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."
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.
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.
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
the first "cure for AIDS" story that i have read on slashdot.
call me cynical......
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Developed by DOC SAVAGE! Will The Shadow get Osama bin Laden next?
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.
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)
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.
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.
let the fucking begin!
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
The day there is an available cure for AIDS, there will be fucking in the streets.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
smaaaaaaallllpox
(biowarfare labs don't count)
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.
See if it will cure you of being an asshole
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.
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.
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...
I'm no med student but the article states that: 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.
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
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.
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?"
Heh, you refuse to comment on this until further results are publsihed... except for this. Soo... starting...
NOW!
"This is considered plagiarism."
Free love it is.
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!
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.
That's just silly. You've got the added problem of having a moonroof in your skull.
I think we all know, specifically, who actually found the compound.
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable con
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.
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.
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.
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.
Though I wanted to, I will not reply to your comment.
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
The beatings will continue until morale (and spelling) improves!
How about put patients in clean sealed confinement and then kill all his Tcells with tailored antibodies ?
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
if it is true, what will be bigger? this, or the cure to cancer when it comes around?
portfolio
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.
news agencies once again promote illiteracy. HIV stands for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Why would you need to say HIV/AIDS virus??
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.
Of course, since Medline doesn't have a single reference on these revolutionary compounds called Ceragenins, I call bullshit on this one.
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.
> 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.
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
...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
Whether we want to admit it or not, the spectre of a fatal, wasting illness does influence sexual behavior.
- term illness, risky behavior rose.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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...
...have sex with a Slashdotter.
1 10010100100000001110010011000000100101001000000110 11110110011000100000010100110110110001100001011100 11011010000110010001101111011101000111010001100101 01110010011100110010000001100001011100100110010100 10000001110110011010010111001001100111011010010110 11100111001100101110001000000010000001000111011001 010111010000100000011010010111010000111111
0100001001100101011000110110000101110101011100110
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
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
> 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.
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
GrimRCForgive 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.
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.
Time to Sell of the trojan stock.
http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=11 60759XSL_NEWSML_TO_NEWSML.xml&css=printOnly.css
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.
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.
They do already... along with the rest of us.
;)
Next job guys: find a cure for bigotry.
Invisible to moderators.
Not to challenge your view, but how do you suppose the research should be paid for?
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
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
...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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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..
"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...
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
"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
Say goodbye to unprotected sex!!
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
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
A Passionate Independent Musician
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
I'm confused... so what is this:l der/koch9_2.jpg
http://www.aids-info.ch/bilder/schule_aids/jpg_bi
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.
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.)
Not licking all the worlds problems. Seriously, you don't know where they've been.
Task Mangler
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.
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...
Circumcision is child abuse.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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?
http://www.jayandsilentbob.com/budchrisdass1.html
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
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.
http://outcampaign.org/
You can't honestly believe that malnutrition in Africa (or anywhere else) didn't exist 100 years ago.
You can't honestly believe that African diseases were classified as "AIDS" ten years ago.
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.
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.
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
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".
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.
Sweet! Time to update the big board!
[ ] Common Cold
[ ] Cancer
[*] AIDS
[ ] Male pattern baldness
[ ] Stupidity
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.)
It has been show that HIV cannot live long without a host, so researchers have found new methods of killing the host.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
No, you're one of many. HIV does indeed attack the brain. People often don't survive long enough for this to matter.
Why would it be under the business section of sltrib?
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
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.
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!
Interesting.
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.
not f*cking people with AIDS.. I mean.. come on.. know who you're having sex with.
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
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
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.
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.
Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals Stock :)
/Hopes not up but it would be nice....
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.
Give them the illusion of choice and they will blindly follow for they choose not to make one.
Business Section.
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"
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...
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.
Please help metamoderate.
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
aids cured...
herpies cured...
why should anyone wear a condom anymore?
hookers for all!!!
-judging another only defines yourself
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...
They just misspelled the work in the article. Its carrageenan
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
United States
Swaziland
Botswana
Lesotho
Zimbabwe
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.
Makes me wonder what they got in their hand! :p )
( And yes my grammer stinks.
I am. Lower your shields and power down your weapons, they are useless. Your biological and technological distinctivenes
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)?
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(?)
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
The caveat was that they sting like hell when you squirt them into your sexual orifices !!!
I'm confused... so what is this:l der/koch9_2.jpg
http://www.aids-info.ch/bilder/schule_aids/jpg_bi
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You do understand how sarcasm works, right?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If there is a cure, then be prepared for divorce rates to skyrocket. For every action...
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.
This guy is way out there
DRUNK POSTER ALERT
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
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.
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.
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...
Then, this "scientific breakthrough" for AIDS didn't happen. It's crap until it's published, not when it's hyped.
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
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?
"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!
Found an article on the compound class in question as showing promises as a broad spectrum antibiotic.
m d=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12445638&dopt=Abstr act
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?c
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...
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.
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.
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.
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)
i smell a conspiracy...
Menya zovut Shnur
I Googled Ceragenins, no matching documents found!!!
We're better off with a pill than hoping beyond hope that the glorified animals that are "we" do the constructive and logical thing.
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.
You're more likely to get struck by lightning than get AIDS that way.
And because those corrupt and ineffective dictators and quasi-dictators (who supported those guys, anyway?!) made poor choices, their people deserve to suffer?
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
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
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.
...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
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/WASHINGTO
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.
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.
your sense of decency.
Lets all hail the new antichristican virtue moralists!
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.
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?
...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
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.
However, you can choose the odds for an early death by changing what you do.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing