Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AIDS Can Fight AIDS

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the numbers-games dept.

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."

28 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. A lot more is necessary... by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... for this to turn into something big, but I think it's a hopeful start. A lot of people are laboring under the mistaken belief that the drug cocktails available now will somehow stop AIDS. But even if somehow made available inexpensively worldwide (which ain't gonna happen any time soon), it still wouldn't be enough. We need radically better treatment. It needs to be inexpensive, easy to administer, and something that only needs to be administered once.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:A lot more is necessary... by debilo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      ... 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.
    2. Re:A lot more is necessary... by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

      It needs to be inexpensive, easy to administer, and something that only needs to be administered once.

      A bullet?

      [Yes, I'm joking. And yes, I know I'm going straight to hell for that one.]

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:A lot more is necessary... by tryptych · · Score: 4, Informative

      These HIV cocktails DO effectively stop AIDS. AIDS is a condition caused by the HIV virus reducing and eventually depleting CD4 cells used in the immune system to nothing. An uninfected person usually has a CD4 count of around 800. When this is reduced to under 100, this is then classified as AIDS. Even if the CD4 count were to rise well above that threshold, they are still considered to have AIDS. Most HIV+ people on combination therapy start once their CD4 drops below 200, and from then on it rises back up at about 100 a year thereafter. The side effects are often not good, but so far, everyone seems to be living pretty normal lives. It's no cure, but its a start. http://www.aidsmap.com/

      --
      "I like to skate on the other side of the ice"
    4. Re:A lot more is necessary... by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Funny
      Yes, I'm joking. And yes, I know I'm going straight to hell for that one.
      So you believe in a Deity that condemns people to eternal suffering because they told one shitty bad taste joke? Fucking hardcore.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:A lot more is necessary... by siegesama · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      what the hell is a 'junk character', anyway?
    6. Re:A lot more is necessary... by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a man cuts his finger off while slicing salami at work, he sues the restaurant. If you smoke three packs a day for 40 years and die of lung cancer, your family sues the tobacco company. If your neighbor crashes into a tree while driving home drunk, he sues the bartender. If your grandchildren are brats without manners, you sue producers of a video games. If your friend is shot by a deranged madman, you sue the gun manufacturer.

      It really irks me when people talk about sue-happy America and pretend that the problem is all about individuals suing corporations. Yes, all of these lawsuits have likely occurred at one point in time, but in the VAST majority of these type cases they end up losing or they win, but only because the situation is significantly more complicated. For example, take the woman who sued McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on herself. On the face of it, as a quick little soundbite it sounds absurd and the perfect example of everything that's wrong about this country... but the details of the lawsuit changes everything. The McDonald's in question was running a "unlimited coffee" promotion, and they realized that by serving the coffee extremely hot (190+ degrees F, as I recall) people would wind up drinking less because they had to wait for it to cool off. They had health inspectors come by--the inspectors measured the temperature of the coffee, told them it was DANGEROUSLY hot and needed to be served at a lower temperature. They might have even warned them multiple times about it, I don't recall. The McDonald's management chose NOT to lower the temperature of the coffee. Then, an elderly woman spilled some on her lap. If the coffee was served at a reasonable temp, she would have been fine; maybe some slight irritation (mild first-degree burns.) But, because the coffee was so damn hot, she suffered THIRD DEGREE BURNS across her pelvic area, including her vulva. She required skin grafts and was in tremendous pain for quite some time. Imagine for a second spilling some hot coffee on your lap and getting third degree burns all over your genitals, then finding out that the restaurant was specifically warned by health inspectors that their coffee was dangerously hot and yet they decided to keep their coffee hot anyway because it was more profitable?

      I don't recall how many millions of dollars she won, but I'd say that in this case, the "poor corporation" clearly deserved it. From what I've seen, most of the time when they lose, they do deserve it. Let's take your examples--the tobacco company ACTIVELY HID their own research that showed their product caused cancer. Maybe 30+ years ago people knew they weren't super-healthy, but they know that they increased their chances of getting lung cancer by (to pull a number out of my ass here) 10,000%? Big tobacco did, but they destroyed the research and hid the truth. Until that truth finally came to light (decades later, I think), most people didn't know that heavy, long-term smoking was a virtual death sentence. Big tobacco deserved to be hit with those billions of dollars' worth of punitive damages.

      And let's say that salami slicer was missing a vital safety guard, but the owner was too cheap to replace it. Sorry, but he too deserves what he gets. Employers being motivated to take cheap, basic precautions to keep their employees safe can only be a good thing.

      The bartender is a little more iffy--you have a link to the a *successful* lawsuit? I agree that he shouldn't be responsible for his patrons, but in very specific circumstances (like, if he somehow KNEW the guy was going to be driving home) you could make a case for reckless endangerment.

      The video game thing has happened a few times, but I'm not aware of a single successful lawsuit (of this type) brought against a video game. Stupid lawsuits *generally* aren't successful, and corporations can almost always afford to defend themselves vs. an individual.

      Contrast that with a corporation suing an individual. E

  2. Ingenious by Centurix · · Score: 5, Funny

    We can genetically modify idiots to fight other idiots!

    --
    Task Mangler
    1. Re:Ingenious by debilo · · Score: 5, Funny

      We can genetically modify idiots to fight other idiots!

      Yeah, but the idea is not patentable, since Congress has prior art.

  3. Highlander by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 4, Funny

    There can only be one! (AIDS virus)

    --

    Philosophy.
  4. So after the AIDS.... by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 4, Funny

    So after the AIDS kills the AIDS, then they send something in to kill the AIDS that kills the AIDS....

    So at what point does a Cow get sent in to go after the chicken.

    1. Re:So after the AIDS.... by kupan787 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
      Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
      Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
      Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
      Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
      Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
      Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

  5. don't cross the streams by macadamia_harold · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientists at the University of Pennsylvania have announced that they have engineered a strain of the AIDS virus that fights AIDS.

    Well, whatever you do, don't cross the streams. You're sure to get human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

    --
    Push Button, Receive Bacon
  6. People can fight people by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's only a matter of time before one of the AIDS strains invades the other AIDS strains on suspicions of building protiens of mass cell destruction.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  7. Re:Two Wrongs by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Funny

    no. but three lefts do.

    --
    Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
  8. AIDS Can Fight AIDS? by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 5, Informative

    AIDS is a condition, not a virus.

    AIDS != HIV

    --
    +0 Meh
    1. Re:AIDS Can Fight AIDS? by blitz77 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Where art thou, mods?!!? Mod parent up!

      HIV is the virus which affects the immune system (by infecting the T-helper lymphocytes). AIDS is what happens after enough time has passed for the HIV virus to put a sufficient enough dent in the immune system - that's why its called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome after all.

      So I think its more correct to say that it's HIV to fight HIV-using a HIV modified virus to stimulate the immune system against HIV.

  9. Re:What about HCV? by Shados · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:They put in more T cells than they took out... by SnowZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, that's like adding dry wooden supports to a house that's on fire... not going to work.

    You need some way of blocking the virus from exploiting the new T-cells as "fuel". This new virus is kind of like a fire ring; Burn/infect it first in a controlled way to stop the real fire/infection from spreading further.

  11. Finally! by dangitman · · Score: 4, Funny

    The principles of Bum Fighting applied to medical science. It brings a tear of joy to my eye.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  12. Competitive antagonism...? by Fulg0re- · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

  13. Re:AIDS Hoax-Ten reasons HIV is not the cause of A by TheRealSync · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pseudoscience kills. Do not spread it.

    Facts: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm

    --
    -- A good compromise leaves everyone mad. --Calvin and Hobbes
  14. More by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

  15. Re:Two Wrongs by carl0ski · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  16. Re:Perhaps HIV? - Nitpicking the Nitpicker by Mjlner · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is no such thing as an "AIDS" virus, per say... I think you mean to say that they used a modified HIV virus. AIDS is the resulting symptom that people with HIV (or certain other diseases) might develop.

    There is no such thing as an "HIV virus", per se. There is, however a "Human Immunodeficiency Virus", which is shortened to HIV, or - if you will - " the HI-virus".

    --
    Lemon curry???
  17. Setting the record straight - New advances (HIV) by blahdeblah2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Every couple of weeks or so the media buy a press release about how 'a new drug' / 'gene therapy' / 'Nanotechnology' could possibly cure AIDS.

    Now let's get a few things straight -

    Firstly, all these potential cures work against HIV (which causes AIDS).

    Secondly, there are already some great meds around for extend life span of people infected with the HI virus by 20+ years as long as people infected are adherrent to their drugs and live healthly lifestyle. Of course when you live in poverty and without access to decent healthcare this is damn hard - hence the problems in resource poor communities.

    Thirdly, there is a huge pipeline of new potential drugs which may improve on the current medication regimes and if anyone is interested these tables below will give some indication of the new advanced that may possibly become approved over the next few years after extensive tests: -

    Finally, if people are really interested in the latest new drugs for HIV they can get the simply subscribe to thebody.com that has an excellent newsletter which includes new developments. Or look at their latest update on Other Antiviral Drugs in Development- Sept 13 2006 and note the following paragraph

    'Antisense Drugs These are a "mirror image" of part of the HIV genetic code. The drug locks onto the virus to prevent it from functioning. One antisense drug, HGTV43 by Enzo Therapeutics, is starting Phase II trials. VIRxSYS has completed a Phase I trial of its product, VRX496.'

  18. Re:Two Wrongs by God'sDuck · · Score: 5, Funny

    Burns: This sounds like bad news.
    Doctor: Well, you'd think so, but all of your diseases are in perfect balance.

  19. Re:AIDS is just a made up desease by blahdeblah2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you want to read about the duesburg hypothesis please read the whole story as this is really old stuff and his views are not accepted by the scientific community.

    Wikipedia has a reasonably fair article regarding this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis and science had a damning article regarding it no less than 12 years ago http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/266-5 191-1642a.pdf