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."

37 of 787 comments (clear)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Its a treatment that cures all that ails ya!

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

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

      Yeah, I think I will remain skeptical as well.

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

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

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

      Botuline, cyanide, ricin...

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    5. Re:Raised eyebrows by schon · · Score: 4, Funny

      .. molten lava, a blast furnace..

    6. Re:Raised eyebrows by tsmoke · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    8. Re:Raised eyebrows by Guy+LeDouche · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

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

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

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
    10. Re:Raised eyebrows by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yeah but if I came up with a cure for aids or workable cold fusion I think I might mention it to a few people in the time it took for peer review.

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

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

      You just blinded my mind's eye...

      --
      For those that would die defending it, Freedom
      has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
    12. Re:Raised eyebrows by CB-in-Tokyo · · Score: 4, Insightful


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Check my profile before making any assumption.

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

      Read what I post, son.

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


      Back on topic...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    16. Re:Raised eyebrows by Kombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    17. Re:Raised eyebrows by TallMatthew · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't believe that "a fast track through the FDA" is ever advisable for any new drug meant for human consumption.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  2. The Stock by Mrs.+Grundy · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

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

  3. More than just HIV by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This substance is a mimic of a current human body chemical, and attacks one hell of a lot more than just HIV- my guess is it will end one of two ways. It will either strip the body of everything including our normal colonies of beneficial bacteria and yeasts, and thus be too dangerous to use. Or it won't work for some mutation, and we'll still have a million or so HIV patients after it's in widespread use.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  4. Fast Track by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As nice as it is to think that we have an AIDS cure, and that we don't have to worry about it anymore. But I think that rushing it through a FDA approval, without exploring its full consequences could be a little dangerous. If this drug was passed, and everybody who took it got rid of their AIDS, but developed some other condition which killed them in a year, then we'd all look a little stupid, and the drug company would probably be under a lot of scrutiny.

    Another thing though, is this drug patented, or will this be cheaply available for everyone who needs it, especially AIDS ravaged countried in Africa.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:Fast Track by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 4, Funny

      They'll be happy to charge $10000 per dose to make up for their overwhelming research budget, I'm sure.

      You mispelled "advertising budget."

  5. Don't break out the champagne just yet by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although so far limited to early test tube studies, CSA-54, one of a family of compounds called Ceragenins (or CSAs), mimics the disease-fighting characteristics of anti-microbial and anti-viral agents produced naturally by a healthy human immune system.

    While the tests are repeatable, there's a long distance between the test tube and human trials.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  6. Re:let the... by Ionizer7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    AIDS cure or no AIDS cure, you still have to have a willing partner...

  7. Journalist discovers cure for HIV! by ChePibe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Forgive me for saying this, but how much of this is trumped up by the scientist vs. the journalist? The researchers stated "we would like to formally show this before making any claims that would cause unwanted hype", yet the journalist went on and hyped it up.

    The headline could've easily read:

    "Professor makes steps in war against HIV/AIDS"

    "New lead in fight against HIV/AIDS"

    Or something along those lines.

    I'm actually a BYU student and I'd love to see a terrible disease like HIV/AIDS destroyed as much as the next man - I've met many people suffering from this disease in Latin America and it's horrible to see. I just think the journalist decided to soup up the story by taking what are very preliminary results and making a huge deal of them.

    Then again, I do have my fingers crossed...

  8. It's much more possible than you think ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As we all know, the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a desease that attacks the body's immune system.

    I'm no med student but the article states that:
    CSA-54, one of a family of compounds called Ceragenins (or CSAs), mimics the disease-fighting characteristics of anti-microbial and anti-viral agents produced naturally by a healthy human immune system.
    Ok, if this is true, then we've overcome the large part of AIDS (immunodeficiency). We can just boost the hell out of the white blood cell mimicking Ceragenins. Will this stop AIDS? Maybe not, but it will provide the defenses that AIDS rips from its patients. If I recall correctly, it's not the AIDS virus itself that kills a victim but instead another desease/sickness that occurs from a weakened immune system.

    What's exciting is that the AIDS virus probably doesn't infect/reproduce when it is being killed by Ceragenins like it does to white blood cells. Thus, they may have something here if their premises hold true.

    Googling for "Ceragenins" results in zero hits. Which means this is some magical elixir that is a mistakened cure all. Or perhaps it's something very obscure that no one has thought of until today? We shall see.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by RingDev · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Googling for "Ceragenins" results in zero hits. "

      Maybe Ceragenins have been black listed for having 'penis size', 'discrete medication', and 'horny teenage girls' on their web site ;)

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:It's much more possible than you think ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It appears that the company (Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals) has invented this term for their own products. As none of these claims are in the literature, googling won't find much. You find a bit more searching for CSA. Apparently in December they had a compound namded CSA-52 that killed e.coli and staph aureus (among other things). Again, that was published in the news before any scientific literature (has it been published yet, a quick pubmed search doesn't return anything?).

      Anyway, I'd bet they're pumping the stock. I'm not particularly confident that they've got what they claim (or that its efficacy is as high as they claim).

  9. hold the champagne a bit longer? by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I dunno. So the compound destroys HIV in the test tube. AFAIK, this is underwhelming, because the problem with HIV is that it hides out inside cells where blood-borne drugs can't get to it. (I don't even think it's in there as a complete viral particle, probably just the RNA.)

    You could hope that if you kept your bloodstream flooded with the drug you could nail each new virus as it emerged, but I seem to recall HIV can go directly from cell to cell, without entering the bloodstream at all.

    I think our natural immune system kills off viral infections in substantial part by recognizing which of our cells are infected and killing them. That is, it's not just a question of wiping out the free virus, I think.

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

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

    --
    Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
  11. Re:let the... by Mechanik · · Score: 5, Funny

    Giggidy giggidy giggidy... alright!

  12. Re:HIV is a virus by Capitalist1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless HIV works differently from other viruses, it does eventually kill the infected cell it used to replicate itself.

    Why? Because virus replication dumps all the copies *inside* the cell walls. Eventually, the cell gets as full as it can be and pops - releasing all the newly-formed copies. The cell at that point is damaged beyond recovery and dies.

    There is nothing to reverse once the infected cells have cycled. The real problem is getting *all* copies of the virus, since it can hide dormant in other types of tissue.

    *I am not a doctor, but I play one on dates.*

    --
    One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
  13. Re:There will never be an AIDs cure. by seanduffy · · Score: 5, Informative
    The HIV virus does not "embed" itself into the dna of a victim. It inserts it's rna into t-cells and uses the t-cells to replicate itself. The problem is that this kills the t-cells, thus killing you. The HIV virus has no chemical affinity for the rest of the cells in your body - thank God, otherwise it would destroy just about every part of the victim. It does NOT hide away and wait to pop out the second a victim stops taking his or her cocktail.

    As for the blood-brain barrier: the barrier is made by what are called "glia cells." Or more specifically, astrocytes, a type of glia cells. The lipid membranes of these cells only allow certain molecules that are lipid soluble (non-polar) to enter the brain barrier. That is why when you add only one acetyl group to morphine, it becomes heroin and can act on the brain simply because it is non-polar enough to pass through the barrier. Most anti-viral drugs can indeed get through this barrier. Even if that were not the case though, HIV is a blood pathogen and circulation in and out of the brain would likely be enough to contact all HIV molecules with the anti-viral medication. How else would today's HIV cocktails work? HIV does NOT camp out and slowly kill neurons. At all. It cannot attack neurons. Only t-cells. When enough of your t-cells are attacked and killed, you get AIDS.

    --
    check out my music biatches. www.seanduffymusic.com
  14. Link to press releases. Too many press releases. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here's the actual press release. Note the strong resemblance of the "story" to the press release. There does not seem to be an accompanying scientific paper.

    It's hard to get that excited about an "in vitro" ("in glass") result. Lots of things work in vitro. There's no indication of whether this works in animals. When they can show it working in mice with human immune systems (there are genetically engineered mice with human immune systems, used for this kind of research), they'll have something. This is a long way from an "AIDS cure".

    The reason nobody can find the term "ceragenins" in Google is that compounds of this class are called "cationic steroid antibiotics" in the literature. "Ceragenins" is a PR term.

    This company also claims that these compounds can be used to treat cancer, macular degeneration, and multiple-antibiotic resistant infections. They also can be used for skin cream for dry, itchy skin. There's an proposed antiterrorism application, to make smallpox vaccination safer.

    However, there are no claims that these compounds improve gas mileage.

    Ticker symbol: CGXP.OB. Up 122% today on this press release.

  15. Er, what? by leonbrooks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last I looked, the AIDS toll in Africa stood at 30 million, which is more people than live in my entire country -- and more than another 25 million have the disease and know that they're going to die because of it. In Africa alone.

    The figures for 'way back in 2000 were 10,000 a day, 4,000 of those from AIDS. Last year, there were over 3 million deaths and nearly 5 million new infections. That would wipe out my entire state in five months, eight through AIDS alone, and AIDS alone would do in the entire country in about eight years.

    True, there are those other diseases around -- curable ones too -- but don't underestimate the damage which AIDS does. There are 12 million AIDS orphans alive as I type, for example.

    Amongst other things, a common urban myth in Africa is that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS... so you get AIDS-infected men raping girls who are so young that they have to be virgins. Nice.

    It's also largely curable by the same education which would reduce AIDS and practically eliminate tuberculosis and malaria. In fact, the basic directives for achieving this are something like 4500 years old. Nevertheless, a magic bullet for AIDS would be a more than welcome assistant. My only real reservations center around what else it kills besides AIDS.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing