Human Blood May Contain A Cure For AIDS

Lisandro writes "German scientists at the University of Ulm have identified a natural ingredient of human blood that prevents the HIV-1 virus from from infecting immune cells and multiplying. The molecule, which they call virus-inhibitory peptide (VIRIP), promises new types of effective treatment for HIV in the future. 'Tweaks to its amino acid components boosted its anti-HIV potency by two orders of magnitude. Tests also showed that some derivatives of the molecule are highly stable in human blood plasma, and non-toxic even at very high concentrations. A synthetic version of VIRIP also proved effective at blocking HIV, excluding the possibility that some other factor was responsible. VIRIP targets a sugar molecule which HIV uses to infect a host cell. '"

Comments

the real solution made apparent

[dAzED1]

"VIRIP targets a sugar molecule which HIV uses to infect a host cell."

Well clearly then, the real solution is to destroy all the sugars in your body! /sarcasm

Good for them though, lets get this solved.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[gurps_npc]

A huge number of viruses target sugars. It is a common material in the human body.

No, that is not a sad comment on the human diet, it is instead an explanation for why we like sugar so much, it is so usefull and neccessary.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[StarvingSE]

it is instead an explanation for why we like sugar so much, it is so usefull and neccessary.

And all this time I thought I liked sugar because it is sweet and delicious!

Re:the real solution made apparent

[drinkypoo]

instead an explanation for why we like sugar so much, it is so usefull and neccessary.

It's useful, but not necessary. The body can run on ketones.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[srmalloy]

You're saying you need it extracted and reinjected? Duh, come on.

No, that if they can either synthesize it or develop a biosynthesis process, they can produce it in large quantities and inject that, augmenting the body's natural supply to increase its resistance to infection by the AIDs virus.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[xENoLocO]

... I didn't realize I was genetically predisposed to like sugars!

Re:the real solution made apparent

[RSKennan]

It's sweet and delicious because we need it.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Lane.exe]

Yeah, if you feel like dying.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[drinkypoo]

I consumed very little carbohydrates (very hard to eat NONE) for over a year - in most cases less than 10g/day, and I was in the best health in which I had ever been. I lost weight, I put on muscle, my cholesterol was lower than it had been when I was eating carbs. Your mileage may vary, but your FUD is pathetic. You're either misled and spreading someone else's FUD, or you're making the usual idiot mistake of confusing ketosis with ketoacidosis, which are not remotely the same thing.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[beckerist]

Predators, like cats, cannot taste sweet because their body receives enough sugars from their food sources that they don't require the need to seek more out. We, as omnivores, have a much larger "taste range" as we require many different, and many more nutrients.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Anonymous Coward]

The better question is why are you tasting your ass?

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Eddi3]

I concur. I've been on a low carb diet for 10 weeks, and I've lost 50 pounds. I'm in great health, put on muscle, etc, etc.

Although, I am only 16, and the stress of losing that much weight this early in life may not be good, but the diet definately works.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[rgarner11]

I don't know if it is possible to; what about those species of monkies that can carry and do carry the virus but are resistant to it's effects? Will the species always have the virus in their offspring?

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Dragonslicer]

There's a rather significant difference between something being unnecessary and being necessary only in small quantities. Needing 10g of carbohydrates certainly doesn't make carbohydrates unnecessary. You also eventually reach the point where you don't want to lose any more weight.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Spazntwich]

No offense obviously, but it's quite a leap to say you were in the best health you've ever been in, and it's primarily because all nervous system cells use carbs as their only source of energy.

In a heavily carb deficient diet, the body is forced to cleave fat and send it through some extremely inefficient metabolic pathways to convert it to carbs just to keep your brain, peripheral nerves, and all of those in between running smoothly. In addition, your liver's and muscles' carb/glycogen reserves are near-constantly depleted, which contributes to a general lack of energy I'm sure you noticed, as the body always prefers to use glucose when available and other pathways aren't as effecient.

There's nothing wrong with ketosis diets for losing weight, certainly, but it's nothing I would recommend to anyone as a lifelong effort. The body functions at its peak when it gets solid doses of all three of the macronutrients.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[cayenne8]

"Isn't the hole you get the virus from sweet and delicious too??? I guess one comes with the other..."

Wrong hole! Wrong hole!!

Re:the real solution made apparent

[drinkypoo]

There's a rather significant difference between something being unnecessary and being necessary only in small quantities. Needing 10g of carbohydrates certainly doesn't make carbohydrates unnecessary.

10g carbs isn't even hardly worth mentioning.

You also eventually reach the point where you don't want to lose any more weight.

This is true, although once I started working out regularly (three times a week, one hour per workout) I stopped losing weight anyway :)

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Spazntwich]

At 16, you should be focusing more on increasing physical activity levels than dieting to lose weight, but if you had 50lbs to lose in the first place, you're doing the right thing in dropping a good bit of it.

I'd suggest stopping the low carb diet once you hit somewhere below 15% bodyfat. A good indication is when what might be a spare tire turns into more of a small set of saddlebags, and you've got decent definition in your arms.

You've got at least two, probably 3 or 4, years of growth left in you, and it would be a pity to stunt your growth due to any deficiencies in nutrients you suffered losing weight you could lose later anyway.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[TooMuchToDo]

Were you on a specific diet? What foods did you a) eat and b) not eat. Just a health-aware geek trying to get in shape.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[drinkypoo]

No offense obviously, but it's quite a leap to say you were in the best health you've ever been in, and it's primarily because all nervous system cells use carbs as their only source of energy.

No offense obviously, but the brain in particular runs more efficiently on ketones than it does on glucose. Many people have been using various low-protein modified fasts (today known primarily as the Atkins diet) for years to control seizures, some types of which depend on the presence of glucose in the brain to occur.

There's nothing wrong with ketosis diets for losing weight, certainly, but it's nothing I would recommend to anyone as a lifelong effort. The body functions at its peak when it gets solid doses of all three of the macronutrients.

To be fair, the Atkins diet recommends that you put carbs back into your diet (although at a dramatically lower level than is suggested by the FDA's crap food pyramid - which has finally been edited to reduce carb intake, but perhaps not sufficiently.

The FDA sponsored the studies trying to prove that eating fat made you fat. They were unable to prove this, because it's not true - it's the combination of carbs and fat that are the problem. French fries and onion rings are basically the tools of the devil. Instead, they had one study that said that taking a specific drug to reduce cholesterol reduced the risk of heart disease and they structured the food pyramid around avoiding fats on the strength of that one study - and it was pathetically weak.

Why would the government have done this? It's unclear, but the event corresponds loosely with the growth of the processed foods industry in this country. The paranoid (or, as I like to call them, the realistic) will surmise that some money changed hands somewhere. But the upshot is that we didn't have problems with youth obesity or youth diabetes in this country until we started eating lots of carb-based processed foods. And we didn't do that until the food pyramid told us to. Low fat! As if that fucking meant anything. And we ate it up, if you'll pardon the pun.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[drinkypoo]

Were you on a specific diet? What foods did you a) eat and b) not eat. Just a health-aware geek trying to get in shape.

I was on something like the Atkins diet, but I didn't buy a book or anything. I just kept my carb intake below 50g/day religiously - NO CHEATING - and the weight dropped off. For the first nine months I was pretty much sitting on my ass and consistently lost ten pounds a month.

I wrote the following two articles about the atkins diet and the food pyramid and what to eat on the atkins diet for Everything2.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[TooMuchToDo]

Thank you!

Re:the real solution made apparent

[morcego]

Actually (even tho I sense you were aiming for Funny), this is an evolutionary imperative (or something like that).
Our primitive ancestors who enjoyed (and could metabolize) sugar (and fat) were able to get much more energy into their bodies. They were better adapter to an environment where finding food/energy was difficult.
So yes, you ARE genetically predisposed to like sugars (and fat foods).

Re:the real solution made apparent

[boriquajake]

Actually not all carnivores have lost the ability to sense carbohydrates. Dogs do have the ability to sense sweetness though at a reduced level compared to us and bears.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Lane.exe]

Where I come from we call this FUD "science."

Look, low-carb diets do produce weight loss, and you should not eat an excessive amount of carbs, but Atkins-style diets will cause ketosis, which is (1) inefficient and (2) can lead to cardiovascular damage.

If you really want to lose weight, reduce calorie intake, get more aerobic and anaerobic exercise daily, and change your diet to avoid processed foods.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[jackbird]

Then why is one of the main ingredients in the vitamin goo I feed my cat from time to time corn syrup, and why does he go absolutely ape for it?

Re:the real solution made apparent

[drinkypoo]

Look, low-carb diets do produce weight loss, and you should not eat an excessive amount of carbs

That's interesting, especially since your link says "Many promoters of dietary schemes would have us believe that a special substance or combination of foods will automatically result in weight reduction. That's simply not true. To lose weight, you must eat less, or exercise more, or do both." This is, of course, not true. As you and I both apparently know (since you said it would produce weight loss) you can lose weight without eating less and without exercising. I know because I've done it! I would get up and have four sausage links and four eggs for breakfast, I'd have a big fucking salad smothered in bleu cheese dressing (and usually with at least one sliced hardboiled egg on it, and some real bacon bits) and then dinner was a fucking huge steak fried in butter and maybe some of the lower-carb veggies - also with butter. Nine months, lost ninety pounds.

So basically, you just discredited your own link. And frankly I'm so fucking tired of sites like quackwatch telling lies about the atkins diet that I'm starting to become disenchanted with all of them. But I especially do not take quackwatch seriously any more, having read that article in the past. That article is a mixture of studies that actually say positive things about the diet, and studies which clearly have flawed conclusions (e.g. "Because so few Atkins dieters were found in the Registry, the researchers concluded that the Atkins diet may not create the favorable "metabolic advantage" claimed for it".)

Atkins-style diets will cause ketosis, which is (1) inefficient and (2) can lead to cardiovascular damage.

First of all, who cares if it's inefficient? That's a fucking feature if you're trying to lose weight.

Second of all, lots of things can lead to cardiovascular damage. Including being a big fatass - which causes a lot of other serious health problems. But it hasn't been shown that it does lead to cardiovascular damage, period. Some people have speculated that it does so, but there are no long-term studies of the diet. What we do know is that peoples of the world who have traditionally eaten much in the way of carbohydrates tend to be obese. You can see this tendency today amongst Italians, who tend toward obesity (especially later in life.) It was observed in the 1800s among said peoples as well as among residents of the Caribbean who also traditionally ate a diet centered around carbohydrates.

We also know that the diets eaten by primitive humans were generally closer to the atkins diet than anything we eat today. These people were hunter-gatherers and had access primarily to some green vegetables relatively low in carbohydrates, and to meat, as well as nuts and some seasonal fruits. So during harvest times they'd eat some carbs, but through the winter there was little to live on but what animals you could hunt down. Most humans are evolved to eat like a hunter-gatherer, because selection pressure has been much reduced ever since we settled down to farming and animal husbandry.

If you really want to lose weight, reduce calorie intake, get more aerobic and anaerobic exercise daily, and change your diet to avoid processed foods.

I have asthma, so if I engage in aerobic activity, it's not a good thing. Even when I was a kid I could run maybe an eighth of a mile before I was basically incapable of anything more than a shuffling walk. It's probably less these days; after losing all that weight I went off the diet with my now-ex-girlfriend.

I will not argue that there are no dangers to the diet, of course. If you don't drink enough water on it, bad things can happen to your liver and kidneys. You might even get gall stones, which is what happened to my ex. She was obstinate and didn't want to drink water, simply because she was tired of me being

Re:the real solution made apparent

[xENoLocO]

Well, both mine and the quote above were Dave Chappelle references, but that's cool too... :)

Re:the real solution made apparent

[eli pabst]

Are you sure it's *all* carnivorous predators or just members of Felidae (cats, tigers, panthers)?

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Korin43]

Because corn syrup is cheap and most of your pet food is fillers?

Re:the real solution made apparent

[joshv]

Actually, the brain needs about 100g of glucose a day to function properly. The body however, is perfectly capable of synthesizing this amount of glucose from protein intake via a process call "gluconeogenesis". Thus your brain can function quite well with zero carb intake.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[19thNervousBreakdown]

the brain in particular runs more efficiently on ketones than it does on glucose.

No offense obviously, but this is ridiculous. Are you trying to say that the brain runs better on something the body is able to produce, but prefers to run on something it can't? Wouldn't you think that we would just evolve a more efficient method for producing ketones if that were the case? There would be a significant advantage to anything that thrived on less required variation in food sources.

French fries and onion rings are basically the tools of the devil.

Quoted for Truth. ~350 calories (medium fries from BK) for something that just leaves you hungry afterward? With the diet I'm on now I'd have to skip a whole meal just to eat fries! That's one thing I won't be putting back in my diet when I go on maintenance. Even though I'll be eating ~3500Kcal a day there's a whole lot of stuff I'd rather build and power myself on.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[drinkypoo]

Wouldn't you think that we would just evolve a more efficient method for producing ketones if that were the case?

Only if I didn't understand natural selection. If it provided a reproductive advantage, then it would possibly or maybe even probably happen. If it doesn't, it probably won't (although it might anyway, if a trait is linked to a trait that is desirable it can be expressed and carried on even if it is itself undesirable, let alone if it is desirable.

Also, sometimes certain adaptations simply aren't possible! DNA simply does not specify the location of every cell in the body.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

The FDA sponsored the studies trying to prove that eating fat made you fat. They were unable to prove this, because it's not true - it's the combination of carbs and fat that are the problem. French fries and onion rings are basically the tools of the devil.

If french fries are the devil, than I am going to hell. I have a little irish in me, damn leprechauns, and If I don't have potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner I get irate. Life tends to loose meaning. I just crawl into a corner and play WoW. However, when I get potatoes for each meal (usually 1 consisting of frenchfries) then I just crawl into a corner and play WoW.

No but seriously... Are french fries the devil? Why didn't Christ warn us?

Re:the real solution made apparent

[nospam007]

>
Predators, like cats, cannot taste sweet because their body receives enough sugars from their food sources that they don't require the need to seek more out.
---
This has nothing to do with predator status, it's only cats, not the rest of them.
Cats both large and small harbor a genetic mutation that renders the sugar detectors on their taste buds inoperative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/07/24/AR2005072401107.html

Re:the real solution made apparent

[evultrole]

No offense obviously, but the brain in particular runs more efficiently on ketones than it does on glucose.

Why are you stupid?

No, really, why are you a stupid, biologically illiterate oaf?

"Ketone bodies, from the breakdown of fatty acids to acetyl groups, are also produced during this state, and are burned throughout the body. Excess ketone bodies are excreted in the breath and urine. The brain has a residual need for glucose because ketones can only provide energy when used during aerobic respiration in mitochondria. In the long thin neurons, much of the metabolically active cellular membrane must derive its energy from glucose via anaerobic respiration without the assistance of mitochondria."

Yes, that's right, parts of the brain are incapable of making use of ketones for energy (but who needs cellular membranes, right?).

Ever hear of ketosis? No, I don't mean the bull-shit "ketosis" that retards trying to push low-carb diets talk about, I'm talking about real ketosis, the time when your body ends up with a large overabundance of ketones and you end up "drunk" all day long. Then, after that, you end up in a ketone induced coma. Then you die.

The atkins diet has been changed three or four times because the original "Atkins" crap was pretty much globally recognized as being dangerous.

Yes, there are a lot of retards who say things like "A lot of people mistakenly think Ketoacidosis when they hear ketosis, but it's a completely different thing."

No it isn't you jerks, Ketoacidosis is just another name for Ketosis (interestingly ketosis was referred to as the danger condition by medical professionals 20-40 years ago, it changed to "a natural body process" with a different name for the condition around the time of these low-card diets).

"Ketosis occurs when there is not enough insulin in the body to metabolize glucose and provide energy to the cells of the body. The blood fluids become increasingly acidic until the starving body cells malfunction, causing staggering, slurred speech, disorientation and poor judgement. Eventually, the victim of ketosis may have seizures, go into a deep coma and die if untreated." http://www2.jsonline.com/alive/column/aug99/howard s83099.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketoacidosis

See, here's the way it works. Ketones are emergency power for some cells in your body, i.e. if you are starving you'll have enough energy to go kill something, but that's about it.

Outside of that single use, ketones are a giant danger to your nervous system. If you don't drink large amounts of water to wash them out of your system you end up staggering around like a drunken hobo. Atkins guy, try laying off the water intake for a couple days then see how you feel. At that point, come back and tell us how well the brain runs on ketones.

The fact that you can function at all is due to the fact that you keep washing the toxin out of your body in your urine, if you didn't your blood would end up too acidic for you to live... and, well, you wouldn't any longer.

Ketones are better than glucose my ass...

Re:the real solution made apparent

[evultrole]

We also know that the diets eaten by primitive humans were generally closer to the atkins diet than anything we eat today. These people were hunter-gatherers and had access primarily to some green vegetables relatively low in carbohydrates, and to meat, as well as nuts and some seasonal fruits. ... We also know that they consistently died before age 30?

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Stickerboy]

>No offense obviously, but the brain in particular runs more efficiently on ketones than it does on glucose. Many people have been using various low-protein modified fasts (today known primarily as the Atkins diet) for years to control seizures, some types of which depend on the presence of glucose in the brain to occur.

That doesn't tell me the brain is running more efficiently, that tells me people are using those diets for treating overactivity of neurons in their brain by denying plentiful energy for those overactive neurons to use. The brain is not running more efficiently, its running on less fuel at hand. Overactive neurons would stop firing simply by running out of ATP.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[Prune]

I thought relying mostly on gluconeogenesis is unhealthy. That's why the FDA says at least 60% of daily caloric intake should be in the form of carbohydrates.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[localman]

I find it funny that people complain about ketosis on the Atkins diet, and then recommend eating less and getting exercise. Question: what do you think happens when you're running a calorie deficit? Hint: your body turns its excess fat into glucose through... ketosis! Many exercise regimens recommend doing longer slower exercise for this very reason: to burn through your blood sugar and force you into fat burning mode. By drastically reducing carbs in the diet, you can force the same transition.

Exercise is great for many reasons, and everyone who has an interest in health should be doing physical activities. But it seems most people can experience substantially improved weight loss while feeling less hungry on a low-carb diet. I know I can.

Re:the real solution made apparent

[gurps_npc]

I am sorry to throw a blanket on your insane diet ideas. Yes the body can run on ketones. It does so by MAKING sugars. Your body REQUIRES sugar. You use it in almost EVERY single cell in your body. You may or may not (we honestly do not have studies showing either way) be healthier/lose weight if you avoid sugars. But the concept that sugar is not neccessary is obibiously stupid. Your body makes sugar, you need it as an essential part of your body's functoin. Claiming sugar is not neccessary is like claiming that you don't need water. It is laughable moronic, not wise. What you really meant was "You don't need to EAT sugar". That may be true, but phrasing in the way you wanted to just demonstrates both ignorance and a desire to 'convince' other people that sugar is bad. Try being honest and accurate, you might convince more people.

well...

[mapkinase]

Abstract of original article in Cell.

A variety of molecules in human blood have been implicated in the inhibition of HIV-1. However, it remained elusive which circulating natural compounds are most effective in controlling viral replication in vivo. To identify natural HIV-1 inhibitors we screened a comprehensive peptide library generated from human hemofiltrate. The most potent fraction contained a 20-residue peptide, designated VIRUS-INHIBITORY PEPTIDE (VIRIP), corresponding to the C-proximal region of 1-antitrypsin, the most abundant circulating serine protease inhibitor. We found that VIRIP inhibits a wide variety of HIV-1 strains including those resistant to current antiretroviral drugs. Further analysis demonstrated that VIRIP blocks HIV-1 entry by interacting with the gp41 fusion peptide and showed that a few amino acid changes increase its antiretroviral potency by two orders of magnitude. Thus, as a highly specific natural inhibitor of the HIV-1 gp41 fusion peptide, VIRIP may lead to the development of another class of antiretroviral drugs.

Patent Pending

[Anonymous Coward]

Sincerely,

God

Re:Patent Pending

[dafdaf]

+1 Divine

So: how long will it take HIV to evolve ...

[Ralph Spoilsport]

so that this is no longer a threat to HIV?

It's out to reproduce, that's its job.

RS

Re:So: how long will it take HIV to evolve ...

[the_wishbone]

It's out to reproduce, that's its job.

How'd it get THAT job? I'm gonna kill my guidance counselor...

Re:So: how long will it take HIV to evolve ...

[sorak]

I am not a scientist, but there is no guarantee that this particular strain of HIV can exist without that sugar molecule, or that evolution will occur fast enough to save the species. For example, this may be like removing oxygen from a human environment. Sure, we may one day evolve the ability to exist on another common chemical, but we could never do it in time, if a natural catastrophe should strike.

This could be an excellent argument for organizations trying to distribute AIDs drugs in third world nations (once they get their hands on this one), since the practice of curing only those who can afford it would simply allow the virus to exist long enough to evolve (if possible), whereas curing everybody could could make it go the way of polio and small-pox.

But, I reiterate. I am not a scientist, so the next person to read this may point out where I am wrong.

Re:So: how long will it take HIV to evolve ...

[whitis]

Your points are all sound, it is really just a question of how things stack up in this case.

I would also point out, that the mutation problem applies to certain types of drugs much more than others. A big part of the problem is what, in military circles, is called IFF: Identification Friend or Foe. When you identify a microbe to attack based on some identifying trait that is not essential to its function, it
can easily mutate. If the identifying trait is essential, however, or the attack takes away something which is needed without trying to identify, mutation is potentially much harder. HIV hides its true identifying characteristics inside an envelope that can change, thus the common denominator is not easily attacked.

Alcohol is used to kill many microbes. Certain types (such as fungi) are immune to it but the types that are aren't tend to evolve resistance since the attack is based on the intrinsic structure of many single celled organisms. Thus the mutation needed is along the lines of mutating from a bacteria to a fungi (a major structural change) rather than from one strain of bacteria to another similar strain. Also, mutation occurs during replication and if you stop replication completely, you also stop mutation.

There are plenty of harsh chemicals that kill HIV; unfortunately, they aren't good for humans, either. Chlorox kills HIV. It also damages human tissue
in a way that makes it more susceptible to HIV infection. Which is why cleaning hyperdermics with Chlorox, which was actually recommended for a while, actually makes the problem worse (plain soap and water is better but not as good as a clean needle). Nonoxynol-9 used for sex has a similar problem.

And yes, treatment is much more effective if you give an individual as much treatment as needed and treat all individuals. In the long run, it can be cheaper to treat everybody than to treat just those who can pay. If this treatment proves effective, those who discovered it should be rewarded with a big fat one time payment rather than a per-dose profit.

Weird

[stratjakt]

Cuz I got it by drinking human blood.

Now is that the definition of irony or what?

Tired of hearing it

[slusich]

Seems like every six months or so now, there's some new research promising new hope for AIDS.
I really hope that this turns into something, but until one of these new finds turns into a cure or at least a vaccine I'll still be seeing freinds die.
I'm just sick of hearing of new breakthroughs and then not hearing another word about them.

Re:Tired of hearing it

[drooling-dog]

I really hope that this turns into something I was about to say that this will depend on the pharmcos being able to patent it (or modify it into something they can patent) and then charge $20,000 per treatment, but someone below beat me to the punch...

Re:Tired of hearing it

[srmalloy]

Unfortunately, from the description, I don't see this as being any kind of a cure; it's described as preventing the HIV-1 virus from infecting cells and multiplying. That doesn't do anything to eradicate the virus in your system; since they've established that viri can remain dormant for long periods of time, as soon as you stopped receiving VRIP, the virus would be able to infect cells and multiply. What it would do is halt progression of an HIV-1 infection, either allowing someone infected with HIV to live a reasonably normal life without having the disease progress or giving time for treatment with antivirals to eradicate the HIV-1 virus from the body.

Re:Tired of hearing it

[Anonymous Coward]

People have choices.

Maybe. Maybe not. According to science, everything that happens (including human behavior) is under the control of the laws of physics. Unless people can modify the laws of physics then they may not, fundamentally, have control of their "choices". But I digress...

If you make bad choices you can't really complain about the consequences.

But if you make a "good" choice then you can complain about the consequences? Who decides what is a "good" choice and what is a "bad" choice?

Maybe what you meant is that people should face the consequences of the risks they take. The thing is, just about anything that a person does is risky. Driving your family to church on Sunday is risky. Should the government avoid spending any money on traffic safety and emergency reponse to traffic accidents because a family driving to church on Sunday should bear the consequences of the risks it took.

You may think that the government should not try to deflect the consequences for people who take risks by having multiple sexual partners. Someone else might think that the government should not try to deflect the consequences for people who take risks by driving their family to church on Sunday. Personally, I'm not comfortable with the government deciding what is "good" behavior and "bad" behavior.

Not only that but there can be indirect benefits to having the government alleviate consequences of taking risks. If the government could ever find a true cure for AIDS then AIDS could be wiped out entirely and then no one would have to worry about infection from even "good" behavior (e.g. helping a bloody accident victim who has AIDS).

Re:Tired of hearing it

[Altus]

Re: the female condom.

I keep hearing very conflicting reports on the effectivness value of these condoms. some people say they arent as reliable (harder to use effectivly) some people say they are no better than regular condoms. I believe you are the first person I have heard praising them for the quality of sensation.

Do you have any more info on these? testimonials? advice? Ive been OK with regular condoms thus far but if you are telling me these actually provide a superior sensation then it is worth looking into.

Re:Tired of hearing it

[HikingStick]

And I've heard of monumental progress toward the treatment of MS and MD, but yet nothing difinitive. It is the way of the world with research. A new discovery ignites a glimmer of hope long enough to carry us to the next new discovery, which gives us a little more hope...

It is far better than hopelessness, but I understand your pain.

Re:Tired of hearing it

[thepotoo]

Actually, a pretty high number of these promising cures do work out. The problem is the AIDS (HIV really) is a lot faster than we are when it comes to the cure. Basically the virus evolves faster than we can test out new drugs. It's similar to how bacteria acquire immunities to anti-bacterial soap. We've had some cures* which worked great, and many are still used today, but the virus evolves fast enough that it can get by whatever we throw at it. It works by reverse transcriptase (enzyme which turns RNA -> DNA). This enzyme is wildly inaccurate, leading to mutations, which makes the virus have a low reproductive rate, but allows it to evolve in just a couple generations. There are about a million HIV "distros" out there, too, and most of these will require their own special treatment.

Check out the wikipedia pages on retroviruses and aids for more info.

*I say cures here, what I really mean is a way to hold the virus in check while the immune system takes care of it naturally.

DISCLAIMER: I don't have a PHD in Aidsology or anything, I'm just a lowly biology major in all of this.

Unnatural selection

[bagsc]

"Tweaks to its amino acid components boosted its anti-HIV potency by two orders of magnitude."

Considering that we've known about 1% of the population is naturally immune to HIV, if we can use these tweaks to increase that percentage by two orders of magnitude...

Goodbye, Darwin. Hello, future.

Re:Unnatural selection

[samkass]

Goodbye, Darwin. Hello, future.

Not quite... natural selection will still be at work, but now it will be the folks that have some fundamentalist belief or physical inhibition to having this done to them will be slowly selected out. For instance, I'd put money that if the human race survives a few thousand more years, that antibiotic allergies will be selected out of the gene pool.

Re:Unnatural selection

[voice_of_all_reason]

I'd put money that if the human race survives a few thousand more years, that antibiotic allergies will be selected out of the gene pool.

Is the correllary true? That if the human race diminishes we will not have acess to this AIDS technology? The pool will be "closed", so to speak?

Re:Unnatural selection

[Jozer99]

Read Darwin, dimwit. He says nothing about "survival of the fittest". Its all about how many kids you have. If people catch HIV from sex, and sex is how you make babies, then people who have sex are not only more likely to catch HIV, but also more "fit" by Darwin's definition.

So, I wonder... why doesn't the body make more?

[Dr. Manhattan]

non-toxic even at very high concentrations

Does this stuff affect other viruses? (Is it something that evolved for this reason?) If so, why doesn't the body make more of it already? Would that be too biologically expensive, or would that have problematic effects we haven't recognized yet?

Re:So, I wonder... why doesn't the body make more?

[Stonent1]

Non-toxic even at high concentrations is the same thing they said about Thalidomide. The compound created w/o knowing what it cured.

Re:So, I wonder... why doesn't the body make more?

[Frozen Void]

Non-toxic doesn't mean its harmless.It could alter metabolism or immune function such that they work expending 2x more energy or making adverse effects(e.g. like cytokine storm) when fighting something else.
Besides the virus is too young(several human generations age) for us to evolve(and Central Africa would be the first to have evolutionary advantage) more of the anti-virus functions.

Re:So, I wonder... why doesn't the body make more?

[cplusplus]

As a guess - maybe it didn't have to? Up until a few thousand years ago people lived in relatively small and isolated groups, and that fact alone easily prevented the spread of disease. Today we live in mass population centers where disease can spread quite easily, leading to pandemics and whatnot. The human body probably evolved to fight the infrequent diseases and infections it needed to, and the immune system didn't become robust enough to handle much more serious illness because (still guessing) those serious illnesses would have devasted the small and isolated groups.

Re:So, I wonder... why doesn't the body make more?

[lawpoop]

"Does this stuff affect other viruses? "

Perhaps, but probably not.

"If so, why doesn't the body make more of it already? Would that be too biologically expensive, or would that have problematic effects we haven't recognized yet?"

The reason that we don't have more of it already is that there has been no selective pressure on our genome to produce more of it. That is, we reproduce ourselves well enough without it.

Sythesis

[DrWho520]

'Tweaks to its amino acid components boosted its anti-HIV potency by two orders of magnitude. Tests also showed that some derivatives of the molecule are highly stable in human blood plasma, and non-toxic even at very high concentrations. A synthetic version of VIRIP also proved effective at blocking HIV, excluding the possibility that some other factor was responsible. VIRIP targets a sugar molecule which HIV uses to infect a host cell. '"

Yes, but how effective. Generally, drug companies synthesize naturally occurring compounds (effedrine vs. psuedoeffedrine) to remove nasty side effects and improve performance. However, this systhesis also allows the companies to patent their drug formulations and charge exhorbitant amounts of money for they molecular forgeries. In this case, I wonder how "proved effective" matches up with a two orders of magnitude boost in potency. Everyone needs to see a return on investment, but if there is no reason to make a synthetic version and the (tweaked) naturally occuring version works as well or better, I would hope seeing return on investment is translated as "lives saved" and not "dollars earned."

Re:Sythesis

[Mutatis Mutandis]

Well, obviously the naturally occurring variant is simply not effective enough, as it is not able to prevent people from having high viral loads and developing AIDS, despite its high abundance in blood. So it needs to be boosted to be effective enough.

And a two orders of magnitude boost may not be sufficient, if you have to supply a synthetic version to people. The US patent says that VIRIP has 50% inhibitory activity at doses of 40 microgram/milliliter, which means that it is three orders of magnitude less active than Fuzeon/T-20, a peptide of about the same size which is a useful, but quite expensive ($20,000 per patient per year) drug.

Synthetic peptides are still very expensive to produce. The US patent for VIRIP says that the "amount of peptide to be administered is from 1 mg to 1 g per unit dose per day" -- that's a quite wide range. While a 1 mg dose would be entirely feasible, a 1 g dose would almost certainly be too expensive for all but the very richest patients. One would really want to be at the low end of that range.

meh i say, meh!

[evangellydonut]

with monthly posts on slashdot about cure for HIV/AIDS, it's practically a none-event...

in other news, my father recently claimed that he's getting close to a viable HIV vaccine. *shrugs* of course since he's no longer in academia, it's about patents and trade secrets, so there won't be any disclosures until something is ready for stage 1 clinical trial. (i'm actually serious about this claim, but i also realize it does sound like a joke, hehe... i knew there's a reason he received a few mil in funding from NIH...)

early or late stage?

[butterflysrage]

makes me wonder... is this treatment only valid for early stages of infection (before the virus has had must time to reproduce) or will it work in the later stages, after the body has become totally infected?

Re:early or late stage?

[Courageous]

Any infection is a constant state of body-trying-to-disinfect, the infectant-trying-to-reinfect. Anything that sets back propagation generally causes a reversal of the infection for this reason.

C//

Re:early or late stage?

[swalters1]

HIV is problematic, not just because of the infected T cells attempting to take over the body, but because it allows opportunistic diseases to inhabit the body. Many of which are easily fought off by a healthy individual, but if left too long in an unhealthy host can become terminal. In short, no one dies from AIDS directly, they die from the diseases that take over the body because of the compromised immune system. These range from simple infections, to forms of cancer. Yes we all know what caused the secondary infections, and so they did die from AIDS... but you get the point.

So I'll answer your quesiton this way. Assuming that the person in question hasn't contracted a secondary terminal disease or other ailment, then yes it probably will reverse it. I fear that for those in the later stages this may help prevent further infections and help bolster the immune system, but not end the process. If the body can recover, with the help of other medications and then fight off the secondary diseases... the patient would live, but it's also possible for late stage patients to have contracted irreversable problems that would still end in death.

Eventually we'll see articles on Slashdot that read, "Cure for Aids Found! Research begins on cures secondary infectious diseases still killing patients.

*Crosses his fingres* Well, even that would be a nice change wouldn't it?

Anti-HIV virus

[jshriverWVU]

A couple years back I read an article about possibly using the HIV virus itself to create an anti-HIV virus. With it's STD origins, they even joked that the anti-HIV virus could also be transmitted sexually, so it would be a cheap way of inoculating the world. Though I haven't heard any updates since. If this was possible, it wouldn't be interesting to companies because once it was out, noone would need to get it from a doctor, they could just sleep with whomever carried it. Different ways at looking at things.

Re:Anti-HIV virus

[guamman]

If that was the case, the entire population of Slashdot readers would still have to be inoculated by their doctor.

Re:Anti-HIV virus

[digitalunity]

I hope so, my doctor is very beautiful.

But alas, she still says "roll up your sleeve"...

Re:Anti-HIV virus

[Pingmaster]

if that were the case, you could sooo use that to score chicks :D

How many friends???

[brunes69]

I don't mean to be insensitivity or brash. I am very hopeful this will turn into a cure. But statements like "I'll still be seeing friends die" sounds like lies to me - how many friends with HIV can you actually have?

When it comes down to it - HIV and AIDS are very easily preventable diseases. Anyone who takes proper minimal precautions will not get HIV or AIDS, unless they are maliciously targetted or woth in a health-related field and/or are VERY unlucky.

Personally I have always felt the absolutely enormous amounts of money funneled into AIDS research would be much better spent on areas like Type 1 diabetes, MLS, and other genetic diseases, which affect far more people and is not preventable in any way.

In the end, it of course all comes down to the all mighty dollar. The reason you see so much money pumped into HIV/AIDS is there is so much potential for money to be MADE FROM IT. If someone has HIV/AIDS they will pay ANYTHING for a cure. Someone with Type I diabetes can live a full life, even if the quality of it is degraded. You can't say the same for an AIDS patient, even if it is their fault they became infected.

Re:How many friends???

[AaronW]

A person I know recently came upon a nasty car accident and provided aid to the driver, including mouth to mouth until the proper authorities arrived, getting the victim's blood all over him including his mouth. Later he learned that the accident victim, who survived, was infected by AIDS. They immediately put him on medication to hopefully block it, but now he's living on pins and needles hoping he did not get infected.

AIDs is not as big of a problem in western nations as it is in some parts of Africa, where a huge percentage of the population is infected, If a low cost drug can be created to block it it will help a lot of people.

Re:How many friends???

[slusich]

In the last 10 years I've lost 4 friends to AIDS. Two were gay. One had an unhealthy relationship with IV drugs. We still don't know how the last one contracted it.

Two close relatives have died, and one more is currently living with being HIV+.

I'm sorry if you don't believe me. Doesn't matter if you do or don't. Was just putting in my two cents.

Re:How many friends???

[pnattress]

When it comes down to it - HIV and AIDS are very easily preventable diseases. Anyone who takes proper minimal precautions will not get HIV or AIDS

I think this is just plain wrong, pure and simple. It may be true to a certain degree in the West, but in Africa where 15 million have died from AIDS, and 24 million are infected, it's clearly not so 'easy' to prevent. Besides, to suggest that a person's treatment should be based on their 'worthiness' just stinks of wrong to me. Should we stop researching skin cancer because people don't know how to use sunscreen? Or maybe stop curing venereal diseases because people should be using condoms?

Re:How many friends???

[nvrrobx]

If you don't mean to be insensitive or brash, why are you being that way?

I have lost two people so far to this disease in my life, and I have more than 5 friends that are HIV+ today.

To say that type 1 diabetes, a treatable disease, deserves more money than HIV/AIDS research is absolutely ludicrious. Type 1 diabetes will kill you if left untreated. HIV/AIDS will kill you, period. The retrovirals help extend your life, but have no doubt, it is a terminal disease. Have you ever seen someone die of HIV/AIDS? Please go down to Africa and explain to the people living with HIV and AIDS there that they aren't as important as a diabetes patient.

Are you aware how expensive the medication to treat HIV is? Compare that to the cost of insulin then get back to me.

Re:How many friends???

[roman_mir]

When it comes down to it - HIV and AIDS are very easily preventable diseases. Anyone who takes proper minimal precautions will not get HIV or AIDS, unless they are maliciously targetted or woth in a health-related field and/or are VERY unlucky.
- peopple get infected with HIV by mistake all the time, there are many cases of tainted blood transfusions across the world. Also some of those infected with the virus spread it on purpose, they feel that if they got it, they should take as many people with them as possible.

Personally I have always felt the absolutely enormous amounts of money funneled into AIDS research would be much better spent on areas like Type 1 diabetes, MLS, and other genetic diseases, which affect far more people and is not preventable in any way. - whatever is spent on HIV treatment may come back with unexpected results into virus treatement in general.

Finding a way to kill HIV in blood and tissues maybe used for many other viruses that are more common. Curing AIDS may just give us the way to cure flues, Heps, Herpes, Mono and many other virus caused illnesses.

Re:How many friends???

[Altus]

wow, im sorry to hear that but even you have to admit that you are on the statistically short end of the stick here. It is fairly unusual for anyone not involved in AIDS care to know that many people with HIV.

Still, im sorry for you losses.

Re:How many friends???

[Not_Wiggins]

It may be true to a certain degree in the West, but in Africa where 15 million have died from AIDS, and 24 million are infected, it's clearly not so 'easy' to prevent.

Errr... the problem with HIV/AIDS in Africa is a cultural and economic one, not one of "can't be prevented."

The use of condoms drastically reduces infection rates. The problem that I've been reading about in Africa is that condoms are not utilized because they interfere too much in the love making process (ie, takes too long to put them on, and they're too expensive). A prototype device is being introduced here to try and address those issues.

Spread of this disease is preventable (which was the GP post's point); efforts to educate and provide the protection would be immediately effective versus waiting for a scientific cure... which would also have to be made available cheaply enough to help impoverished Africa (ie, not for many years after being made available on the market).

Re:How many friends???

[Intron]

"I don't mean to be insensitivity"

you failed

"HIV and AIDS are very easily preventable diseases."

So is the common cold, and the method is pretty similar, just never touch anybody else.

"even if it is their fault they became infected"

The real reason that you don't want to see money spent on AIDS research, your basic belief that they deserved what they got. Good thing you're never done anything stupid in your life.

Lung cancer and diabetes are also due to lifestyle, but nobody is blaming the victims they way they do with AIDS.

Re:How many friends???

[Anonymous Coward]

"but in Africa where 15 million have died from AIDS, and 24 million are infected, it's clearly not so 'easy' to prevent. "

Is it somehow transmitted differently in Africa, or is it still sex and IV drug use there too? Is it like cooties there or something?

And since those are both voluntary behaviors, I'm not sure what your point is.

"I think this is just plain wrong, pure and simple"

If you are talking about your post there, then yes. If you're talking about GP, no.

Sex is the cause of AIDS is Africa too. Stop pretending that fucking someone that's infected is somehow a requirement of daily life there.

Re:How many friends???

[Sax Maniac]

Lung cancer and diabetes are also due to lifestyle, but nobody is blaming the victims they way they do with AIDS.

The OP said type 1 (aka juvenile) diabetes, which is not preventable and has nothing to do with lifestyle. Type 1 is an auto-immune disease, where the insulin-producing cells are killed off by the body. Type 2 (aka adult-onset) can be associated with lifestyle, but isn't always. My father-in-law got type 2 simply by getting old, not fat.

Re:How many friends???

[dru]

When it comes down to it - HIV and AIDS are very easily preventable diseases.

That may be true, in the same, clinical way that lung cancer and obesity are easily preventable diseases. The complication arises when you try to change human behavior on a societal level. People consume carbonated soda and french fries becase it tastes good! People smoke because it feels good! The same is true of sex and IV drugs.

Add to this the fact that humans are very bad at assessing risk, and you have a recipe for the HIV epidemic.

Re:How many friends???

[Inda]

"...A prototype device is being introduced here [dezeen.com] to try and address those issues."

The videos on that site show some keen engineering. It all seems so simple.

Re:How many friends???

[ady1]

If someone has HIV/AIDS they will pay ANYTHING for a cure. Someone with Type I diabetes can live a full life. So why exactly is that you want to have the dollar spent on diabetes rather than AIDS (a disease which kills)?

Re:How many friends???

[zymurgyboy]

I don't mean to be insensitivity or brash.

Then don't proceed to be. It doesn't excuse the insensitive, judgemental comments that follow.

Sure, some people weren't as careful as they should have been and got infected, but guess what... They live in the same world with the rest of us and can subsequently spread their illness. This is a public health issue. Morality judgements of people infected with STDs don't bring about cures for them any faster. Nor does the attempted imposition of the same morality on the rest of the, as yet, uninfected population seem to be having much effect in slowing down the spread either, let alone stopping it.

How 'bout instead of taking research money away from HIV and giving it some more morally worthy disease, we just resolve to spend more research money on all of them and stop making questionable moral assessments of sick people.

Re:How many friends???

[zCyl]

Anyone who takes proper minimal precautions will not get HIV or AIDS, unless they are maliciously targetted or woth in a health-related field and/or are VERY unlucky.

I believe this is fairly false. Just about the only way to ensure you do not contract HIV is to not have sex with anyone. You cannot always have sex with a condom, because then you cannot have children. (And of course, condoms fail.) Even if a person only has sex within a monogamous relationship (which for some people is not a "minimal" precaution), most people cannot guarantee that their partner is being faithful all the time (check the statistics).

Taking precautions will greatly reduce your chances of contracting HIV, and therefore this should certainly be done. But there are countless ways people can get HIV even while doing everything by the book.

Personally I have always felt the absolutely enormous amounts of money funneled into AIDS research would be much better spent on areas like Type 1 diabetes, MLS, and other genetic diseases, which affect far more people and is not preventable in any way.

There is much research occurring regarding diabetes, but for perspective, more than twice as many people in the world have AIDS as have Type 1 diabetes. I never heard of MLS.

Re:How many friends???

[dharbee]

How weak is your position that instead of discussing the subject you mod me down for something that I didn't do?

I'm not allowed to expect people to be accountable for their mistakes? I have been and it sucked a lot.

I'm not allowed to prefer curing a disease that attacks anyone and everyone regardless of what they do or who they are over a disease that is almost entirely preventable?

There was no troll there. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re:How many friends???

[SatanicPuppy]

Comparing AIDS and the common cold is ridiculous. You can get the cold from almost anything, but to get AIDS you have to either have sex with someone who has it, or inject their blood...As a virus goes, it's extremely difficult to catch.

While blaming the victim is rarely worthwhile, this is a disease that could basically be eradicated by education, testing, and self control. The reason it's spread so widely is that people aren't into any of those things.

Re:How many friends???

[operagost]

So is the common cold, and the method is pretty similar, just never touch anybody else.

That's a pretty obvious straw man you have there, isn't it? Obviously, asking a person to avoid all contact with other humans is rather unreasonable compared to asking them to abstain or use a condom.

Re:How many friends???

[cdrguru]

Africa has national leaders that say there is no link between HIV and AIDS.

In Africa it is a common belief that using a condom is "unmanly" and a woman, even a prostitute, that requests it is likely to get a beating. Condom use is a joke in Africa - it isn't going to happen.

What this means is you have infected people running around loose infecting more people constantly. Sure, there are millions of infected people. People that don't understand how the disease is transmitted and are constantly lied to about it. And people that are so completely caught up in the cultural prohibitions about things like condoms and birth control that it will never stop.

Spending money in Africa to control AIDS is like sending food aid to the warlords in Somalia.

Re:How many friends???

[stonefry]

>peopple get infected with HIV by mistake all the time, there are many cases of tainted blood transfusions across the world. Also some of those infected with the virus spread it on purpose, they feel that if they got it, they should take as many people with them as possible To be fair, he did mention the "VERY unlucky" people that have aids. Victims of the situations you describe surely fall into this category.

Re:How many friends???

[cdrguru]

Too bad about your friends.

Did anyone think to suggest to them that they shouldn't spread it and the reason they got it was that people gave it to them? People who, in all likelihood, knew they had it and didn't care?

AIDS is a terrible disease but unless it is dealt with as a health crisis and not a badge of honor or rebellion, it isn't going to get much better. And the idea that it is somehow a right to spread the disease uncontrollably is not helping.

The idea that people might be discriminated against because they have AIDS and thus it needs to be a secret is very interesting. It is a state-sanctioned mechanism to insure the disease continues to spread. You do not get AIDS from the environment, you get it from people.

If we treated this disease like the measles were treated in the 1800's AIDS would be gone in 10 years, never to be heard from again.

Re:How many friends???

[cayenne8]

"In Africa it is a common belief that using a condom is "unmanly" and a woman, even a prostitute, that requests it is likely to get a beating. Condom use is a joke in Africa - it isn't going to happen.

What this means is you have infected people running around loose infecting more people constantly. Sure, there are millions of infected people. People that don't understand how the disease is transmitted and are constantly lied to about it. And people that are so completely caught up in the cultural prohibitions about things like condoms and birth control that it will never stop."

Not to sound too insensitive here, but, I wonder if this is just nature at play here? I mean, there are lots of people down there, and not enough food. Maybe this is one of nature's way of 'thinning the herd'?

If it wasn't AIDS....maybe it would be another disease?

Re:How many friends???

[Xiaran]

Also lung cancer isnt always related to smoking. If you live somewhere where there is lotsa Radon you are at risk.

Re:How many friends???

[brunes69]

When it comes down to it, you are born with Diabetes. You aren't born with AIDS - you got it either due to being extremely unlocky or due to your own ineptitide.

People with Type I diabetes lives are no picnic. Imagine telling a 1 year old child they have to inject a needle ito themselves 3 times a day for the rest of their known lives. Imagine having too explain to everyone you aren't a junkie, you are a diabetic, every time they see needles all over your house.

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE in morality between treating someone who was born with a genetic defect, vs. treating someone who basically shot themselves in the foot by not wearing a condom or sharing needles.

Re:How many friends???

[zymurgyboy]

How is that a straw man, exactly? Asking people to abstain is asking people to forego one of the most fundamental of human behaviors. Condoms break, my friend. Been there, done that.

Riddle me this, since we're comparing HIV to the common cold: what if HIV mutated and became transmittable by the same means as the common cold virus or an influenza, but unlike the common cold, you're stuck with it for the rest of your life because someone sneezed on you. Would that change your mind?

Re:How many friends???

[Intron]

It's not difficult at all. According to the wikipedia article, 570,000 children died from AIDS in 2005. Bad choices on their part?

Re:How many friends???

[nvrrobx]

The use of condoms drastically reduces infection rates. The problem that I've been reading about in Africa is that condoms are not utilized because they interfere too much in the love making process (ie, takes too long to put them on, and they're too expensive). A prototype device is being introduced here to try and address those issues.

I'm not sure where you read or got that idea, but you also have to remember a large portion of the African nations are Catholic. If you don't know, the Catholic religion frowns upon the use of birth control for any reason. As a result, people contract HIV.

Abstinence just isn't going to happen, and as long as the Pope continues to say that birth control is a sin, HIV will continue to spread in Africa until we have a cure.

Re:How many friends???

[DAtkins]

I'm gonna have to disagree with your view on this one.

Am I against it because of the low percent of people who get AIDS from transfusions; because their mom had it; or because some asshat wanted to 'put you in your place'? I could, but that's not why I disagree. Am I against it because the logical extension of your argument is that anyone who catches a disease of any type somehow shot themselves in the foot and no longer deserves treatment? Neh, because you probably didn't see the logical error - though you should have.

No, I disagree because parents who have diabetes (or any other weird genetic defect) and choose to reproduce are just as culpable as people who share heroin with their favorite condom-hating male prostitute. You seem to be arguing from the perspective that people with AIDS deserve it because they did something "wrong". Any attempt to apply anthropomorphism to the spread of a germ as some sort of God's will while totally ignoring the logical extension - God must have given little Timmy diabetes for a reason too - is intellectually deficient.

The minute that children start coming out of their mother's snatch, fully aware of the dangers of fornicating without protection and the necessity of not sharing needles, will I consider your moral stance relevant. Until then, ignorance shields both the AIDS patient and the diabetic parents who wonder if Timmy will need some insulin for Christmas.

Re:How many friends???

[compro01]

You aren't born with AIDS

yes, you can be. if your mother had it, odds are damn good you will.

Re:How many friends???

[SatanicPuppy]

On the part of their parents, perhaps? You don't get choices when you're that age, you get things handed to you. If you manage to be born without contracting HIV from an HIV positive mother, which is pretty likely if you can score a c-section, but still possible for a natural birth, you can still catch it from breast milk.

I still think coming out of the body of someone who is HIV positive qualifies as "hard to get this disease", and "drinking the breast milk of an infected individual" is pretty high up there as well.

Re:How many friends???

[zymurgyboy]

What makes you so sure his friends spread it, or that the people that gave it to them knew they had it. The incubation period for HIV can last for years with no noticeable symptoms.

AIDS is a terrible disease but unless it is dealt with as a health crisis and not a badge of honor or rebellion, it isn't going to get much better. And the idea that it is somehow a right to spread the disease uncontrollably is not helping.

It is a terrible disease but everything you said right after that is absolutely asinine. Find someone who has it and ask them if they feel like a rebel or if they feel honored to have joined the ranks of the terminally ill. WTF??!?

If we treated this disease like the measles were treated in the 1800's AIDS would be gone in 10 years, never to be heard from again.

Measles incubation prior to apparent symptoms being displayed is all of 7 to 14 days. The possibility of going for years with the infection, not knowing you have it, and spreading it to others is just not the case with that. Criss-crossing the globe in a day wasn't possible in the nineteenth century. Not mention, measles hasn't exactly been eradicated yet.

Re:How many friends???

[abb3w]

Oh, and don't forget the superstition that having sex with a virgin will cure a man of AIDS.

And now, a most politically incorrect observation: Barring the development of an effective cure within the next decade or so, societies with large memberships that believe such superstitions will have their populations implode, with the culture likely to follow. This may be thought of a evolution in action: the trait of reliance on a non-scientific worldview is detrimental to survival in a globally-connected environment with urban populations. (The genetic mutation granting AIDS immunity may limit this; however, that gene does not seem to be as common in Africa as in Europe.)

Now, can we induce the "intelligent design" Christian fundamentalists to self-exterminate via something similar?

Re:How many friends???

[c6gunner]

The people in Africa living with HIV/AIDS certainly aren't as important as diabetes patients in first-world nations. Sorry to be callous, but the fact of the matter is that NOT every life is equal. We have a finite amount of materials, energy, processing ability, and time. That means that we need to prioritize our research projects. If it comes down to trying to save a bunch of people who are a drain on our resources, versus rescuing people who contribute to our ability to continue further research, the decision is a no-brainer. Call me back when those poor bastards in Africa are able to contribute to HIV research instead of just sucking up foreign-aid money.

Now, since HIV is also a problem in western nations, we SHOULD be looking into ways of fighting it. However, the primary focus should be on prevention, and funding for other more easily curable diseases should take priority over HIV research. Your point about the expense is actually an argument AGAINST the viewpoint that you're trying to push. If HIV research is so expensive, we may as well throw the money into funding the battle against other diseases, and save a greater number of lives.

Re:How many friends???

[jamboarder]

Oh jesus h. christ I'm just sick of hearing all of this cavalier, generalized, retrgrade bullshit when it comes to Africa. cdrguru, know that not everyone in Africa is dying of AIDS and give up these vapid generalizations about the so-called 'common belief' of a contentinent of vastly different people.

Isn't it convenient that when it doesn't affect you (cayenne8) that you can cavalierly declare that it's just 'nature at play'. It's only 'thinning the herd' and, since your not a part of that 'herd' (or part of anything that would be called a 'herd'), it matters little whether that 'herd' dies of AIDS or some other disease. Look, you are not under any obligation to give a rat's ass about whether humans on the African continent are dying of AIDS or some other disease. There little need to try to excuse your lack of interest by conjuring this psuedo-intellectual 'thinning the herd' bullshit.

Re:How many friends???

[zymurgyboy]

Abstain versus imminent risk of death. Self preservation is a far stronger motivator than sex in humans. I guess you thought you had a good point but didn't. Nice try though.

Apparently not, since more and more people seem to be catching it in spite of it being a known risk and the reams of information available on how to avoid becoming infected. I guess you thought you had some guts and a snappy rebuttal, but apparently you didn't. Nice try though, AC.

Re:How many friends???

[speaktruth]

Actually, you don't have to not have sex with anyone; you just have to not have sex with anyone who has HIV or has had sex with someone who has. I do it why can't everybody else? According to reports from friends of mine who recently immigrated from Liberia there is only one country in Africa where the rate of contraction is declining, I believe it is Uganda. The reason has nothing o do with medication or research, it is education that if you have sex with someone with HIV you will die. Seems pretty simple to me.

Re:How many friends???

[Intron]

I remember a TV newsperson at a blood donation center talking about how safe it is. Then they accidentally reused the needle from the previous person on her. She nearly fainted she was so terrified. It did not make a very good impression on viewers. There are lots of ways to get infected, some more likely than others.

Anyway, what good does it do to say that a disease is theoretically preventable, when in actuality it is an out-of-control pandemic? We have to live in this world.

Re:How many friends???

[cayenne8]

"Isn't it convenient that when it doesn't affect you (cayenne8) that you can cavalierly declare that it's just 'nature at play'. It's only 'thinning the herd' and, since your not a part of that 'herd' (or part of anything that would be called a 'herd'), it matters little whether that 'herd' dies of AIDS or some other disease. Look, you are not under any obligation to give a rat's ass about whether humans on the African continent are dying of AIDS or some other disease. There little need to try to excuse your lack of interest by conjuring this psuedo-intellectual 'thinning the herd' bullshit."

Hey...it IS a disease that CAN be prevented...easily. If the population would/could learn about what we tell them about the disease, then they wouldn't be dying in the numbers that they are from it.

Hence, it made me think that possibly, their inability to believe or perceive how to save themselves, might in fact be a force of nature.

I don't like it that people starve or die of diseases...but, common sense would tell you that if you do "X" and you die, and you still not only try to stop doing "X", but, you in fact "X" as much as you can....well, something is amiss there don't you think?

I mean we can try to teach them, but, we can't "behave" for them....

Re:How many friends???

[zymurgyboy]

Imagine yourself spouting your nonsense to someone who contracted HIV because:

1) They were raped
2) They got a bad blood transfusion
3) They were born with it
4) They were treating someone who has it and inadvertently infected themselves
5) They're a cop who caught a needle arresting a dope-fiend (one I'm certain a law-and-order guy such as yourself can appreciate).
6) Or imagine saying that to your son or daughter, whether they were being irresponsible or not when they contracted it

Now peep doing that face-to-face, rather than from behind a computer screen.

Personal responsibility can't solve the problem by itself.

You're shortsighted, and just plain mean, and I feel sorry for you, friend.

Re:How many friends???

[jimicus]

I mean we can try to teach them, but, we can't "behave" for them....

Not very easy to teach them when their own leaders are denying a link between HIV and unprotected sex.

Re:How many friends???

[zCyl]

Actually, you don't have to not have sex with anyone; you just have to not have sex with anyone who has HIV or has had sex with someone who has. I do it why can't everybody else? According to reports from friends of mine who recently immigrated from Liberia there is only one country in Africa where the rate of contraction is declining, I believe it is Uganda. The reason has nothing o do with medication or research, it is education that if you have sex with someone with HIV you will die. Seems pretty simple to me.

And how do you realistically determine the HIV status of every person each time before you have sex with them?

Re:How many friends???

[speaktruth]

Well, what I did was not have sex with anyone until I got married, and made sure that my wife did the same. Then after marriage neither of us has sex with anyone else. Of course, if she or I had had sex I would have insisted on testing prior to our marriage. This would probably be inconvenient if you are looking to have casual sex with multiple partners, but to wonder how to ensure you are protected when doing so is begging the question. The fact is, if you want to be responsible you can be, if not don't complain when you or your friends start dying. Simple.

Re:How many friends???

[zCyl]

The simple fact is, this is not a guarantee. Statistics show that roughly 50% of married people have an affair. Perhaps you never will, and perhaps your spouse never will. But you cannot call a large group of people irresponsible just because their spouse has cheated.

As I mentioned before, there are so many ways to contract HIV that you cannot go around blaming people for getting the disease.

If for some reason you have trouble wrapping your mind around sexuality, think of a common cold. You can avoid a common cold if you take precautions such as washing your hands, avoiding contact with bodily fluids, and so forth. But yet almost everyone catches them on a regular basis. Are they being irresponsible?

Re:How many friends???

[speaktruth]

Now we are starting to get somewhere. See the real problem with our attitude toward medicine is tha it is a "fix my symtoms" attitude. We need to be determining and then acting to eliminate the root causes of our illnesses. The fact that 50% of spouses will cheat is a root cause to HIV and many other societal woes. Perhaps if as much effort went into ensuring stable family ralationships and educating people about the consequences of their actions, we would actually get somewhere with this disease. From my best estimation we are no where near a solution to this problem; the reason is we are looking at the wrong part of it. Lets get down to what is really wrong and quit getting played by pharmaceutical companies to dump all our resources into never getting anywhere. HIV is perfect for pharmaceutical companies because no one ever gets cured, they just live their whole lives eating tons of expensive drugs. No one wants a one-time customer, and these guys have got their market dialed in. And yes I absolutely can call people irresponsible if they are not ensuring that the poeple they are having intercourse with are not going o give them a certainly fatal disease. If I knew a cold would kill me I would wash my hands and where a face mask all the time.

Re:How many friends???

[zCyl]

The fact that 50% of spouses will cheat is a root cause to HIV and many other societal woes. Perhaps if as much effort went into ensuring stable family ralationships and educating people about the consequences of their actions, we would actually get somewhere with this disease.

Jon Stewart once joked, "He's a moderate Republican, which is just like a regular Republican except he gets sick."

Think about it.

Re:How many friends???

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

Everybody knows condoms are a waste of time and for losers. If you want to cure yourself of HIV/AIDS use your common sense and rape a virgin.

Vampires already know this

[Hoi Polloi]

No wonder why I've never heard of a vampire getting AIDS, and they are constantly exposed to tainted blood.

virus mutation

[wizardforce]

HIV mutates very quickly, it is able to survive in the body because it changes so often which also means that if this treatment works as well as they say and gets used alot, the virus will likely adapt to survive against it. eventually we will have the same problem with this treatment as we do with antibiotics.

Re:virus mutation

[Phleg]

Antibiotics don't work against HIV because HIV is a virus.

Cure for viruses Generally

[HighOrbit]

Perhaps somebody who can translate medicalese into English can tell us if this would hold promise for other viruses such as influenza, rabies, yellow fever, etc that kill millions every year.

While AIDS is horrible and we all hope for a cure, I would like to see a more generalized anti-viral approach that would cure viral disease universally. Hopefully all the research expended on AIDS will have some cross-over applications.

Re:Cure for viruses Generally

[sydney094]

No, it won't. Each virus has a very specific target that it uses to inject itself into it's host cells, so this will really only benefit HIV or other viruses that have the same attack vector.

Imagine a wall with hundreds of doors on it, each with a different type of lock. Viruses are like burglars trying to break in, but they each only know how to pick one kind of lock. This type of treatment will result in blocking only the doors that have the same type of lock that HIV uses. Hepatitis, for example, would use a very different lock (different wall actually).

Or, since this is slashdot, you could also look at it as a host's firewall. HIV may attack a specific port, and this treatment may block only that port.

This is a very simplistic way of explaining it, but for the most part, this type of treatment only has an effect on HIV's specific attack characteristics. Viruses are usually very particular about what types of cells they attack, and then it can get even more specific. I'd view this as a specific fix.

Now, where things can start to get interesting is if they can manage to generalize this approach to find the appropriate blocking peptides for other types of viruses. If the approach can be generalized, then you might be able to find treatments for other viruses, but the hope for a universal cure for viruses isn't very feasible.

Viruses hijack our own internal machinery to reproduce themselves, so you can't exactly target them the same way that you can bacteria. (There are some common points that are being used to target specific classes of viruses, but I'm not aware of any universal point of attack). You can pretty much target viruses are three points: 1) at the point of infection into the host cell, 2) replication of the virus, 3) at the point where the daughter viruses leave the host cell. The approach mentioned in the article is of type 1.

Re:Cure for viruses Generally

[EvDiggtyDogg]

The problem with broad spectrum anti-virals is that they are based on a very tight risk-benefit continuum. Viruses utilize the human cells' machinery to reproduce, so any anti-viral bears the distinct drawback of breaking the human cells' machinery. The more effective you are in stopping the virus from reproducing, the more you are breaking the cells themselves and therefore the more you will be killing the individual being treated. The alternative to this is to find viral life functions that are unique to viruses, and that usually means that they will be unique to a specific virus. Viruses that are similar are usually grouped together and can have similar or identical treatments, but different types of viruses (flu, rabies, yellow fever) are very different and there is not much that can be found that would be effective against all of them.

The peptide that is being used in this case is affecting the ability of the virus to attach to a cell. It does not however kill the virus. The attachment itself is very specific to HIV, and the only virus I know of that may be similar enough to be also inhibited would be the black plague. The black plague being fairly rare, I don't suspect that this drug will find much of a use outside of the HIV prevention field.

This could be very useful in conjunction with other AIDS treatments, but alone it probably would be more usefull in lowering the risk of initial infection rather than as a cure once the disease has taken hold.

Viruses are also difficult to combat because of their reproductive efficiency. This is why we have to use drug coctails to inhibit the development of AIDS in HIV patients. Its basically a numbers game, a game of odds. Lets say for simplicity's sake, that a mutation allowing the immunity to a specific drug in a virus is one in a million. That seems like we have pretty good chances, but if one offspring is immune, it can reinfect the entire body with the immune strain very quickly. With the number of viruses in a typical HIV patient exceeding many trillion, this will not work because the odds are 1 in a million, so 1 million tries will be successful out of 1 trillion. So then we use 2 drugs, and we can multiply our odds: 1 million x 1 million = 1 trillion. Now we have better odds, but it is still likely that a few viruses will develop immunity because we have only passed the 1 trillion to one odds, and we have a bit more than that number in viruses. Now when we have 3 drugs, we can increase our odds to 1 in 10^18, which seems to be high enough that the likelyhood of a virus becoming immune to all three drugs is pretty slim, as there probably wouldn't be nearly that many reproduced within a single human being. Now these numbers were chosen for ease of multiplication and may not be entirely accurate, but the general idea should be correct, and this is why we use 3 drug cocktails to combat HIV. Now I would assume that this math would also hold true for this new drug, so I would speculate that we would still need to use it in conjuction with other drugs.

Re:Cure for viruses Generally

[jimicus]

Hey! Youi sound like you know what you're talking about, what are you doing on /.?

All joking aside, I was under the impression that viruses tend to mutate, making treatment rather difficult. Is it possible for a virus to mutate such that it uses a different attack vector? Because if it is, this is surely just another in a long line of treatments which will sooner or later become ineffective, and not a "cure for AIDS" at all.

Maybe we've been here before...

[smellsofbikes]

That sounds to me like maybe humans, or apes, have faced something like this before and still have low-level semi-functional stuff in place to deal with it, and in a couple generations the descendents of people with the best expression of this would become tolerant or immune to HIV.

Re:Maybe we've been here before...

[geek]

Remember that AIDs is a plague to both chimps and cats. It's been around a while but has mutated multiple times. It's not surprising there is something in our blood that will fight it, whether or not it can win is another story and these guys have a long way to prove it.

Re:Maybe we've been here before...

[rrkap]

That sounds to me like maybe humans, or apes, have faced something like this before and still have low-level semi-functional stuff in place to deal with it, and in a couple generations the descendents of people with the best expression of this would become tolerant or immune to HIV.

You're right. And some of the genes that confer resistance to AIDS are more than semi-functional. For example, in areas of the world where the Black Plague was common (Europe and Central Asia) 12%-14% of the population has a trait (a defective allele of CCR5 if you really care) that makes them very resistant to AIDS. Interestingly, this trait is NOT present in Africans. It is intriguing to consider that this may be partially responsible for the high AIDS rate in Africa.

Note that the trait I'm mentioning is a different trait than the one mentioned in this article. Also note that I'm not trying to claim that any race is superior (except, perhaps, in terms of its resistance to AIDS).

Re:Maybe we've been here before...

[smellsofbikes]

The thing that I found interesting was that their proposed mechanism is fairly HIV-specific -- or at least, it is fairly specific to a receptor group that HIV uses. I am not doing research in this area, but I'm curious whether this receptor is commonly targetted by other viral particles, coz if not, it would indicate that maybe we've gone some rounds with something very like this before.
The CCR5 stuff is interesting: I'm familiar with some HIV-resistant populations. One thing I haven't seen (or might just not remember) is whether these populations show the same resistance in different tissues, since HIV seems to target a number of different tissues during both initial and (to a much greater extent) subsequent infection. Another way of asking what I'm wondering is: does the defective CCR5 occur throughout the body, or are these isomers that show up in some tissues but not others? I know many cell-surface receptors are pretty tissue-specific.

It reads like this on Etherealworld Slashdot

[Tatisimo]

"Patch found for AIDS vulnerability in human bodies."

Re:It reads like this on Etherealworld Slashdot

[Pec]

Mod parent Up!

This is Funny!

It's HIV not AIDS

[bradavon]

There is a difference. The article title very cleary says HIV. At least get your facts straight. Interesting though cheers.

Re:It's HIV not AIDS

[cjdkoh]

oh. i always thought that AIDS was caused by HIV, and thus curing HIV cured AIDS. i'm not a medical expert, so am i wrong then?

Re:It's HIV not AIDS

[belg4mit]

AIDS *results* from HIV infection, it's an immuno-defficiency syndrome (says so in the name!)
not a disease i.e; you end up prone to infection by any random pathogen you are exposed to.
It sounds like this protein inhibits viral infection, with no indication as to whether or not
it can wipe-out an existing infection: If you no T-cells left it's of little benefit to have
something which prevents them from being killed.

Re:It's HIV not AIDS

[cjdkoh]

thanx for the explanation, i think i understand what you mean.

Re:It's HIV not AIDS

[Anonymous Coward]

The poster before you is right. And you were right, too, in a way. AIDS is the full-blown result of a severe HIV infection, where any random virus that heads your way can potentially kill you. That said, if you cure the underlying reason the immune system is compromised (HIV), and are on medications that combat the opportunistic infections (AIDS), you should be able to rebound from the AIDS as well as the HIV. If you're too far gone when the cure is developed, you might not be able to be helped, but I think most people would be able to recover from AIDS.

Think about it. You have a severe case of the common cold as a result of HIV suppressing your immune system. If you get rid of the HIV, your immune system is no longer being suppressed. Now that that's the case, your body is only fighting on one front instead of two, which gives you a chance to fight off the cold. You may need drugs and treatment to aid your body still, but you've got a fighting chance.

This is all just my opinion, based on my understanding of things, of course. I'm not a doctor or medical professional.

Re:It's HIV not AIDS

[pclminion]

Uh, "A cure for AIDS" is entirely appropriate. We cure diseases, not viruses.

Humans said goodbye to Darwin years ago

[ObiWanStevobi]

Humans have been circumventing Darwin for centuries. The only thing left we don't control are viruses and cancer. And it's not like it's such a bad thing, with the exception of stupid people living so long. Modern society, with it's welfare, social security, laws, birth control, medicine, and safety regulations all fly in the face of natural selection. If you're stupid, we have all these laws and people looking out for you to keep you from doing something stupid and killing youself. If you're lazy, we'll make sure someone gets you food so you don't starve. If you're not a dominant member of the herd, we'll try to make sure those that are treat you fairly.

Once again, those aren't by any means bad things (unless Idiocracy was a doumentary), just saying we've been immune to most aspects of natural selection for a long time now.

Re:Humans said goodbye to Darwin years ago

[nnnneedles]

natural selection is always at work. It might be less brutal now, but it's still there.

Re:Humans said goodbye to Darwin years ago

[ObiWanStevobi]

I suppose, but lets say it no nonger works to the advantage of the species. Natural selection should select the most fit to survive. That would be the smart, strong, fast, cunning, etc. Now, in this false environment we've created for ourselves, about the only people being selected for are the ones who don't use birth control. Natural selection assumes that the most desirable of the species will be the most prolific maters. While this still may be generally true, mating no longer means offspring. Which really screws up natural selection. I suppose it still occurs in the sense that there is a cross-section of the population being selected for, but I'd say we've broken the system.

Re:Humans said goodbye to Darwin years ago

[BradleyUffner]

Natural selection should select the most fit to survive

And it is. It's picking those most fit to survive in the current conditions. Current conditions mean you don't need to be fast or strong. It will still select those who are best able to survice under the current presures of the world. Evolution doesnt have a direction or a speed, it's just change to adapt to the world.

Re:Humans said goodbye to Darwin years ago

[xenocide2]

"Natural selection should select the most fit to survive."

That's not strictly true. Natural selection is survival of the fittest, to reproduce. Once you stop having children, natural selection becomes much weaker, as your contributions to the population is merely ensuring that your children survive and reproduce, en masse. Not much selection against cancer when you're 80.

Even though our society has shifted away from having children to make ends on the farm meet, to investing in the survival of every child some selective forces still apply. If your children are predisposed to diseases, at the margin I imagine you'll have to reduce the number of children you have. So there's still a shift, it's just much slower thanks to the progress of modern medicine. And like you said, there's plenty of people opposed to contraceptives that wind up with large families.

Eventually gene therapy may allow us to fight off bad mutations, but there's some that theorize that bad genes exist for a reason and curing genetic diseases reduces important genetic variations.

Re:Humans said goodbye to Darwin years ago

[SvetBeard]

I suppose, but lets say it no nonger works to the advantage of the species.

Natural selection has nothing to do with the "advantage of the species." It works only on individuals. In fact, it can be counter to the survival of the species. Imagine a population of animal where some individuals have the heritable trait of giving birth to one child at a time while others have 5 at a time. Eventually, the population will consist of largely (or entirely) quintuplets. Of course, the population is much larger and manages to eat all of its food to the point. All the individuals could then starve to death and the species might go extinct.

Re:Humans said goodbye to Darwin years ago

[Loether]

A common misconception about Darwin's "The Origin of Species". It's not about survival of the fittest. It's about survival of the fit enough.

http://www.online-literature.com/darwin/originofsp ecies/

Re:Humans said goodbye to Darwin years ago

[t_ban]

Humans have been circumventing Darwin for centuries. The only thing left we don't control are viruses and cancer. And it's not like it's such a bad thing, with the exception of stupid people living so long. Modern society, with it's welfare, social security, laws, birth control, medicine, and safety regulations all fly in the face of natural selection. If you're stupid, we have all these laws and people looking out for you to keep you from doing something stupid and killing youself. If you're lazy, we'll make sure someone gets you food so you don't starve. If you're not a dominant member of the herd, we'll try to make sure those that are treat you fairly. Once again, those aren't by any means bad things (unless Idiocracy was a doumentary), just saying we've been immune to most aspects of natural selection for a long time now.

i'll bite. why is human culture not a product of nature? after all, we achieved it with our intelligence and other faculties, which we acquired through adaptation. when chimps use tools, we do not readily differentiate it from nature. isn't the difference between chimp technology and ours only a matter of scale? termites build cities too, though you could argue that that is hardwired into them. but who can tell what is hardwired into whom, and how much of our sense of free will is illusory?

Re:Humans said goodbye to Darwin years ago

[Doctor Faustus]

The only thing left we don't control are viruses and cancer.
And cancer is caused by viruses in at least some cases.

Re:A New Protein

[Anonymous Coward]

My crystal ball says that your hope for a career in comedy is doomed.

Not entirely true

[geek]

The biggest problem with AIDs is that it wasn't dealt with correctly from the start. I think it took something like 6 years before President Regean even admitted publicly there was a problem. The rapid spread royally screwed us and the rest of the world. If this works it could buy us time to reign that spread in and drasticly reduce it's rate of propogation. We don't need and can't expect a complete victory. This would merely give us a chance at control.

Re:Proof is in the pudding...

[onkelonkel]

Actually the saying goes "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". The saying is one of the oldest in our language. Only recently has it been shortened and corrupted to "The proof is in the pudding". The meaning of the original is quite clear while "The proof is in the pudding" makes no sense at all.

OberGrammarFuehrer von Umlaut at your service!

/clicks heels

really?

[EatHam]

Human Blood May Contain A Cure For AIDS

Not mine. :-(

What's that word, again?

[sabernet]

Ah yes, irony.

But that's pretty damn cool:) Here's to hoping it actually works and makes it to market.

Re:Proof is in the pudding...

[Quiet_Desperation]

I thought "full service for 100 dinars" is the oldest?

Dear God.

[Savage-Rabbit]

Our calculations show that you are no longer necessary.

Sincerely

Steven Hawking

Re:Dear God.

[operagost]

Oh, really? If you're so smart, why did you misspell your own first name, Stephen?

Yours Truly,
YHWH

Re:Dear God.

[spun]

Yeah, well if YOUR so omniscient, you'd know the poor guy can't type very well. Not to mention, if you're so omnipotent and omni-benevolent, why'd you go and do that to poor Stephen in the first place, huh?

I mean really, you simply ARE. Real Godheads neither exist nor don't exist.

Sincerely,
Brahman

Re:Dear God.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know the answer, because you are neither omnipotent nor omni-benevolent. Maybe if poor Steven had been oh so normal, he would have gotten into drugs at 17 and died at 23, or run over by car while he dashed across the street, or joined the army and died from a stray bullet, and he wouldn't have seen international stardom or given so much to science. But that wouldn't satisfy us either would it? A benevolent God should have given him perfect health and all the other things! Only a paradise would satisfy us completely, it seems, yet people make fun of paradise all the time. Maybe God just did what he saw fit, eh?

Or at least that's what they would tell you.

Re:Dear God.

[DMUTPeregrine]

Oh, if you are God, why did you misspell the tetragrammaton: YHVH? ChaoticcCCCCcaally, Pope SoAnIs Peregrinus the First, Deathbird of the Outlands, Guardian of the Great Wheel, Head Knight of the Order Of The Five Sided Temple, Priest of Loki, KSC, POEE.

Re:Proof is in the pudding...

[grammar fascist]

The meaning of the original is quite clear while "The proof is in the pudding" makes no sense at all.

That depends on the situation. What if someone put the smoking gun in the pudding?

Re:Carriers?

[Altus]

Im no medical expert but if all of the HIV virus in your system was wrapped in these proteins and some of those bits of warped virus got into someone else, they wouldn't be able to infect cells in the new host and thus would not be able to replicate.

But like I said, im not an expert.

Pool's closed

[soupforare]

The pool will be "closed", so to speak?

Due to AIDS.

Re:Pool's closed

[Terminal Saint]

You're getting dangerously close to a violation of rules 1 and 2...

Re:Pool's closed

[soupforare]

TINC

Re:Pool's closed

[zymurgyboy]

What, that you don't talk about Fight Club?

A simple answer:

[Upaut]

non-toxic even at very high concentrations
Does this stuff affect other viruses? (Is it something that evolved for this reason?) If so, why doesn't the body make more of it already? Would that be too biologically expensive, or would that have problematic effects we haven't recognized yet?

Well, it is a miracle drug that cures everything, from deadly viruses, bacterial infections, even cancers. The problem is that VIRIP, or as its know under its commercial name, Trutonin, obliterates the person's immune system... Creating a lifelong dependance on the drug.

Re:There has always been a cure available

[TheMadcapZ]

I must slightly disagree with you, nappy headed hoes cured us all of the IMUS infection.

As far as HIV, yes it would just be prevention.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does God need with a starship^W patent?

Re:Proof is in the pudding...

[onkelonkel]

Like you say, it depends. If the early bird gathers no moss and a stitch in time is worth two in the bush then a fool and his money make Jack a dull boy. Unless of course a woman's place is in the eye of the beholder?

Why would IMMUNE cells need help???

[dos4who]

Athough I didn't RTFA, from the headline "a natural ingredient of human blood that prevents the HIV-1 virus from from infecting immune cells" sounds kind of redundant. Why would IMMUNE cells need help in the first place???

~m

Re:Why would IMMUNE cells need help???

[Shifty Jim]

Cells of the IMMUNE system, as HIV and AIDS are diseases that attack and destroy the human immune system.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

Re:well... God Bless Germans today imo!

[cayenne8]

"If this works out? Well, guys, the bright-side is this: We can all get laid again, and enjoy it w/ out worrying about dying because of this..."

Yeah, I've heard it said that if you can't get laid the day they cure AIDS...you've got some serious problems.

I wonder, if when they do cure it..if we'll see an even greater fall in the number of marriages, and increase in divorce? I know lots of men that married...they found a healthy partner, and if faithful in marriage..well, no chance of aids really.

But, now, if you don't have to worry about it.....I'm thinking free-for-all again...just like in the 60's after the pill was becoming popular!!

This game is so much fun!

[DAtkins]

I'll go out on a line here and say that I don't know how much money AIDS treatments are. I also agree that we should probably spend a great deal of money to come up with treatments. I've known one person who died from AIDS and two people who have died from diabetes and I have to say - they both suck ass.

Yeah, insulin is pretty cheap. Kidney dialysis however is still pretty darn expensive. and transplants are REALLY expensive. When my grandfather was experiencing diabetic complications, the 4 amputations he went through were also pretty expensive. Then he died, so I guess diabetes is also a terminal illness.

But, so if the flu if you get the right version.

I'm not trying to fight a 'my disease is better than your disease' argument though. I think we can all agree that disease of any type is one of the worst things about being a biological organism; and trying to determine which is the absolute worst is along the lines of trying to figure out who would win in a fight between the Hulk and the Thing. Because in the end, the disease that YOU have is the worst.

So we can either bitch and moan about $X.XX dollars going to X disease that might be better spent on that disease my mom has, or we can be happy that Bob (or Gunter) the scientist thinks that fixing diseases is fun. Me? I'm gonna freeze myself with Walt and worry about it all later.

Cure? Or treatment?

[Bearpaw]

The Slashdot header refers to it as a (possible) cure, the article refers to it as a possible treatment. A cure is a "complete or permanent solution or remedy", while treatments tend to mean something that needs to be administered indefinitely in order to control the disease. There are already treatments for HIV/AIDS, though they have serious flaws, not least of which is that they tend to be expensive.

Hopefully, this will turn out to be at least a better treatment.

Predators?

[pushing-robot]

Predators, like cats, cannot taste sweet because their body receives enough sugars from their food sources that they don't require the need to seek more out.

Ah, that's why dogs don't like sweet food.

Please don't generalize.

Re:Predators?

[compro01]

Ah, that's why dogs don't like sweet food.

modern dogs aren't predators, they're omnivores.

Re:Predators?

[pushing-robot]

"Omnivore" and "predator" aren't mutually exclusive. Dogs have always been omnivores. Some wolves are omnivores. Coyotes are omnivores. Foxes are omnivores. They're all predators, and they like sweet foods. Bears are omnivores and predators. And they like sweet foods. Ferrets, on the other hand, are obligate carnivores and predators. And they like sweet foods too. Most cats don't taste sugar. But cats have a rather unique metabolism. Claiming "predators don't taste sugar" is a ridiculous and easily disproven generalization.

Before you go out celebrating

[Dannon]

My fiance is a Red Cross certified HIV/AIDS instructor, so I've gotten a good earfull of what is and isn't true about AIDS "cures".

The "cocktail" that's currently used to treat HIV infection drugs to prevent HIV from entering cells, drugs to keep it from reproducing inside cells, and drugs to keep it from breaking out of infected cells. From what I read in the summary, this new treatment fits in that first category. Good thing, because HIV has this nasty tendency to mutate and become immune to any given drug after years and years of use. When that happens, the patient has no choice but to switch over to another combination of drugs, probably more expensive, and probably not as friendly to the body. If this "blood-derived" treatment adds to the list of patient-friendly treatments available, that's fantastic.

But the way I read this, it isn't the magic bullet "cure for AIDS" everyone is wishing for. It can slow down the progress of an infection, but reversing that progress is another matter altogether. Ditto for undoing damage to the immune system.

Re:Proof is in the pudding...

[The Media Mechanic]

Hilarious... Very good ! I hate 99% of Nazis but Grammar Nazis and Soup Nazis are OK.

Answer lies in the abstract

[Stripsurge]

"...20-residue peptide, designated VIRUS-INHIBITORY PEPTIDE (VIRIP)corresponding to the C-proximal region of 1-antitrypsin, the most abundant circulating serine protease inhibitor."

The 1-antitrypsin protein is something there's a lot of in the blood. Its role is prevent one of the body's degrading proteins from breaking down things it shouldn't be breaking down. This 20 residue peptide is just the end bit of the larger protein. The anti-HIV functions are more like a happy side effect of the larger protein's breakdown. Now I have no idea how quickly the anti-trypsin breaks down and what the natural levels of the VIRIP are. I would speculate though that people who are immune to HIV have a mutation that either produces VIRIP (or something close to it) on its own or the antitrypsin has picked up a mutation that in some way exposes the C-proximal end or promotes it breaking off more readily.

Re:well... God Bless Germans today imo!

[Marillion]

Not when the company that hold a patent on this sets the price on it at $3000 a dose.

Quackery?

[Lethyos]

I am not qualified to evaluate the content of this documentary, but doing some research on the participants reveals damaging information about their credentials. An argumentive fallacy to be sure, but useful for inspiring skepticism. As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The real cure...

[guruevi]

is abstinence. Really, don't screw around until all HIV patients are dead. Hah, it is the ultimate cure, the only problem is implementing outside a public like Slashdot.

Re:The real cure...

[jimicus]

Or accept blood transfusions - particularly in any country where the screening may not be very good.

Or be born to HIV-positive parents.

Re:The real cure...

[whitis]

In actual practice, abstinence involves denying urges until they become overwhelming and you do something reckless, actually increasing risk.
Abstinence/Prohibition efforts have a long history of making problems worse, not better. Doesn't matter whether you are talking about Alcohol, Drugs,
or Sex.

A healthy attitude that accepts sexuality as a good thing and involves understanding the risks and how to mitigate them would be far more effective.
If the majority of the population simply engaged in standard safe sex practices, they could have twice as much sex and I seriously doubt that HIV could
sustain itself as an epidemic. A tenfold reduction in risk offset by a 2 fold increase in activity is still a 5:1 reduction in total risk. People with
HIV would, on average, die off long before they could transmit it. Except perhaps for concentrated black populations such as in Africa or urban areas that are apparently five times more susceptible to start with (lack of a gene present in people who descended from Bubonic Plague survivors).

The anti-sex people do far more to contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS. An study showed that in the eight years (at the time of the study) since safe sex rules were instituted in the legal brothels of Nevada, not a single sex worker there contracted HIV. HIV/AIDS was largely ignored due to the anti-sex people when it primarily affected the gay population instead of nipping it in the bud. And gay people were told not to have gay sex (i.e. Abstinence) which significantly delayed safe sex practices in the gay community. And rather than distribute clean needles, IV drug users are told to abstain. The anti-sex folks oppose sex education in schools (which reduces the risk of both pregnancy and diseases).

While MSM (gay male) still has the highest incidence of new cases, the growth rate has started to level off even though 30% had not been HIV tested in the last year, 34% had unprotected anal sex with a casual partner in the last year, and 47% did not know the HIV status of their last casual partner. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5506a1. htm?s_cid=ss5506a1_e

Re:The real cure...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Abstaining from all sex for the next 50-100 years would reduce the number of cases of many other diseases.

No researchers named? Here's why...

[chinton]

Research was spearheaded by Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.

HIV causes AIDS

[DeadCatX2]

HIV attacks immune system cells and kills them.

Once HIV has killed enough immune cells that the CD4+ T-cells that there are fewer than 200 per micro-liter of blood, the host officially has AIDS.

Re:Proof is in the pudding...

[fineghal]

"OberGrammarFuehrer von Umlaut at your service!" Over the Grammar Supreme Leader from Umlaut? Very Niice. /Borat voice

Re:A New Protein

[Wilson_6500]

A 4 amino acid protein? Where I come from, we'd call that a peptide.

Re:well... God Bless Germans today imo!

[Kandenshi]

Well, as nice as a cure for AIDS would be, there are other STDs out there I wouldn't really want to catch. Monogomy is still a good idea, even in a world without AIDS.

Do YOU want a case of genital herpes? Human papillomavirus? They can already cure Chlamydia just fine(if it's detected, which it often isn't), but I still don't want it. :P

Re:This is all baloney

[aguenter]

When Jews were asked 6 months beforehand or more by germans to leave germany and did not? What did they expect?? Germany is NOT the USA, and germans do as germans see fit there on their own land, and ARE entitled to do so as THEY see fit, not the rest of the planet.

Who the hell is anyone to tell anyone how to live in their own land or home???

Above all else, the nation germany? Is NOT jewish land (they were literally just visitors there who disobeyed the rightful residents requiring they leave).

Folks largely realize that people do not take radical measures against others, without righteous indignation and when all other methods failed.

Yeah, that completely explains Nazi Germany persecuting Jews on foreign soil, and then, here it comes, the big ironic whopper...bringing them BACK TO GERMANY by the thousands via mass transit for further persecution. You may want to read up on WWII, particularly the parts about these places called "concentration camps" located throughout Germany.

Talk about baloney.

Where have you been for the last 20 years.

[HornWumpus]

People with lung cancer are routinely blamed for their bad habits that led to their disease. They pay extra for health insurance because of smoking.

So are people with adult onset diabetes.

It's only AIDS where the poor babies are considered unable to help themselves. Lets see them pay extra for their health insurance because of their promiscuous butt sex (20+ years on and still no straight AIDs epidemic outside Africa, why could that be?).

Health insurance companies are prevented from charging certain populations higher rates based on their risk profile despite overwhelming evidence they live high risk, unhealthy lives.

How much would you pay for car insurance if you insisted on driving the wrong way on one way streets all the time?

I remember headlines, gratuitously

[Dasher42]

And since chimpanzees are more evolved than human beings, and this includes immunity to SIV, seems to me that comparing the two species' immune systems would be most productive, right? And since some humans are already immune, we've got a shot at that. I wonder if this group is aiming high enough.

Re:Female condoms

[Robber Baron]

That reminds me of a bit Dennis Miller did during the Weekend Update on SNL:

"A new study reports that female condoms might not work.
This is due largely to the fact that women don't have penises."

Humorless mods

[Migraineman]

Y'all got no sense of humor. Didja miss the "of Ulm" at the end?

Re:Tired of hearing bitching.

[drooling-dog]

Here's a solution you socialist lover, you. Who's the socialist? Patents are government-granted monopolies; they have nothing to do with free-market capitalism.

HIV doesn't cause AIDS

[erc]

Err, sorry, but HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Re:HIV doesn't cause AIDS

[MadKad]

HIV doesn't cause AIDS??? Hmm but it does turn into Aid's if it isnt cept under controll

Re:HIV doesn't cause AIDS

[erc]

Nope ... sorry, but you've been given wrong information. There are many, many people that are HIV+ that have never developed AIDS, and many people that have AIDS that are not HIV+.

Re:HIV doesn't cause AIDS

[MadKad]

Yes true, some people live a normle life and die normle with HIV, but some have HIV and this then changes into AID's, if the person has got AID's then most of the time they have been born with AID's due to maybe a HIV+ mother, or some people could have found out they have AID's but never was tested when they had HIV so never new.

Immune to natural selection? Not hardly

[tgibbs]

Once again, those aren't by any means bad things (unless Idiocracy was a doumentary), just saying we've been immune to most aspects of natural selection for a long time now.

The only way humans could be immune to natural selection would be if your genes had no effect at all on how many children you have.

the irony

[freaker_TuC]

someone modded parent "insightful" while talking about his crystal ball .. the irony ..

So whats the problem?

[Cyno01]

Thats the epitome of the drug companies motto, "Why sell one cure when we can sell a lifetime of treatments?".

Mods

[Poromenos1]

People modded that post funny, but I'd mod it sad :( If that's the case, why is the article written the way it is? I've frequently noticed posts about wonder drugs that in the end seem to have some deleterious effect on the body, and that's never mentioned.

Re:Mods

[Jonathan_S]

People modded that post funny, but I'd mod it sad :( If that's the case, why is the article written the way it is? I've frequently noticed posts about wonder drugs that in the end seem to have some deleterious effect on the body, and that's never mentioned.

They modded it funny because 'Trutonin' is a ficticious drug from the TV show Stargate SG-1.

The post wasn't about the actual VIRIP from the article.

Re:Mods

[Poromenos1]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. It really was kind of sad if you didn't get the reference :/...

Poor moderation...

[bradbury]

This is a good example of poor moderation (the blind leading the blind).

As Sorak pointed out, he isn't a scientist. I am not either but I have taken senior college level virology courses and worked in the HIV lab at the U. of Washington for a summer (~15 years ago).

The problem starts with the simplification of sugar chains attached to protein molecules (aka "glycoproteins" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoproteins) to "sugar". As the Cell abstract pointed out the peptide interferes with the HIV protein gp41. It isn't clear whether it interferes in the entry or exit portion of the HIV lifecycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV but it is well understood that there are limits to the extent to which genes and the proteins they produce can evolve without "breaking". So even though the HIV reverse transcriptase (which copies the viral "code") is very error prone and thus likely to produce mutations there only some small fraction of those mutations can evade the drug. That is why multidrug cocktails have been successful at defeating HIV. If one in 10,000 viral copies contain a mutation that evades a specific drug and you use the drugs serially one has an evasion probability of 1 / (3 * 10^4) (for 3 drugs). If one uses them simultaneously one has an evasion probability of 1 / (10^4)^3 which is a much smaller probability. I'm fairly sure there are at least two drugs working their way through the pipelines that target two other critical aspects of the HIV lifecycle. The peptide under discussion might be a sixth tool (reducing the probability of escape to 1 / (10^4)^6 if 6 drugs were used).

Now, due to the variability of HIV it is hard to produce vaccines against it (one has to produce multi-strain vaccines -- which is complex but has been done in the recent case of Papilloma virus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papilloma_virus). Another approach is to develop RNA interference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNAi based "gene therapy" methods which would make cells immune to HIV infection (rather than programming the immmune system to eliminate cells already infected -- the more classical vaccine approach). Now of course the drug companies would much prefer to develop drugs that you have to take for months or years rather than vaccines or gene therapies that work forever (or at least a very long time). So it will be up to the foundations and governments to do the R&D necessary to nail HIV to the wall. It is worth keeping in mind there have also been 200,000+ papers published involving HIV so it is getting a lot of attention. But bear in mind that the virus jumped to humans relatively recently in the history of our species and that we have only had our hands on the genome for 14 years [1]. It is just a hard problem to solve.

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=g enome&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Overview&list_uids=10902

MOD PARENT FUNNY NOT INSIGHTFUL!!

[Al_Maverick]

Whoever modded the parent as insightful has no sense of humour and certainly no fucking idea of the ways you can get AIDS. Ive had surgeries way long before having sex. Any of those times I could have got HIV no matter if I had had sex or not.