called Ceragenins (or CSAs), mimics the disease-fighting characteristics of anti-microbial and anti-viral agents produced naturally by a healthy human immune system".

    I Googled Ceragenins, no matching documents found!!!

  211. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, you don't need a genealogy to prevent FIRST cousins from marrying. Most people know who their cousins are, and even if they don't, chances are that their parents will recognize their brothers and/or sisters at the wedding.

  212. Understanding the issue... by ElboRuum · · Score: 1

    We're better off with a pill than hoping beyond hope that the glorified animals that are "we" do the constructive and logical thing.

  213. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

    Once upon a time, the AIDS/HIV prevalence rate in these countries was 0%.

    It didn't climb to its present levels because the people and governments of these countries took the problem seriously, and did everything in their power to avoid it.

    Now the bitter irony is that the nations most able to develop a cure are the countries that least need it, while the countries that most need the cure are least able to develop one.

    I applaud your desire to help people who got into the mess they're in through superstition and ignorance, against the excellent advice of the world's leading health and aid agencies, but I don't fault the reseachers at BYU if they don't happen to share that desire.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  214. Ya gotta wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya gotta wonder how this guy brought up the subject:

    "Hey Jim, you're a mormon, right? So is it really true that mormans are heavily inbred? "

    "Sure Geekmeister, its true. I myself have serious inbreeding issues. "

    "Thanks, Jim. I was just curiuos. "

  215. Re:Sensational cure-mongering aside by i8puppies · · Score: 0

    You forgot "don't get raped, mugged and stabbed with a previously used knife, have some guy pick a fight with you and get blood on you, let anyone give you cpr, be around anyone who is psychotic enough to prick you with an AIDS needle on a subway or in an elevator, always perform background checks on everyone you know ever, never be lied to by someone you love."

    I'm sick of people saying "all we need to do to solve problem X is do Y. Simple!"

    In a perfect world my friend, yes. But a perfect world this is not. Major problems are never limited to persons of type X, and can never be solved by just applying theory Y.

  216. Re:Sensational cure-mongering aside by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

    You're more likely to get struck by lightning than get AIDS that way.

  217. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

    And because those corrupt and ineffective dictators and quasi-dictators (who supported those guys, anyway?!) made poor choices, their people deserve to suffer?

  218. Excellent Flame! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that's how it should be done!

    Sharp, Directed, and Consistant. All with good flow to it. I give it a 9.2.

    Extra points for Get off your horse, you self-righteous hypocrite - an excellent topic sentence!

  219. Behaviorial Virus by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    Well although you were trying to be funny there is some truth from a certain perspective on what you were saying.

    HIV/AIDS is mostly contracted due to one's behavior. Now I take exception for those poor kids born with it due to their parents' irresponsible actions, and of course those that contract it from legit transfusions (exceptionally rare).

    But other than that, if you keep yourself within specific behaviors, then YOU WILL NOT CONTRACT HIV/AIDS!

    A lot of religious "laws/rules" have a reason behind them: no sex before marriage, no drugs, etc etc. These "laws/rules" were set in place to protect the people of that specific religion.

    I am a Christian and I am not a hardliner fundamentalist, in fact I consider myself a classical liberal, very open minded, logical, rational, etc. So I am not saying that everyone needs to follow all of the laws in the Bible, or the Koran, or whatever.

    But I AM saying that people should take responsibility for their actions. And unless you are in one of those two RARE cases mentioned above (transfusion/birth), contracting HIV/AIDS is a result of your own irresponsible actions.

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  220. Abolish the FDA by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    The first thing we should do is to abolish the FDA.

    Everyone is concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs.

    Before we are regulators, drug company employees, or cost-conscious consumers, we are human beings who will one day need a life-saving pharmaceutical or medical intervention. Thus, we all have a vested interest in innovative treatments at affordable prices.

    Even at today's high drug prices, every dollar spent on new pharmaceuticals -- or "new chemical entities," as we call them in the trade -- saves us an additional $2 or $3 by lowering health care costs and cutting lost time.

    For example, when the first anti-ulcer drug, Tagamet, was introduced, patients no longer needed to leave work for a $28,000 surgery. Instead, they could take one to three courses of drug therapy, each costing about $1,000 -- with virtually no loss of work.

    Many of the proposed "solutions" to high drug costs, such as price and profit controls, would cause manufacturers to cut back on the innovation which creates such saving.

    In the long run, these "solutions" only address the symptoms, not the underlying problem -- excess regulation.

    Although many researchers knew that excess regulation -- regulation that takes lives instead of saving them -- played a role in soaring pharmaceutical prices, it's only in the past few years that enough data has been available to actually quantify some of these costs. Even though I had witnessed "regulatory creep" first-hand in my 19 years as a research scientist in the pharmaceutical industry, I was astounded at how large a role regulation plays in the rising price of drugs.

    * Drug development time
    In 1962, the Kefauver-Harris amendments to the Food and Drug Act were passed in the wake of the European thalidomide tragedy. Thalidomide, a sleeping aid less likely than barbiturates to cause death by accidental overdose, prevented morning sickness as well. But, women who took thalidomide in the first month or two of pregnancy often had babies with half-formed limbs.
    The U.S. was largely unaffected by this tragedy because the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had withheld approval due to concern about kidney toxicity.

    The new amendments required manufacturers to test drugs for efficacy, even though a 1907 Supreme Court ruling had declared such laws unconstitutional. No drug works for everyone, so what percentage of people had to be helped for it to be lawful? Clearly, as the court pointed out, it was a "matter of opinion."

    Nevertheless, the 1962 amendments became law. The FDA set the bar for efficacy so high that drug development times soared from about 4.4 years in the decades prior to the amendments to 14.2 years in the 1990s. Without the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the average drug would have spent 15.2 years in development in the 1990s. The 1992 legislation allowed manufacturers to pay for the hiring of more FDA staff -- who would then process their specific applications more rapidly.

    The dramatic increase in drug development times meant that some drug patents ran out before the manufacturer could get it through the regulatory process! Consequently, Congress passed the Waxman-Hatch Act of 1984, which gave patent extensions to drug makers based on the regulatory component of the development time. By the Act's definition of the "regulatory review time," about 84 percent of the average new drug's development time was consumed by regulations, most of which (about 70 percent) was directly attributable to the 1962 amendments.

    Adding a decade or so to development times meant that people died waiting for life-saving drugs. Since we know how many lives the average drug saves, we can calculate that about 4.7 million people died prematurely since 1962 due to the amendments. In contrast, had the amendments prevented all serious drug toxicity in the United States at the same rate seen from 1950 to 1962, only about 7,000 lives would have been saved.

    Even if we assume that the U.S. would have experienced a

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  221. Re:Sensational cure-mongering aside by i8puppies · · Score: 0

    Care to cite your source? Or did you just make that up because it's what you want to believe.

  222. No, it doesn't... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...kill off the irresponsibles, or at least it does it too slowly to be much of a useful selection agent and takes out a lot of more-or-less innocent bystanders in the process.

    However, your point about mislabelling of cases still stands. I can't comment on the truth or falsehood of it, or more specifically on whether enough of it happens to make a real difference, but will ask, and I'd expect it to be true in at least some cases.

    It's also inevitable that many of these people have AIDS and something else, given that it is indeed Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome we're dealing with.

    Not sure why this AC got pounded into the sand by the moderators. Perhaps some of them could comment instead? What (s)he said was on-topic and better thought-out than a lot of the surrounding prattle, inadequate as it is. I don't think it's a great post, but I don't think it's worth modding down either.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  223. Antoibiotice Cocktail, Sunshine, Exercise, Rest. by thomasxstewart · · Score: 1

    Fantrsy article. First treat skin Sores directly on wound & by mouth with Antibiotics from Mexico(duty free).While taking B Balanced Complex, 250 mgm daily forces renewed nuro growth. Sunshine when over 90F to draw wounds to surface. Cleaniness. Distilled water. Acyliviour. AZT(zuduvirane).About 15 years of time to rest. Its much better to stay clean than try to "cure" disease on edge of fatal strength.aNTI BIOTICS REDUCE YOU, eXERCISE REBUILDS YOU, vITAMINES Sustain you. Sunshine accerates healing & excrusion process. Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

    --
    WINDOWS XP Service Pack -X- 396 mb. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html
  224. Re:Mormons controlling the lives of millions... by susano_otter · · Score: 1

    And because those corrupt and ineffective dictators and quasi-dictators (who supported those guys, anyway?!) made poor choices, their people deserve to suffer

    This argument only makes sense if you're also prepared to argue that decades of efforts by humanitarian aid agencies failed to communicate good information to hundreds of thousands of people across the continent.

    Also, warlords don't get into power by being lone gunmen. They get into power by forming and leading gangs of people who do support them. The violence prevalent in Africa isn't the violence of two pistoleros dueling it out at high noon, it's the violence of whole tribes of people shooting and chopping each other in large groups on a regular basis. Idi Amin and Charles Taylor came to power backed by cadres of thugs, and were allowed to come to power by people who did not think that freedom from armed thuggery was worth fighting and dying for.

    The way to help these people isn't to give them advanced technology for free.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  225. The only thing uglier is by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

    your sense of decency.

    Lets all hail the new antichristican virtue moralists!

  226. Who is perfectly responsible? No one. Lets all die by elucido · · Score: 1

    I mean really, anyone who believes in killing irresponsible people, believes in suicide. AIDS may not kill us, instead we will die of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mad cow, or some new invention. Look, there will always be a way to kill anyone. Anything you do can be deemed irresponsible by any group of insane doctors who want to just let for example, the bird flu kill all the irresponsible people who arent germphobes or who don't wash their hands.

    But hey, since I'm not in a position to cure or stop these diseases, all I can say is, if we want to die so badly that we will let viruses, AIDs, and bacteria kill us off willingly, then perhaps we will get our wish someday when a virus actually does wipe us out, or an astroid, or just something unpredictable. You can only survive as a species if you focus on it. Plagues wipe out all species, if animal species can be wiped out into extiction, humans are no different. What are we supposed to do? Go into space?

  227. Just so long as you don't die... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...from an overdose of happiness, I guess.

    What we do has a massive impact on how and when we typically die. Consistently eating too much is a ticket to widespread degenerative disease, and a relatively slow and painful death. Getting mud on your dipstick opens the door much wider for several infectious diseases than any other common practice (and also specific forms of damage to the circulatory and eliminatory systems) and an even slower and more painful death. Smoking is an embossed invitation to a wide variety of cancers and -- huge surprise -- a slow and painful death. A fat, bent, smoker is basically making themselves a target through their actions, regardless of whether doctors agree that it's so or not. Reality doesn't care.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Just so long as you don't die... by elucido · · Score: 1


      Not only what you do, but where you live, how much money you are born with, and who you know.
      Everything influences when you die, even being born in the wrong place and knowing the wrong people. It's not as simple as just not smoking. Plenty of people die and never smoked. Plenty of people die because they don't have access to healthy food, so its not how much you eat, its what you eat. Plenty of people die because they simply have the wrong friends. The point is, as long as we continue to make the world more dangerous by creating new ways for people to die, then eventually it will apply to every human on earth. Do you honestly think that anyone is immune to death and that there are perfect people on this earth who make no mistakes? Even if you are born rich, with all the luck in the world, you might still drink bad water, breathe bad air, and eat bad food, and you'll get diseases just like everyone else.

  228. Exactly corrent. by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    However, you can choose the odds for an early death by changing what you do.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing