AIDS Can Fight AIDS

dptalia writes "Scientists at the University of Pennsylvania have announced that they have engineered a strain of the AIDS virus that fights AIDS. This strain of AIDS works like a vaccine and improved the immune system of the test subjects. After three years on this new therapy, no side effects have been observed."

Comments

Re:A lot more is necessary...

[debilo]

... and then we need to wait for the patents to expire so that the people who actually need it can afford what the drug companies will charge.

Or we pull a stunt like Brazil on the drug companies and force them to reduce the price.

What about HCV?

[davegaramond]

A lot of HIV/AIDS research is going on, but I wonder, what about Hepatitis C virus? As I recall, it also leads to fatality (liver damage + death) in more than 70-80% of the cases, transmits much like HIV (blood transfusion, needles, sexual intercourse), and in some regions especially South East Asia it's far more prevalent than HIV. There's also no known vaccine against it at the moment.

Re:What about HCV?

[Shados]

From my experience, a lot of biotech companies that do R&D about AIDS tend to to Hepatitis C at the same time. The research process is very very similar, and in both cases, is a lot of trial and error. So they try a molecule or another one one, then try it on the other if it didn't work, etc.

At least, I've worked for a few biotech companies that specialised in either HIV or Hepatitis C, and all of them at -least- worked on the side on the other in parallele, reusing all compounds, methodologies, and documentation/research. I don't know if it was an isolated experience, but it really seems like it was the more efficient way to go.

Re:A lot more is necessary...

[foobsr]

On the other hand ....

CC.

Competitive antagonism...?

[Fulg0re-]

The idea seems pretty insightful. I'm curious, however, as to what is the mechanism of preferential cell uptake and synthesis of the genetically engineered HIV strain if it is still using the same env gene (CD4 and CCR binding)? Did they also modify the tat and nef genes as well? Are there simply more viruses being made somehow, thus increasing its particular population?

The second thing I'm curious about is if the original HIV infection can be wiped out completely? We know that it hides out (M and T tropic strains) in the dendritic cells, lymph nodes, macrophages, etc., and can transfer from cell-to-cell without hematologic involvement, so it seems to me at least, that some latent virons of the original HIV infection will still be around.

They further suggest that the CD4 count increases, yet, how is this possible if the genetically engineered HIV strain is competing with the original strain? I'm assuming that the CD8 T-cells are possibly having an "easier" time fighting off the genetically engineered strain, and possibly giving its numbers a chance to bounce back up and stay elevated. This may lessen the burden on the CD4 cells, giving those numbers a chance to rise as well.

One problem, however, is that it's only a matter of time before the original HIV (T tropic) strain mutates. Normally, this would knock-off the humoral system, e.g., CD8 and CD4 counts plummet, just as the new strains begin their assault. With the genetically engineered strain, I'm not so sure what sequence this will occur.

Just an idea, if they can actually use this method, along with tweaking the surface antigen genes to actually mutate (and yes, there are millions of possibilities, and I'm assuming that natural selection doesn't require every possibility), we may actually be able to get the humoral system to recognize a sufficient number of antigenic sites and possibilities to be able to mount a full response, and eventually cure the person of HIV!

More

[Mark_MF-WN]

More certainly is necessary. Much, much more. But drug cocktails do help substantially. All else being equal, they drastically reduce the odds of a person spreading the HIV virus during an unprotected sexual encounter, and reduce the odds of a pregnant woman passing it to her child from 30% (surprising in and of itself) to something like 5%. Now granted, people with HIV shouldn't be running around getting pregnant in the first place, nor should they be having unprotected sex. But it's not a perfect world, and if drug cocktails slow the spread, that's a win in my book. If they save even a few children from being born with HIV, that's a gargantuan win against a terrible injustice.

I think that, in the long run, HIV is a prime candidate for eradication. Compared to something like smallpox or polio, HIV spreads slowly, the method of infection is easy to manage, quarantine is easy if morally questionable, the spread is easy to track, and we're on top of a few of the principal vectors already (ie: tainted blood and contaminated medical instruments). Needle-exchange programs could bring even more. Any capacity for actually eliminating or completely supressing the disease would make the eradication of HIV an immediate possbility, and one that would get acted on very quickly.

Re:Two Wrongs

[carl0ski]

i would more call it Fire versus Ashes
the more ash the less fire can breathe

The technique are using appears to modify an AIDS strain to have complete opposite effect offsetting HIV.
HIV slows the Immune system their system lets call it VIH accelerates the Immune system again to fight HIV.

cultural resistence

[spectrokid]

When we moved from farms to towns in the early middle ages, we brought our habits: pigs running freely in the streets, unexisting hygene. Then came the plague. Some refused to adapt, and they died. Others accepted sewages and garbage collection as a new way of life. They lived. AIDS will be eradicated from Africa the same way the plague was eradicated from Europe (and cholera,...) By a mixture of biological resistance and cultural resistance. Condoms for fun, monogamy for making children, the solutions are there. Africa needs to accept them as unavoidable cultural changes.

Re:A lot more is necessary...

[siegesama]

I hear it often as a sort of personal praise. "I'm going to hell, aren't I" or, "I know, I'm insane" or "I just say the craziest things." It's like a nervous tick, looking for an affectionate re-affirmation that they're being entertaining.

It's sort of like laughing at your own jokes. If you're not getting the attention and feedback that you wanted, you can just toss it in at the end! I think it's often unconscious, as I know at least four people who do/say that. Interestingly, the people who actually make me laugh or who say things which are actually unexpected and humorously awful very rarely do this.

However, I think in the context here, it serves the same purpose as a smiley; it's just letting you know that they do not actually think you should just shoot AIDS victims. Not really excusing the joke, just saying that it was, in fact, a joke.

The "that's HARDCORE" reply is awesome though.